9 ms·

Uber's main success was to take something that already existed (taxi services) but then found a way to work around local labour laws on a technicality. Because

Uber's main success was to take something that already existed (taxi services) but then found a way to work around local labour laws on a technicality. Because Uber drivers are all self-employed, they're not unionised or protected in any way. Thus, Uber pays its drivers a pittance, and is able to undercut and undermine existing taxi services who are forced by unions and law to pay drivers a living wage. That's the key to being Uber for X. Ask: can I use the internet and shady business practices to exploit workers to undercut a business that previously workers were protected in? If the answer is Yes, then you can be Uber for X.

pjmlp 9y ago
Which is the main reason why I will never use any Über for anything.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
WillPostForFood 9y ago
The Taxi medallion system is more exploitative of labor than Uber, forcing poor people to prepay for the right to work. It's as close to indentured servitude as you can get.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Those are two extraordinary claims. Let's see some equally extraordinary evidence.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    It's how the medallion system works, you prepay for the right to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#Medallions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#Meda...
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      That's true, but that doesn't make it indentured servitude, or even close to it. Medallions exist to keep the supply of taxis limited. It ensures cab drivers have a certain standard of living. They can also be sold, so if the driver is retiring or wants to change to another career, they can do that. It's not a perfect system but it strikes a decent balance between worker protection and limiting externalities (e.g. by making sure not everyone decides to become a cab driver and clog up roads). edit: I guess Uber shills are out in force today.
      - fragmede 9y ago
        > It's not a perfect system I mean, slavery could also be described as "not a perfect system". Medallions in NYC had wholly undergone regulatory capture, so while the system may have started with good intentions, it had since been perverted into a self-perpetuating machine that prints money for a couple of lazy fat cats, to the detriment of everyone else.
        enraged_camel 9y ago
        >>I mean, slavery could also be described as "not a perfect system". Medallion system is nothing like slavery. False equivalence. >>it had since been perverted into a self-perpetuating machine that prints money for a couple of lazy fat cats, to the detriment of everyone else. The medallion system benefits citizens because it ensures that taxis don't dominate city streets at the expense of regular car owners.
      - sctb 9y ago
        Could you please stop violating the guidelines, which ask you not to complain about voting or insinuate shillage? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - sjg007 9y ago
      So do strippers? And hairstylists? It's rent?
- s17n 9y ago
  Definitely true in NYC but Uber is global, in places like France they are lowering the bar for drivers' working conditions.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Eehh, care to explain ? I just came back from Paris and I used Uber multiple times a day while there, including to go to the airport. It was very convenient. My drivers didn't seem unhappy to be there. So, what's the problem ?
    - Kankuro 9y ago
      > My drivers didn't seem unhappy to be there If they look unhappy, maybe the customer will give them bad ratings for bad customer experience…
  - corford 9y ago
    In Lisbon, Portugal it's like NYC. Any expat or local will tell you that they feel infinitely safer and more comfortable in an Uber than they do in a normal taxi.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  That doesn't provide an argument for choosing the lesser of two exploitative systems.
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    I don't think Uber is a good company, but I also don't think they are exploiting drivers. Even if you do, it is less exploitative than trapping drivers into a system by forcing them to prepay for the right to drive. Choose whichever you think is less exploitive when you need a ride, but don't pretend taxis are some noble system.
  - goialoq 9y ago
    Less exploitative is clearly better. If you don't like Uber, make something better or lobby for Uber to change, but don't wish for things to go back to how they were worse.
- rwmj 9y ago
  The medallion system seems to be a US peculiarity. In the UK you have to also pay fees up front (and pass certain tests) but the fees are relatively modest[1] and the tests include things like knowledge, medical fitness and criminal records, which all seems reasonable. This legally applies to Uber drivers too, although whether it is enforced seems to be in doubt[2]. (I'm not talking about London black cabs which operate on a slightly different system) [1] The fees for my local council are in section 10 here: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/docs/default-source/licensing-documents/licensing-fees-and-charges-2016-17-(pdf-418kb).pdf?sfvrsn=17 http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/docs/default-source/licensing-docu... [2] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/uber-may-face-21m-minicab-licence-fee-a3518996.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/uber-may-face-21m-...
  - dmurray 9y ago
    > The medallion system seems to be a US peculiarity The equivalent system existed in Ireland until 2000, with taxi licenses changing hands for over $100,000. I'd be surprised if this doesn't persist in other European countries and cities.
    - Kankuro 9y ago
      In France, licenses have been given for free in limited numbers, and with the right to resell them on the market. So their price have increased up to 200-350k€. So some people made a lot of money there (and they one accept cash, so you know what can happen with the taxes). Recent buyers are in a bad position because they get it for a high price and now risk their value to drop because of the recent competition.
  - ralmeida 9y ago
    Not sure how the values for a taxi license compare to a NYC "medallion", but Brazil does have expensive licenses as well. Anecdotally, most taxi drivers I've met rent the vehicle from someone else (don't have hard data on that right now, though).
  - zjaffee 9y ago
