5 ms·
But, your rant does nothing to invalidate his point. Cabbies are in plus money wise. Chances are zero all taxis in the world will vanish, while Uber+lift can't
by quickben 10y ago
But, your rant does nothing to invalidate his point. Cabbies are in plus money wise. Chances are zero all taxis in the world will vanish, while Uber+lift can't subsidize forever.
- stickfigure 10y agoTaxis are subsidized by artificial scarcity (medallion quotas).
- sangnoir 10y agoOnly in certain jurisdictions
- ams6110 10y agoIs there a major US city where taxis are not regulated and licensed (by medallion or otherwise) creating an artificial scarcity?
- sangnoir 10y agoI'm not familiar enough with the US taxi bylaws to answer that. Is there a particular reason you are restricting scope to only the US? Taxis and "ride sharing" organizations are an international phenomenon: I'd say the majority of jurisdictions do not have medallions. And the upstream point remains - most taxis can now be hailed via mobile apps.
- quickben 10y agoLook, it's not like taxis or Uber/luft are a basic human necessity to be subsidized. Public transport exist, and for people that actually need a car on a daily basis, cars exist. Taxis are luxury service and not subsidized ( as that word is defined in the dictionary) by money offsets. We can derail this into whether medallions/insurance regulation should be there, but the hard cold argument here is : Money. Lots and lots of money. Uber/luft are subsidized by hard cash just to exist. I drive, so from the outside, this looks as if somebody was subsidizing Android watches, because they'll overtake real watches. It's a business gamble, but many are mistakenly taking it as a fact. So, correspondingly, expect either prices to keep rising on Uber/luft/etc, or them to go out of business.