7 ms·

Do you also feel bad for the slumlord who spends a million dollars on a property that eventually gets condemned because he didn't take care of it? Had taxi com

by tw04 9y ago

Do you also feel bad for the slumlord who spends a million dollars on a property that eventually gets condemned because he didn't take care of it? Had taxi company owners not used those medallions as an excuse to provide absolutely horrendous customer service, they wouldn't have ever had to worry about uber/lyft/whatever in the first place. I've never taken uber or lyft because it's cheaper, I've taken it because I get a clean, comfortable ride, with a driver who isn't a complete jerk. I've mentioned it here before, but also why I won't take uber anymore unless it's my last option - their CEO has the same attitude I saw in those taxi drivers and I'm not about to give monetary support to "that guy". NOTHING the government did has EVER prevented cab companies from providing the same service these startups provide.

weberc2 9y ago
Well, besides completely strip their incentive to innovate or otherwise provide more than a marginally useful service...
nserrino 9y ago
True but there are good taxi drivers out there too, who bought a $300k thing that is now worth nothing. Anyway that is why I said "some sympathy", because obviously the service was lacking. But I blame that more on a government restriction on those services that (previously) didn't incentive good service, not individual taxi drivers.
neom 9y ago
It's more like a bunch of people bought houses on a street and 2 really rich people bought an equal number of the rest, one maintained theirs and did their best and the 2 rich people let theirs become crack dens and devalued everything else. Additionally, the taxi industry wasn't exactly filled with educated people who knew how to build software. It's an awful system, but it is what happened, and that should be considered.
wutbrodo 9y ago
> Do you also feel bad for the slumlord who spends a million dollars on a property that eventually gets condemned because he didn't take care of it? This is the wrong analogy, for trivially obvious reasons. As I'm sure you're aware, the drop in value of taxi medallions wasn't contingent on the owner being a bad driver. Put plainly, even a driver who went above and beyond to provide honest, high-quality service was affected by the drop in values. To put it yet _another_ way, the fact that many taxi drivers provided shitty service couldn't be less relevant. Your analogy would only make sense if it was talking about an entire apt block got condemned due to multiple slumlords, including the apt owned by the guy who kept his property up to code and livable. Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. Economic ownership of real estate as property is pretty bad economic policy too (cf Georgism) but that wouldn't change the fact that suddenly implementing a 100% LVT would 1) be infinitely better policy and 2) screw over an awful lot of people playing by the rules of the previous system, through no fault of their own.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  > Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. There's an important clarification here: Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed. Yes, some of the drivers actually own their medallion, but many (most?) do not. Those who do not own their medallion didn't really get screwed, not more than anyone who gets laid off or has to change industries anyway. Many of them are simply driving for ridesharing companies now. The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. It's like the mortgage crisis; at least some of the blame goes on the people who saw the absurd prices and chose to pay them anyway, and then got left holding the bag when the collapse hit.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    TL;DR: In an economy with government involvement as heavy as ours[1], it's ludicrous to claim that people should not only know the "true" value of something but know precisely when the gov't is going to decide that the market value should be allowed to revert to its "true" value. > Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed Right, good catch, I wasn't thinking about that fact. That's not central to my point but it is a good point to clarify. > The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What is the "true" value of a taxi medallion, in a regulatory context where the government is setting the supply? If we implement [insert optimal healthcare policy] and (hypothetically), doctor salaries drop precipitously, are doctors to blame for seeing how "outrageously inflated" med school tuition was and choosing to pay it anyway? Should they have stayed out of the field entirely until healthcare policy in this country is perfectly optimal? For the life of me, I'll never understand the lack of empathy required to see someone get screwed by unstable rules and conclude "well, it's your own damn fault: you should have been born one of the X-Men, with the ability to predict the future perfectly and realize that this particular inefficient policy regime was going to be disavowed at this exact time". Providing a stable legal framework is one of the most basic and most important jobs of a gov't, and making changes like suddenly deciding to stop enforcement of policy that the industry has been dealing with for decades is what legal scholars call "a dick move". Here's another example which might be more directly relatable: if you buy a house in California and Prop 13 gets repealed or if you own real estate anywhere and our idiotic policy regime around real estate gets fixed: you'd suddenly lose a huge portion of your life savings, but you'd have yourself to blame because "you saw the outrageously inflated prices and chose to pay them anyway"? Bear in mind that even if you were intellectually consistent here and agreed that those homeowners are to blame, that would be terrible advice for the literally centuries' worth of landowners/homeowners in whose lifetimes real estate policy wasn't made efficient or fair, and real estate value growth accrued to arbitrary people through rent-seeking. [1] Not that that's a bad thing necessarily

by tw04 9y ago

weberc2 9y ago

Well, besides completely strip their incentive to innovate or otherwise provide more than a marginally useful service...