    The thing that OP is neglecting to mention about the medallion system is that it's purpose was to limit the number of cars on the road at any given time, which eventually turned into a cartel like market because there was a higher demand for medallions than was decided upon for how many taxis should be on the road to reduce congestion and the number of cars within cities. In places with good public transit, this resulted in people using public transit to get home when taxis weren't available, now everyone just takes an uber/lyft. Additionally, this also hurts the speed at which busses can travel. However, now you see places like manhattan have far more cars on the road at any given time than before considering the taxis never left, and the number of cars went up to meet demand.
- chx 9y ago
  Uber got closer. They give you a subprime mortgage on your car where the payment comes out of your Uber fees and if you are behind, a remote inhibitor does not allow starting the car.
  - ralmeida 9y ago
    But then at least you build equity on the car, right? Also, if you already own a suitable vehicle (which is arguably easier than owning a medallion), you wouldn't need the mortgage?
    - chx 9y ago
      The medallion was a safe investment until Uber broke the law and got away with it. It makes no sense to "build equity" in a car since the car is depreciating very fast especially if you use it a lot for example because you are driving it to serve your debt to Uber.
      - ralmeida 9y ago
        It doesn't matter whether the medallion is a safe investment or not. Wikipedia tells me a NYC medallion was worth around 500k in late 2016. Median household income in NYC is around 50k, so that's 10 whole years of gross salary. The truth is that the average person is not able to afford to drive a taxi without renting the medallion. Even building equity on a quickly depreciating asset such as a car used for Uber is better in terms of not having to pay to work. Also, a Uber loan would not be the only way to get a car to drive for Uber. Even if you have no means to finance the car for yourself, many more people own a Uber-suitable car than a taxi medallion, so the price you'd have to pay to work for Uber would in any case be lower. The original discussion was whether Uber or taxis would be more worker-restrictive. I don't think driving a Uber gives total freedom, but I fail to see how driving a taxi is any better for the worker.
- bsder 9y ago
  The taxi medallion system was put in place precisely to avoid the inherent race to the bottom that is caused by a low barrier to entry (just need a car to be a taxi) and a fixed consumer base (limited number of passengers). That is not fiction or speculation--it is history. You can look up the problems New York had before the taxi medallion system. I am by no means defending the taxi system. It was rife with problems (especially outside the very biggest cities): unreliable pickups, long wait times outside of a very small number of areas, not wanting to take credit cards, bad driving routes to overcharge, and a whole litany of other complaints. The only reason why the whole system hasn't devolved into a free-for-all is that Uber and Lyft have so much VC money subsidizing ride cost that nobody can get under their prices--they are below the bottom. The real competitor to Uber/Lyft is the company who can take the existing cabs and cab companies and insert them into an app that does real-time bidding on their end and works like Uber/Lyft from the consumer end. Austin, TX showed that once Uber and Lyft quit sucking the oxygen out of the space, competition and new options start opening up. However, Uber and Lyft will have to both implode first. And the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    FWIW I tried to use RideAustin when I was there a few months ago and couldn't even get signed in to the app. Ended up using Uber instead.
    - bsder 9y ago
      Well, once Uber and Lyft came back, the alternatives all basically fizzled out. It's kind of hard to compete against VC subsidized rides. The telling thing to me is that Uber and Lyft came back to Austin with no concessions after throwing a hissy fit and leaving. That tells me that they saw something that scared them and they needed to squelch it before it escaped to other cities. Edit: I stand corrected. The state legislature overrode the Austin laws. (Side: Wish I could put an overstrike through my comment.) Make no mistake, this is 1990's Microsoft levels of predatory behavior. It is nothing to be praised.
      - 9y ago
- kazinator 9y ago
  University degrees are also a system by which, effectively, people (some of whom are poor) prepay for the right to work.
  - Waterluvian 9y ago
    You definitely need a medallion if you want to be a taxi driver. But the medallion isn't an indicator that you're an expert professional driver. So it's different than, say, an M.D. or a law degree that are required because those things are difficult and the public needs protection from frauds.
    - 2389232 9y ago
      Good luck with that. 4 out of 5 doctors or lawyers are absolutely worthless.
    - kazinator 9y ago
      Some degrees are "worthless", yet are needed as a document to tick off on a list of job requirements. Of course, the analogy is far from perfect; in fact, I didn't really intend an analogy, as such. A degree obviously isn't a license token you can move from one person to another, like the taxi medallion.
ardit33 9y ago
Taxi Medallion used to cost more than 500k in NYC. So half or more of your fare are going to some guy that bought the medallion years ago (or some investors actually), and just rents the privilege for other drivers to drive, it doesn't go the driver's pay, or propper car maintenance, etc... That is pure rent seeking via "regulation", and Uber and Lyft are cutting through it. (and I am glad they are doing it).
- ams6110 9y ago
  If by "cutting through it" you mean "breaking the law" I agree. And sometimes laws should be broken, to make a point. But let's not be under any illusions.
strken 9y ago
A large part of Uber's early success was circumventing the quite frankly corrupt and intrusive taxi regulations that had congealed everywhere. Drivers no longer had to choose between purchasing a ridiculously expensive license or working for someone else: they could use an existing car and smartphone. At least part of the wage drop was the result of lowering barriers to entry for prospective drivers. Yes, Uber exploits its drivers now, but the existing taxi system was acting as a moat to prevent people becoming drivers in the first place, which was hardly any fairer. Maybe a better question to ask is: which protectionist laws can my app help circumvent? "Uber for breaking down NIMBY coalitions and real estate developer cartels" would be extremely welcome.
