8 ms·

You identify most of the difficulty of this scenario: 1. Taxis are a dying industry, but taxi drivers are not adapting. 2. As a result, taxi drivers are suffe

by ucarion 10y ago

You identify most of the difficulty of this scenario: 1. Taxis are a dying industry, but taxi drivers are not adapting. 2. As a result, taxi drivers are suffering. Their livelihoods, which have brought food to their families' tables for decades, are being taken from them by forces they could not anticipate or control. Of course, 3. We care about these taxi drivers. Suffering is bad no matter what industry you work in. Suffering is worth avoiding. Ultimately our answer has to be to say "your job doesn't really exist anymore, you need to find a new one". But it matters how much time we give taxi drivers. Clearly, asking them to adapt overnight would be too demanding, so there's a balance to be made between market efficiency and the realities of our apish learning rates. In the long run, a lot of jobs are going the way of the taxi, and perhaps basic income is the long-term solution. But we can't implement basic income today. It's a massive solution to what is currently a minor, contained problem. Every country's policies are a gigantic legacy codebase. Basic income would be re-writing a huge chunk of the code, where this tax is adding yet another minor hack to keep the thing running smoothly.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
To this end, we should br taxing self driving cars to create a pension fund for taxi drivers. Taxing one cab company to pay another doesn't seem to address your listed concerns at all.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  It's good to care about taxi drivers, but not because they are taxi drivers. Go back >200 years. In England, Spinning Jennies replaced weavers, and there were luddites who tried to resist, but the solution was not to start subsidizing weavers; and not even a specific tax to weaving machines to provide for the weavers specifically; the solution was to slowly build a social security system, and not just for master weavers (who had been relatively well off) but everyone. Agreed, taxing one company to pay another does not make sense, but neither does subsidizing people of a certain profession just because they are no longer productive, by putting a burden on something productive just because it is better.
  - visarga 10y ago
    > putting a burden on something productive just because it is better What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Yep, I don't get it either. taxi |ˈtaksi| noun ( pl. taxis ) a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter. Uber is a taxi service. Uber _is_ licensed in the sense that they are allowed to operate. Saying Uber isn't a taxi service is a load of dingos kidneys, in my arrogant opinion.
      - SilasX 10y ago
        Regulations typically distinguish taxis, which can pick up street hails, from car/bus/limo services, which are pre-arranged or pre-scheduled. Bus and limo drivers also "drive people for money" (and even for buses, sometimes charge by distance), but aren't subject to taxi regs. And that's not an arbitrary distinction: much of the danger and public interest in cans arises from grabbing randos off the street. As car/limo services track that info remotely, they merit correspondingly less regulation.
        TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        Ah, yes indeed, very good point, thanks for clearing that up for me.
    - dzhiurgis 10y ago
      Works globally, processes payments, eliminates bad drivers.
      - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
BurningFrog 10y ago
> Taxis are a dying industry, but taxi drivers are not adapting. How do you know? My impression is that most taxi drivers are very busy adapting. But I don't know either. Let's be clear: The people hardest hit by Uber/Lyft is taxi company owners. > Clearly, asking them to adapt overnight would be too demanding Uber has been around for half a decade. How many decades does it take?
- ucarion 10y ago
  > How do you know? My impression is that most taxi drivers are very busy adapting. But I don't know either. To be clear: I don't know either. I'm an outsider to this industry. I'm just offering arguments. > Let's be clear: The people hardest hit by Uber/Lyft is taxi company owners. I don't think this is true. They're losing the most money, but they have lots of money. Taxi drivers risk losing all their revenue, which is worse. > Uber has been around for half a decade. How many decades does it take? I think this is the hardest question. According to the people behind this bill, half a decade is not enough. I agree with that judgment.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    Taxi drivers risk losing the difference between what they can earn working as a taxi driver and what they can earn on ride sharing apps. It's probably a fair drop but hardly all of their income.
    - new299 10y ago
      Generally you pay for some kind of permit to be a taxi driver. A quick google suggests in excess of 150KUSD: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/08/05/what-about-taxi-medallions/hhKyQX9eYPTX7dpfoiJeiK/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/08/05/what-about-taxi... So they potentially have a lot to lose...
      - Trundle 10y ago
        Generally you rent a permit/work for a company that owns them as a taxi driver. If there are taxi drivers buying medallions then they're 1) a small minority and 2)effectively business owners that are making a capital investment. Part of why one gets a return on investments is that they're assuming risk.
kofejnik 10y ago
Under the old model, taxi riders were/are suffering, and taxi drivers want to keep getting their monopoly rent. "Taxi drivers are suffering" actually means "they cannot fleece their customers like they used to". This is a zero sum game - taxi drivers take money from taxi riders, so any change will be met with opposition. The difference is, taxi drivers are better organized and have PR people to tell us about their "suffering", while millions of taxi riders quietly enjoy better service and reasonable prices.
- deanCommie 10y ago
  Look, I hate cabs too. I hate having to tell the driver where to drop me off because they never use GPS. I hate feeling like a lowlife for wanting to pay by credit card because I never have cash. And I hate how expensive cabs are. But let's not forget that most taxi drivers are themselves far from well off. It is a working class gig, with a heavy representation from new immigrants. It's long hours, it's physically draining (software developers get to rebel against sitting in front of computers in favour of standing desks, yet what about drivers), and most people do NOT get rich doing it. It's still an industry that's sick with corruption that has depended on anti-competitive practices and should be destroyed and rebuilt for the betterment of society. But most taxi DRIVERS have few if any options in the upcoming world.
  - na85 10y ago
    So we should prop up the robber barons running the shitty industry just to save the little guys who don't want to do something else?
    - guptaneil 10y ago
      I'm against propping up a dying industry by taxing the disrupters because it sets a terrible precedent. (Will Tesla be taxed to prop up oil companies in 10 years?) But to say taxi drivers don't want to do something else is unfair. Many drivers sunk all of their savings into buying a taxi medallion, assuming it would hold its value, and now live day to day on their earnings. Uber/Lyft have destroyed the value of the medallion, essentially wiping out the "little guy's" investment over night. Yes, life's unfair but as a compassionate society, can we do something to help them? I'm more ok with the taxi businesses themselves going out of business for failing to innovate and getting themselves disrupted. That's on them. However, it does leave another problem... Taxi companies are heavily regulated for a reason. For example, they are required to offer services for disabled people at no extra charge. As far as I know, Uber/Lyft are under no such obligation and do nothing to accommodate the disabled. When taxi companies go away, what happens to that entire group of people? One solution might be to classify ride-hailing apps as taxi companies as well and apply the same regulations. This also allows taxi companies to compete on a level playing field.

