3 ms·

Why does the government have a say on who I pay to drive me someplace and where they can drive me? Edit: And the exploitation I was referring to was of the tax

Why does the government have a say on who I pay to drive me someplace and where they can drive me? Edit: And the exploitation I was referring to was of the taxi drivers under the current system, not myself.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Awesome, thanks for clarifying that. Government regulation exists to protect people. Whether that's labor regulations, fire code, zoning ordinances, etc, its to ensure the health and well being of citizens. Now, you'll argue that always isn't the case, and I'll agree with you. Incentives with taxi regulation went sideways, hence the medallion system. But that doesn't mean regulation is wrong, that means that apathetic, disinterested stakeholders are the problem. Just as we've made the problem by not caring enough to fix it, we can care enough to work towards fixing it. The number of vehicles for transport in a metro can be regulated using an unbiased algorithm. The wages of drivers can be determined by labor regulations. These are not hard technical problems to solve. They're political problems to be solved. Should we throw out the medallion system? Yes. Should Uber get to stampede all over transport regulations? No. There should be a middle ground. People say someone should be able to accept a job no matter what the pay is, as long as they're willing. No one is willing when they're an economic captive. It costs a minimum amount of money (dependent on locale) to have shelter, food, and clothing. This is what government regulation is for (see: minimum wage, employee/contractor classification, etc), to ensure that people can support themselves on the work they can obtain. If they can't support themselves on what a job pays, the job pays too little and the business relying on that undermarket labor rate is unsustainable (see: Walmart educating its workers on relying on social benefits, thereby using the government as a subsidy).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that. Government regulation exists to protect people. Whether that's labor regulations, fire code, zoning ordinances, etc, its to ensure the health and well being of citizens. Now, you'll argue that always isn't the case, and I'll agree with you. Incentives with taxi regulation went sideways, hence the medallion system. But that doesn't mean regulation is wrong, that means that apathetic, disinterested stakeholders are the problem. Just as we've made the problem by not caring enough to fix it, we can care enough to work towards fixing it. The number of vehicles for transport in a metro can be regulated using an unbiased algorithm. The wages of drivers can be determined by labor regulations. These are not hard technical problems to solve. They're political problems to be solved. Should we throw out the medallion system? Yes. Should Uber get to stampede all over transport regulations? No. There should be a middle ground. People say someone should be able to accept a job no matter what the pay is, as long as they're willing. No one is willing when they're an economic captive. It costs a minimum amount of money (dependent on locale) to have shelter, food, and clothing. This is what government regulation is for (see: minimum wage, employee/contractor classification, etc), to ensure that people can support themselves on the work they can obtain. If they can't support themselves on what a job pays, the job pays too little and the business relying on that undermarket labor rate is unsustainable (see: Walmart educating its workers on relying on social benefits, thereby using the government as a subsidy).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]