krrrh 9y ago
I'm often an Uber critic, can't see how their valuation is justified, appalled by their lack of ethics, etc., however I think your analysis sells them short. Hailing or waiting for a taxi was a horrible experience in most cities. Leveraging the smartphone platform's ability to track location in real time, along with its ability to be connected and handle payments created a better service. This did compete with existing Taxi monopolies (which had enormous costs associated with rent seeking in many jurisdictions, not just labour costs), but it also competed heavily with non-consumption, car ownership, and car rentals for those on trips. The pattern of social life has changed in many cities where the inconvenience, lack of reliability, and cost of using a taxi had previously constrained peoples' options, and forced reliance on owning a car, driving when they shouldn't, or staying closer to their neighbourhoods or going home early. It's true that most of what gets called Uber for X is just enabling casual labor, without significantly expanding the market, and that's why so few of them achieve anything close to an Uber-level of success.
- always_good 9y ago
  Or any time I've only had a 50 peso bill and a 200 peso bill, the ride will cost 100 pesos, and the taxi driver somehow doesn't have change. Or any time I've tried to hail a taxi among a bunch of other people (after an event or at 2am at the city center when all the bars close) and I'm stuck hoping I'm the lucky chosen one the next time a taxi comes, losing out each time to a group of people. Or any time a taxi driver took advantage of the fact that they knew my options were limited late at night. Uber solved major points of frustration with taxi services.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    Or the time when my SO and some of her friends took a taxi from LAX, and when one of her friends noticed that the taxi was going a particularly circuitous route, the driver locked the doors while saying "I'll take you anywhere I damn well please". She won't use anything other than Uber/Lyft/etc. now since they have the GPS constantly running, and a record of who she gets in the car with.
- mpweiher 9y ago
enraged_camel 9y ago
Unfortunately, many people have a weird fetish for "disruption", and use it to justify pretty much any type of behavior. They also view laws and regulations as inefficient, and don't understand that they often exist for good reasons (such as consumer protection). If Uber ends up putting taxi companies out of business and becomes dominant, THEN we will see its true face and start hearing arguments for regulating it.
dismantlethesun 9y ago
Private cars services are hardly a 'technicality'. They've always existed and always been competitive with taxis, it's simply that their practice was to hire by the hour, and only do A-B transactions between major landmarks. Uber was a private car service with black-cars only to begin with and evolved to allow more car types, which made it competitively priced to taxis. Critically, when they began, they were intended for limo businesses to use to minimize driver downtime, hence the idea that Uber is merely a contract marketplace was normal and non-exploitive. Now, that people are driving for Uber "for fun" or "to make extra bucks", Uber has found itself dealing with a large unsophisticated assembly of drivers, whom it can be claimed that they are exploiting (i.e. exploiting their ignorance). Is it a fair assessment? I'm not sure, but I can point at other business verticals like residential cleaning services, and moving companies that function as a market of independent contractors who united only under a 'brand' that does client-contractor matchmaking. At least in this respect, Uber is not unique.
anon_dev_123456 9y ago
I disagree. If I told you break some laws, you'll be protected, you still wouldn't be able to come up with a billion dollar idea and _execute_. Uber's success hinged on the fact that they did a lot of things right, most importantly building something that's a net positive to the end user. Breaking laws just helped them expand quicker. The end user for Uber doesn't care at all about wages for the drivers. "Oh that's so sad... but I need to use Uber because it's hassle free."
delecti 9y ago
Uber's killer selling point is not skirting labor laws, it's facilitating connecting labor with demand via an app. Skirting labor laws certainly made them more attractive because it let them charge less, but I use Uber (well Lyft, but same thing) because it's convenient to pay and to get picked up and dropped off.
- rayvd 9y ago
  In addition, it's questionable that those labor laws do more to protect laborers or exist solely to preserve a government-backed monopoly... If someone doesn't want to drive for Uber, they can be a taxi driver instead...
  - fragmede 9y ago
    not when people don't take taxis. http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/yellow-cab-bankruptcy/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/yellow-cab-bankru...
ancap 9y ago
> Because Uber drivers are all self-employed, they're not unionised or protected in any way. Thus, Uber pays its drivers a pittance, and is able to undercut and undermine existing taxi services who are forced by unions and law to pay drivers a living wage. The fact that Uber drivers willingly and voluntarily engage in that work rather than pursuing alternative work doesn't align well with your narrative.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
> Uber's main success was to take something that already existed (taxi services) but then found a way to work around local labour laws on a technicality. > Because Uber drivers are all self-employed, they're not unionised or protected in any way. Thus, Uber pays its drivers a pittance, and is able to undercut and undermine existing taxi services who are forced by unions and law to pay drivers a living wage. What country are you in? In the USA, taxi drivers are also self employed, not unionized, and paid a pittance.
mlindner 9y ago
Can't believe this is the highest voted answer. It is entirely NOT the reason why they are successful. Please learn some basic business knowledge before you open your mouth next time. Go read the article for one.
- sctb 9y ago
  This account has been making personal attacks and they're not OK on Hacker News. Please stop and (re-)read the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pjmlp 9y ago

