> I remember in Berlin, the laws changed and were enforced in such a way as Uber was just a call service for all the standard taxi companies, so it's the same p

> I remember in Berlin, the laws changed and were enforced in such a way as Uber was just a call service for all the standard taxi companies, so it's the same price whether you use Uber or just flag one down. Which defeats the whole purpose. Without the ability to pay more we don't encourage drivers to cover demand. Demand-based surge pricing is a feature. > I realize people want cheaper taxis, but drivers need to be able to make a living. That's silly. Landscapers need to make a living, which they ensure by not taking jobs at below cost. Ditto, everyone else except those in protected industries. > There's a reason labour regulation and unions exists. Some of it may slow some business development or keep corrupt people in positions of power, but a lot of it originally started with the idea of stopping things like child labour, unsafe factory conditions and slave wages. But few or none of these rules apply to taxi drivers because they're usually forced to work as independent contractors despite being like employees in all ways; we know that's not actually the issue cities have with Uber. So why do we protect taxis? It's emphatically not to protect drivers (or we'd protect landscapers, etc...) but to protect the medallion-owners. It doesn't cost a politician a penny to grant a monopoly. For them, it's just paper. And they claim the cash benefits ($x million raised on medallions) as an accomplishment despite that everyone suffers from then on. We didn't get here because some concerned and learned person did a study and decided it was best, we got it because some politically connected trolls got kickbacks (cash or favors) for making sure only the right people got the medallions. If medallions go away, so does that power.