4 ms·

For a long time in Spain fines for polluting were lower than the cost of actually fixing the issue. As you can expect factories continued polluting. Then that c

by kartan 10y ago

For a long time in Spain fines for polluting were lower than the cost of actually fixing the issue. As you can expect factories continued polluting. Then that changes to bigger fines or even to stop the factory until the problems were fixed. In no time factories hired people to fix the problems and to make sure that it didn't happen again. If a company is allowed to break an agreement with no consequences. How do we expect it to abide to the rules? > As a society, are we going to allow companies to lie and deceive in the name of "disruption"? I dont' see any disruption in Uber business model. They just offer a service without paying the proper taxes that other companies (taxi) have to pay, and without paying minimum wage or having other guarantees for the employees. That is as old as the rule of law and taxes have existed, the only novelty is that they use an app to do so. And apps have been already out for a while.

EdHominem 10y ago
The disruption is that it surfaces all those problems which already exist for taxi drivers in the current system. They often work insane shifts, lose money if it's a slow day, etc. They have to enter into long exploitive contracts just to rent a medallion from the politically-connected rent-seeking monopolist who owns it. Also, I often see drivers who don't resemble the photo ID in the cab at all. Likely they're unlicensed friends of the medallion renter, who help cover the insane shifts they rent the medallion for. But it negates much or all of the supposed value of taxis. By giving those drivers an identical (somewhat crappy, as you point out) choice which doesn't lock them in, it's shaking up the taxi industry. And by reducing the value of the medallion it's hurting the monopolists who lobby to keep the number of medallions low, etc, which helps us in the long run with healthier markets. As for Uber specifically, their value is surge pricing. And I say this as a customer, not a shareholder. I routinely wait for taxis that never come when I'm in cities that have banned Uber. But I never wait for an Uber where it exists - I can choose to pay if I want it. If I'm late for a meeting, I'll pay. It's a service that was unavailable before at any price.

by kartan 10y ago

EdHominem 10y ago

The disruption is that it surfaces all those problems which already exist for taxi drivers in the current system. They often work insane shifts, lose money if it's a slow day, etc. They have to enter into long exploitive contracts just to rent a medallion from the politically-connected rent-seeking monopolist who owns it. Also, I often see drivers who don't resemble the photo ID in the cab at all. Likely they're unlicensed friends of the medallion renter, who help cover the insane shifts they rent the medallion for. But it negates much or all of the supposed value of taxis. By giving those drivers an identical (somewhat crappy, as you point out) choice which doesn't lock them in, it's shaking up the taxi industry. And by reducing the value of the medallion it's hurting the monopolists who lobby to keep the number of medallions low, etc, which helps us in the long run with healthier markets. As for Uber specifically, their value is surge pricing. And I say this as a customer, not a shareholder. I routinely wait for taxis that never come when I'm in cities that have banned Uber. But I never wait for an Uber where it exists - I can choose to pay if I want it. If I'm late for a meeting, I'll pay. It's a service that was unavailable before at any price.