Which is the main reason why I will never use any Über for anything.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

WillPostForFood 9y ago

The Taxi medallion system is more exploitative of labor than Uber, forcing poor people to prepay for the right to work. It's as close to indentured servitude as you can get.

enraged_camel 9y ago
Those are two extraordinary claims. Let's see some equally extraordinary evidence.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  It's how the medallion system works, you prepay for the right to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#Medallions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City#Meda...
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    That's true, but that doesn't make it indentured servitude, or even close to it. Medallions exist to keep the supply of taxis limited. It ensures cab drivers have a certain standard of living. They can also be sold, so if the driver is retiring or wants to change to another career, they can do that. It's not a perfect system but it strikes a decent balance between worker protection and limiting externalities (e.g. by making sure not everyone decides to become a cab driver and clog up roads). edit: I guess Uber shills are out in force today.
    - fragmede 9y ago
      > It's not a perfect system I mean, slavery could also be described as "not a perfect system". Medallions in NYC had wholly undergone regulatory capture, so while the system may have started with good intentions, it had since been perverted into a self-perpetuating machine that prints money for a couple of lazy fat cats, to the detriment of everyone else.
      - enraged_camel 9y ago
        >>I mean, slavery could also be described as "not a perfect system". Medallion system is nothing like slavery. False equivalence. >>it had since been perverted into a self-perpetuating machine that prints money for a couple of lazy fat cats, to the detriment of everyone else. The medallion system benefits citizens because it ensures that taxis don't dominate city streets at the expense of regular car owners.
    - sctb 9y ago
      Could you please stop violating the guidelines, which ask you not to complain about voting or insinuate shillage? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - sjg007 9y ago
    So do strippers? And hairstylists? It's rent?
s17n 9y ago
Definitely true in NYC but Uber is global, in places like France they are lowering the bar for drivers' working conditions.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  Eehh, care to explain ? I just came back from Paris and I used Uber multiple times a day while there, including to go to the airport. It was very convenient. My drivers didn't seem unhappy to be there. So, what's the problem ?
  - Kankuro 9y ago
    > My drivers didn't seem unhappy to be there If they look unhappy, maybe the customer will give them bad ratings for bad customer experience…
- corford 9y ago
  In Lisbon, Portugal it's like NYC. Any expat or local will tell you that they feel infinitely safer and more comfortable in an Uber than they do in a normal taxi.
evanlivingston 9y ago
That doesn't provide an argument for choosing the lesser of two exploitative systems.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  I don't think Uber is a good company, but I also don't think they are exploiting drivers. Even if you do, it is less exploitative than trapping drivers into a system by forcing them to prepay for the right to drive. Choose whichever you think is less exploitive when you need a ride, but don't pretend taxis are some noble system.
- goialoq 9y ago
  Less exploitative is clearly better. If you don't like Uber, make something better or lobby for Uber to change, but don't wish for things to go back to how they were worse.
rwmj 9y ago
The medallion system seems to be a US peculiarity. In the UK you have to also pay fees up front (and pass certain tests) but the fees are relatively modest[1] and the tests include things like knowledge, medical fitness and criminal records, which all seems reasonable. This legally applies to Uber drivers too, although whether it is enforced seems to be in doubt[2]. (I'm not talking about London black cabs which operate on a slightly different system) [1] The fees for my local council are in section 10 here: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/docs/default-source/licensing-documents/licensing-fees-and-charges-2016-17-(pdf-418kb).pdf?sfvrsn=17 http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/docs/default-source/licensing-docu... [2] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/uber-may-face-21m-minicab-licence-fee-a3518996.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/uber-may-face-21m-...
- dmurray 9y ago
  > The medallion system seems to be a US peculiarity The equivalent system existed in Ireland until 2000, with taxi licenses changing hands for over $100,000. I'd be surprised if this doesn't persist in other European countries and cities.
  - Kankuro 9y ago
    In France, licenses have been given for free in limited numbers, and with the right to resell them on the market. So their price have increased up to 200-350k€. So some people made a lot of money there (and they one accept cash, so you know what can happen with the taxes). Recent buyers are in a bad position because they get it for a high price and now risk their value to drop because of the recent competition.
- ralmeida 9y ago
  Not sure how the values for a taxi license compare to a NYC "medallion", but Brazil does have expensive licenses as well. Anecdotally, most taxi drivers I've met rent the vehicle from someone else (don't have hard data on that right now, though).