by ucarion 10y ago

erikpukinskis 10y ago

To this end, we should br taxing self driving cars to create a pension fund for taxi drivers. Taxing one cab company to pay another doesn't seem to address your listed concerns at all.

ptaipale 10y ago
It's good to care about taxi drivers, but not because they are taxi drivers. Go back >200 years. In England, Spinning Jennies replaced weavers, and there were luddites who tried to resist, but the solution was not to start subsidizing weavers; and not even a specific tax to weaving machines to provide for the weavers specifically; the solution was to slowly build a social security system, and not just for master weavers (who had been relatively well off) but everyone. Agreed, taxing one company to pay another does not make sense, but neither does subsidizing people of a certain profession just because they are no longer productive, by putting a burden on something productive just because it is better.
- visarga 10y ago
  > putting a burden on something productive just because it is better What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Yep, I don't get it either. taxi |ˈtaksi| noun ( pl. taxis ) a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter. Uber is a taxi service. Uber _is_ licensed in the sense that they are allowed to operate. Saying Uber isn't a taxi service is a load of dingos kidneys, in my arrogant opinion.
    - SilasX 10y ago
      Regulations typically distinguish taxis, which can pick up street hails, from car/bus/limo services, which are pre-arranged or pre-scheduled. Bus and limo drivers also "drive people for money" (and even for buses, sometimes charge by distance), but aren't subject to taxi regs. And that's not an arbitrary distinction: much of the danger and public interest in cans arises from grabbing randos off the street. As car/limo services track that info remotely, they merit correspondingly less regulation.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        Ah, yes indeed, very good point, thanks for clearing that up for me.
  - dzhiurgis 10y ago
    Works globally, processes payments, eliminates bad drivers.
    - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