nserrino 9y ago

True but there are good taxi drivers out there too, who bought a $300k thing that is now worth nothing. Anyway that is why I said "some sympathy", because obviously the service was lacking. But I blame that more on a government restriction on those services that (previously) didn't incentive good service, not individual taxi drivers.

neom 9y ago

It's more like a bunch of people bought houses on a street and 2 really rich people bought an equal number of the rest, one maintained theirs and did their best and the 2 rich people let theirs become crack dens and devalued everything else. Additionally, the taxi industry wasn't exactly filled with educated people who knew how to build software. It's an awful system, but it is what happened, and that should be considered.

wutbrodo 9y ago

> Do you also feel bad for the slumlord who spends a million dollars on a property that eventually gets condemned because he didn't take care of it? This is the wrong analogy, for trivially obvious reasons. As I'm sure you're aware, the drop in value of taxi medallions wasn't contingent on the owner being a bad driver. Put plainly, even a driver who went above and beyond to provide honest, high-quality service was affected by the drop in values. To put it yet _another_ way, the fact that many taxi drivers provided shitty service couldn't be less relevant. Your analogy would only make sense if it was talking about an entire apt block got condemned due to multiple slumlords, including the apt owned by the guy who kept his property up to code and livable. Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. Economic ownership of real estate as property is pretty bad economic policy too (cf Georgism) but that wouldn't change the fact that suddenly implementing a 100% LVT would 1) be infinitely better policy and 2) screw over an awful lot of people playing by the rules of the previous system, through no fault of their own.

CydeWeys 9y ago
> Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. There's an important clarification here: Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed. Yes, some of the drivers actually own their medallion, but many (most?) do not. Those who do not own their medallion didn't really get screwed, not more than anyone who gets laid off or has to change industries anyway. Many of them are simply driving for ridesharing companies now. The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. It's like the mortgage crisis; at least some of the blame goes on the people who saw the absurd prices and chose to pay them anyway, and then got left holding the bag when the collapse hit.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  TL;DR: In an economy with government involvement as heavy as ours[1], it's ludicrous to claim that people should not only know the "true" value of something but know precisely when the gov't is going to decide that the market value should be allowed to revert to its "true" value. > Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed Right, good catch, I wasn't thinking about that fact. That's not central to my point but it is a good point to clarify. > The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What is the "true" value of a taxi medallion, in a regulatory context where the government is setting the supply? If we implement [insert optimal healthcare policy] and (hypothetically), doctor salaries drop precipitously, are doctors to blame for seeing how "outrageously inflated" med school tuition was and choosing to pay it anyway? Should they have stayed out of the field entirely until healthcare policy in this country is perfectly optimal? For the life of me, I'll never understand the lack of empathy required to see someone get screwed by unstable rules and conclude "well, it's your own damn fault: you should have been born one of the X-Men, with the ability to predict the future perfectly and realize that this particular inefficient policy regime was going to be disavowed at this exact time". Providing a stable legal framework is one of the most basic and most important jobs of a gov't, and making changes like suddenly deciding to stop enforcement of policy that the industry has been dealing with for decades is what legal scholars call "a dick move". Here's another example which might be more directly relatable: if you buy a house in California and Prop 13 gets repealed or if you own real estate anywhere and our idiotic policy regime around real estate gets fixed: you'd suddenly lose a huge portion of your life savings, but you'd have yourself to blame because "you saw the outrageously inflated prices and chose to pay them anyway"? Bear in mind that even if you were intellectually consistent here and agreed that those homeowners are to blame, that would be terrible advice for the literally centuries' worth of landowners/homeowners in whose lifetimes real estate policy wasn't made efficient or fair, and real estate value growth accrued to arbitrary people through rent-seeking. [1] Not that that's a bad thing necessarily