- zjaffee 9y ago
  The thing that OP is neglecting to mention about the medallion system is that it's purpose was to limit the number of cars on the road at any given time, which eventually turned into a cartel like market because there was a higher demand for medallions than was decided upon for how many taxis should be on the road to reduce congestion and the number of cars within cities. In places with good public transit, this resulted in people using public transit to get home when taxis weren't available, now everyone just takes an uber/lyft. Additionally, this also hurts the speed at which busses can travel. However, now you see places like manhattan have far more cars on the road at any given time than before considering the taxis never left, and the number of cars went up to meet demand.
chx 9y ago
Uber got closer. They give you a subprime mortgage on your car where the payment comes out of your Uber fees and if you are behind, a remote inhibitor does not allow starting the car.
- ralmeida 9y ago
  But then at least you build equity on the car, right? Also, if you already own a suitable vehicle (which is arguably easier than owning a medallion), you wouldn't need the mortgage?
  - chx 9y ago
    The medallion was a safe investment until Uber broke the law and got away with it. It makes no sense to "build equity" in a car since the car is depreciating very fast especially if you use it a lot for example because you are driving it to serve your debt to Uber.
    - ralmeida 9y ago
      It doesn't matter whether the medallion is a safe investment or not. Wikipedia tells me a NYC medallion was worth around 500k in late 2016. Median household income in NYC is around 50k, so that's 10 whole years of gross salary. The truth is that the average person is not able to afford to drive a taxi without renting the medallion. Even building equity on a quickly depreciating asset such as a car used for Uber is better in terms of not having to pay to work. Also, a Uber loan would not be the only way to get a car to drive for Uber. Even if you have no means to finance the car for yourself, many more people own a Uber-suitable car than a taxi medallion, so the price you'd have to pay to work for Uber would in any case be lower. The original discussion was whether Uber or taxis would be more worker-restrictive. I don't think driving a Uber gives total freedom, but I fail to see how driving a taxi is any better for the worker.
bsder 9y ago
The taxi medallion system was put in place precisely to avoid the inherent race to the bottom that is caused by a low barrier to entry (just need a car to be a taxi) and a fixed consumer base (limited number of passengers). That is not fiction or speculation--it is history. You can look up the problems New York had before the taxi medallion system. I am by no means defending the taxi system. It was rife with problems (especially outside the very biggest cities): unreliable pickups, long wait times outside of a very small number of areas, not wanting to take credit cards, bad driving routes to overcharge, and a whole litany of other complaints. The only reason why the whole system hasn't devolved into a free-for-all is that Uber and Lyft have so much VC money subsidizing ride cost that nobody can get under their prices--they are below the bottom. The real competitor to Uber/Lyft is the company who can take the existing cabs and cab companies and insert them into an app that does real-time bidding on their end and works like Uber/Lyft from the consumer end. Austin, TX showed that once Uber and Lyft quit sucking the oxygen out of the space, competition and new options start opening up. However, Uber and Lyft will have to both implode first. And the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
- wlesieutre 9y ago
  FWIW I tried to use RideAustin when I was there a few months ago and couldn't even get signed in to the app. Ended up using Uber instead.
  - bsder 9y ago
    Well, once Uber and Lyft came back, the alternatives all basically fizzled out. It's kind of hard to compete against VC subsidized rides. The telling thing to me is that Uber and Lyft came back to Austin with no concessions after throwing a hissy fit and leaving. That tells me that they saw something that scared them and they needed to squelch it before it escaped to other cities. Edit: I stand corrected. The state legislature overrode the Austin laws. (Side: Wish I could put an overstrike through my comment.) Make no mistake, this is 1990's Microsoft levels of predatory behavior. It is nothing to be praised.
    - 9y ago
kazinator 9y ago
University degrees are also a system by which, effectively, people (some of whom are poor) prepay for the right to work.
- Waterluvian 9y ago
  You definitely need a medallion if you want to be a taxi driver. But the medallion isn't an indicator that you're an expert professional driver. So it's different than, say, an M.D. or a law degree that are required because those things are difficult and the public needs protection from frauds.
  - 2389232 9y ago
    Good luck with that. 4 out of 5 doctors or lawyers are absolutely worthless.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    Some degrees are "worthless", yet are needed as a document to tick off on a list of job requirements. Of course, the analogy is far from perfect; in fact, I didn't really intend an analogy, as such. A degree obviously isn't a license token you can move from one person to another, like the taxi medallion.