BurningFrog 10y ago

> Taxis are a dying industry, but taxi drivers are not adapting. How do you know? My impression is that most taxi drivers are very busy adapting. But I don't know either. Let's be clear: The people hardest hit by Uber/Lyft is taxi company owners. > Clearly, asking them to adapt overnight would be too demanding Uber has been around for half a decade. How many decades does it take?

ucarion 10y ago
> How do you know? My impression is that most taxi drivers are very busy adapting. But I don't know either. To be clear: I don't know either. I'm an outsider to this industry. I'm just offering arguments. > Let's be clear: The people hardest hit by Uber/Lyft is taxi company owners. I don't think this is true. They're losing the most money, but they have lots of money. Taxi drivers risk losing all their revenue, which is worse. > Uber has been around for half a decade. How many decades does it take? I think this is the hardest question. According to the people behind this bill, half a decade is not enough. I agree with that judgment.
- Trundle 10y ago
  Taxi drivers risk losing the difference between what they can earn working as a taxi driver and what they can earn on ride sharing apps. It's probably a fair drop but hardly all of their income.
  - new299 10y ago
    Generally you pay for some kind of permit to be a taxi driver. A quick google suggests in excess of 150KUSD: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/08/05/what-about-taxi-medallions/hhKyQX9eYPTX7dpfoiJeiK/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/08/05/what-about-taxi... So they potentially have a lot to lose...
    - Trundle 10y ago
      Generally you rent a permit/work for a company that owns them as a taxi driver. If there are taxi drivers buying medallions then they're 1) a small minority and 2)effectively business owners that are making a capital investment. Part of why one gets a return on investments is that they're assuming risk.

kofejnik 10y ago

Under the old model, taxi riders were/are suffering, and taxi drivers want to keep getting their monopoly rent. "Taxi drivers are suffering" actually means "they cannot fleece their customers like they used to". This is a zero sum game - taxi drivers take money from taxi riders, so any change will be met with opposition. The difference is, taxi drivers are better organized and have PR people to tell us about their "suffering", while millions of taxi riders quietly enjoy better service and reasonable prices.

deanCommie 10y ago
Look, I hate cabs too. I hate having to tell the driver where to drop me off because they never use GPS. I hate feeling like a lowlife for wanting to pay by credit card because I never have cash. And I hate how expensive cabs are. But let's not forget that most taxi drivers are themselves far from well off. It is a working class gig, with a heavy representation from new immigrants. It's long hours, it's physically draining (software developers get to rebel against sitting in front of computers in favour of standing desks, yet what about drivers), and most people do NOT get rich doing it. It's still an industry that's sick with corruption that has depended on anti-competitive practices and should be destroyed and rebuilt for the betterment of society. But most taxi DRIVERS have few if any options in the upcoming world.
- na85 10y ago
  So we should prop up the robber barons running the shitty industry just to save the little guys who don't want to do something else?
  - guptaneil 10y ago
    I'm against propping up a dying industry by taxing the disrupters because it sets a terrible precedent. (Will Tesla be taxed to prop up oil companies in 10 years?) But to say taxi drivers don't want to do something else is unfair. Many drivers sunk all of their savings into buying a taxi medallion, assuming it would hold its value, and now live day to day on their earnings. Uber/Lyft have destroyed the value of the medallion, essentially wiping out the "little guy's" investment over night. Yes, life's unfair but as a compassionate society, can we do something to help them? I'm more ok with the taxi businesses themselves going out of business for failing to innovate and getting themselves disrupted. That's on them. However, it does leave another problem... Taxi companies are heavily regulated for a reason. For example, they are required to offer services for disabled people at no extra charge. As far as I know, Uber/Lyft are under no such obligation and do nothing to accommodate the disabled. When taxi companies go away, what happens to that entire group of people? One solution might be to classify ride-hailing apps as taxi companies as well and apply the same regulations. This also allows taxi companies to compete on a level playing field.