3 ms·

Really depends. If you think about uber then without uber or similar services then people would use taxis. The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having mo

Really depends. If you think about uber then without uber or similar services then people would use taxis. The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous. Most of the gig type companies are able to offer lower prices to consumers at the expense of workers. Also important to note is that uber and lyft sell their gigs as just side income, not a full time job so I think people have been fair warned that uber is not sufficient to support yourself.

collyw 9y ago
Uber is banned where I live, and the taxis are a reasonable price. When I went home to the UK at Christmas, Uber wanted to charge around 3 times the price of the monopolistic black cabs.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
I think there is a huge portion of trips taken with Lyft/Uber that would not be taken at all with a taxi. I would never take a taxi except in the most dire circumstances due to my experience of them being dirty and smoke smelling and questionable drivers, but with Uber/Lyft, I use them all the time now instead of asking family or friends for drop off/pickup at airport, or getting around the city, etc.
voidmain 9y ago
Usually high taxi fares don't go to the drivers, they go to the owners of the licenses. I think a NYC medallion used to cost $1.3 million before Uber; I don't think most of the drivers were shelling that out.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Not all countries have the corrupt medallion system
zzalpha 9y ago
The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous. Uhh... Uber is, like, 5-6 years old in most locales, less in many. This isn't some alternative universe we have to imagine. We just have to think back to before 2010... you know, the before time. The long long ago. And back then, taxi rates were hardly "outrageous". Hell, even today, Uber isn't necessarily that much cheaper in a lot of places.
- arbie 9y ago
  In sparsely populated areas, taxis are sometimes even cheaper. In cities, though, it's not even a contest. Ride-sharing is 2x to 3x cheaper than a taxi in my limited dataset.

collyw 9y ago

Uber is banned where I live, and the taxis are a reasonable price. When I went home to the UK at Christmas, Uber wanted to charge around 3 times the price of the monopolistic black cabs.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

I think there is a huge portion of trips taken with Lyft/Uber that would not be taken at all with a taxi. I would never take a taxi except in the most dire circumstances due to my experience of them being dirty and smoke smelling and questionable drivers, but with Uber/Lyft, I use them all the time now instead of asking family or friends for drop off/pickup at airport, or getting around the city, etc.

voidmain 9y ago

Usually high taxi fares don't go to the drivers, they go to the owners of the licenses. I think a NYC medallion used to cost $1.3 million before Uber; I don't think most of the drivers were shelling that out.

walshemj 9y ago
Not all countries have the corrupt medallion system

zzalpha 9y ago

The taxi drivers would get paid more due to having monopolies in most cities and fares would be outrageous. Uhh... Uber is, like, 5-6 years old in most locales, less in many. This isn't some alternative universe we have to imagine. We just have to think back to before 2010... you know, the before time. The long long ago. And back then, taxi rates were hardly "outrageous". Hell, even today, Uber isn't necessarily that much cheaper in a lot of places.

arbie 9y ago
In sparsely populated areas, taxis are sometimes even cheaper. In cities, though, it's not even a contest. Ride-sharing is 2x to 3x cheaper than a taxi in my limited dataset.