ardit33 9y ago

Taxi Medallion used to cost more than 500k in NYC. So half or more of your fare are going to some guy that bought the medallion years ago (or some investors actually), and just rents the privilege for other drivers to drive, it doesn't go the driver's pay, or propper car maintenance, etc... That is pure rent seeking via "regulation", and Uber and Lyft are cutting through it. (and I am glad they are doing it).

ams6110 9y ago
If by "cutting through it" you mean "breaking the law" I agree. And sometimes laws should be broken, to make a point. But let's not be under any illusions.

strken 9y ago

A large part of Uber's early success was circumventing the quite frankly corrupt and intrusive taxi regulations that had congealed everywhere. Drivers no longer had to choose between purchasing a ridiculously expensive license or working for someone else: they could use an existing car and smartphone. At least part of the wage drop was the result of lowering barriers to entry for prospective drivers. Yes, Uber exploits its drivers now, but the existing taxi system was acting as a moat to prevent people becoming drivers in the first place, which was hardly any fairer. Maybe a better question to ask is: which protectionist laws can my app help circumvent? "Uber for breaking down NIMBY coalitions and real estate developer cartels" would be extremely welcome.

krrrh 9y ago

I'm often an Uber critic, can't see how their valuation is justified, appalled by their lack of ethics, etc., however I think your analysis sells them short. Hailing or waiting for a taxi was a horrible experience in most cities. Leveraging the smartphone platform's ability to track location in real time, along with its ability to be connected and handle payments created a better service. This did compete with existing Taxi monopolies (which had enormous costs associated with rent seeking in many jurisdictions, not just labour costs), but it also competed heavily with non-consumption, car ownership, and car rentals for those on trips. The pattern of social life has changed in many cities where the inconvenience, lack of reliability, and cost of using a taxi had previously constrained peoples' options, and forced reliance on owning a car, driving when they shouldn't, or staying closer to their neighbourhoods or going home early. It's true that most of what gets called Uber for X is just enabling casual labor, without significantly expanding the market, and that's why so few of them achieve anything close to an Uber-level of success.

always_good 9y ago
Or any time I've only had a 50 peso bill and a 200 peso bill, the ride will cost 100 pesos, and the taxi driver somehow doesn't have change. Or any time I've tried to hail a taxi among a bunch of other people (after an event or at 2am at the city center when all the bars close) and I'm stuck hoping I'm the lucky chosen one the next time a taxi comes, losing out each time to a group of people. Or any time a taxi driver took advantage of the fact that they knew my options were limited late at night. Uber solved major points of frustration with taxi services.
- monocasa 9y ago
  Or the time when my SO and some of her friends took a taxi from LAX, and when one of her friends noticed that the taxi was going a particularly circuitous route, the driver locked the doors while saying "I'll take you anywhere I damn well please". She won't use anything other than Uber/Lyft/etc. now since they have the GPS constantly running, and a record of who she gets in the car with.
mpweiher 9y ago

enraged_camel 9y ago

Unfortunately, many people have a weird fetish for "disruption", and use it to justify pretty much any type of behavior. They also view laws and regulations as inefficient, and don't understand that they often exist for good reasons (such as consumer protection). If Uber ends up putting taxi companies out of business and becomes dominant, THEN we will see its true face and start hearing arguments for regulating it.

dismantlethesun 9y ago

Private cars services are hardly a 'technicality'. They've always existed and always been competitive with taxis, it's simply that their practice was to hire by the hour, and only do A-B transactions between major landmarks. Uber was a private car service with black-cars only to begin with and evolved to allow more car types, which made it competitively priced to taxis. Critically, when they began, they were intended for limo businesses to use to minimize driver downtime, hence the idea that Uber is merely a contract marketplace was normal and non-exploitive. Now, that people are driving for Uber "for fun" or "to make extra bucks", Uber has found itself dealing with a large unsophisticated assembly of drivers, whom it can be claimed that they are exploiting (i.e. exploiting their ignorance). Is it a fair assessment? I'm not sure, but I can point at other business verticals like residential cleaning services, and moving companies that function as a market of independent contractors who united only under a 'brand' that does client-contractor matchmaking. At least in this respect, Uber is not unique.

anon_dev_123456 9y ago

I disagree. If I told you break some laws, you'll be protected, you still wouldn't be able to come up with a billion dollar idea and _execute_. Uber's success hinged on the fact that they did a lot of things right, most importantly building something that's a net positive to the end user. Breaking laws just helped them expand quicker. The end user for Uber doesn't care at all about wages for the drivers. "Oh that's so sad... but I need to use Uber because it's hassle free."

delecti 9y ago

Uber's killer selling point is not skirting labor laws, it's facilitating connecting labor with demand via an app. Skirting labor laws certainly made them more attractive because it let them charge less, but I use Uber (well Lyft, but same thing) because it's convenient to pay and to get picked up and dropped off.

rayvd 9y ago
In addition, it's questionable that those labor laws do more to protect laborers or exist solely to preserve a government-backed monopoly... If someone doesn't want to drive for Uber, they can be a taxi driver instead...
- fragmede 9y ago
  not when people don't take taxis. http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/yellow-cab-bankruptcy/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/25/technology/yellow-cab-bankru...

ancap 9y ago

> Because Uber drivers are all self-employed, they're not unionised or protected in any way. Thus, Uber pays its drivers a pittance, and is able to undercut and undermine existing taxi services who are forced by unions and law to pay drivers a living wage. The fact that Uber drivers willingly and voluntarily engage in that work rather than pursuing alternative work doesn't align well with your narrative.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

> Uber's main success was to take something that already existed (taxi services) but then found a way to work around local labour laws on a technicality. > Because Uber drivers are all self-employed, they're not unionised or protected in any way. Thus, Uber pays its drivers a pittance, and is able to undercut and undermine existing taxi services who are forced by unions and law to pay drivers a living wage. What country are you in? In the USA, taxi drivers are also self employed, not unionized, and paid a pittance.

mlindner 9y ago

Can't believe this is the highest voted answer. It is entirely NOT the reason why they are successful. Please learn some basic business knowledge before you open your mouth next time. Go read the article for one.

sctb 9y ago
This account has been making personal attacks and they're not OK on Hacker News. Please stop and (re-)read the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html