22 ms·

I think you're being a bit harsh to the individual drivers here. My dad was a yellow cab driver in NYC, lots of drivers, like my dad, were immigrants and owning

I think you're being a bit harsh to the individual drivers here. My dad was a yellow cab driver in NYC, lots of drivers, like my dad, were immigrants and owning / renting out a medallion was seen as the equivalent to owning your own home as a nest egg. I totally agree that taxi companies were colluding with government to create regulatory capture that was deservedly busted by innovation, but lots of families have been hurt by the drop in medallion prices. Many drivers have committed suicide. I'm disappointed that NYC didn't take the deal.

bogomipz 8y ago
>"I totally agree that taxi companies were colluding with government to create regulatory capture that was deservedly busted by innovation, but lots of families have been hurt by the drop in medallion prices." Why should investing upwards of a million dollars or more in a taxi medallion be treated differently than any other large investment with real risks involved? So when were profits from these medallions those were private but now that there's risk it should be socialized?
- 40acres 8y ago
  NYC policy is what allowed the medallions to be so artificially inflated in the first place. The city has less medallions today than in the pre-war times. Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    "NYC policy is what allowed the medallions to be so artificially inflated in the first place." You seem to be missing a bit of history. It sounds like you are unaware that the original call for regulation of the taxi industry was by the taxi drivers themselves. Yes, the passage of the Haas act in 1937. During the Depression there were far more drivers than there was demand for taxis. This resulted an abundance of "wildcat" cab drivers who were threatening the livelihood of legitimate taxi drivers.[1][2] >"Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most." Lastly the overwhelming majority of medallions are leased out as part of "fleets." The people that have been "hurt" the most have been the drivers who are required to lease the cab for a 12 hour shift for $130 and are also responsible for paying the insurance and gas on top of it. This is basically a feudal system where medallion owners are lords and the actual taxi driver is a serf. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/nyregion/medallion-limits-stem-from-the-30-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/nyregion/medallion-limits... [2] http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_regulationandprosperity.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_...
- gabrielrotbart 8y ago
  Because we can be better human beings by helping each other. Those private medallion holders made a mistake by putting all their eggs in that one nest, sure. But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"? I realize a reply to this can be that bail outs lead to increased risk taking. I would still argue that it's better to risk the system and help those who can not recover from this kind of loss.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"Because we can be better human beings by helping each other." There have been 3 restaurants on my block that have opened and failed inn the last 18 months. Shouldn't we help them too by your logic? Should the city council pass legislation? >"But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"? Yeah that's a false equivalence. Empathy and bailouts are not the same things at all. I can have empathy and be against a bailout and that doesn't amount to me saying "screw you" to anyone.
    - bbeonx 8y ago
      No, of course not. Most restaurants fail. This is expected. There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them. If the restaurant industry collapsed next year I'd say the same thing for them too. But there is a qualitative difference between ad hoc business failures and a systematic change. But I agree that bailouts != empathy. Still, bailouts aren't the only option, and as a society it is in our interest to help a sector when it goes under. It may happen to you or me next. EDIT: I should specify that I'm speaking about owner-operated cabs.
      - bogomipz 8y ago
        >" There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them." The "industry" is not failing. There are still 13,586 yellow taxis on the streets in NYC[1] picking up and dropping off fares. And there no shortage of New Yorkers on the street raising their right hand and intently scanning for the "on duty" lights of yellow cars. The "industry" is not the valuation of metal medallions bolted to the hood of the cars. You seem to be conflating the too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City
grimbly 8y ago
Honestly, what innovation has Uber provided? More congestion than ever[1]? More ways to skirt the law[2]? We already had an app to order a taxi: The phone app. We already had infrastructure to vet drivers: The registration systems in local governance. Taxi drivers were already taking credit cards. "You don't have to worry about paying" isn't innovation; as a cab driver, I witness nightly Uber-in-middle-of-road-unloading-and-loading violations, while no taxi would ever dream of that where I am from. In the winter, people push their Uber up the street--and still pay for the ride. "Deservedly busted by innovation" was their marketing ploy before it was so heavily debunked; they have pivoted, since. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-lyft-congestion-20180225-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-lyf... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...

bogomipz 8y ago

>"I totally agree that taxi companies were colluding with government to create regulatory capture that was deservedly busted by innovation, but lots of families have been hurt by the drop in medallion prices." Why should investing upwards of a million dollars or more in a taxi medallion be treated differently than any other large investment with real risks involved? So when were profits from these medallions those were private but now that there's risk it should be socialized?

40acres 8y ago
NYC policy is what allowed the medallions to be so artificially inflated in the first place. The city has less medallions today than in the pre-war times. Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  "NYC policy is what allowed the medallions to be so artificially inflated in the first place." You seem to be missing a bit of history. It sounds like you are unaware that the original call for regulation of the taxi industry was by the taxi drivers themselves. Yes, the passage of the Haas act in 1937. During the Depression there were far more drivers than there was demand for taxis. This resulted an abundance of "wildcat" cab drivers who were threatening the livelihood of legitimate taxi drivers.[1][2] >"Now that the market collapsed it's the moral thing to do not only to liberalize the medallion restrictions but repay those who were hurt the most." Lastly the overwhelming majority of medallions are leased out as part of "fleets." The people that have been "hurt" the most have been the drivers who are required to lease the cab for a 12 hour shift for $130 and are also responsible for paying the insurance and gas on top of it. This is basically a feudal system where medallion owners are lords and the actual taxi driver is a serf. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/nyregion/medallion-limits-stem-from-the-30-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/nyregion/medallion-limits... [2] http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_regulationandprosperity.html http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_...
gabrielrotbart 8y ago
Because we can be better human beings by helping each other. Those private medallion holders made a mistake by putting all their eggs in that one nest, sure. But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"? I realize a reply to this can be that bail outs lead to increased risk taking. I would still argue that it's better to risk the system and help those who can not recover from this kind of loss.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Because we can be better human beings by helping each other." There have been 3 restaurants on my block that have opened and failed inn the last 18 months. Shouldn't we help them too by your logic? Should the city council pass legislation? >"But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"? Yeah that's a false equivalence. Empathy and bailouts are not the same things at all. I can have empathy and be against a bailout and that doesn't amount to me saying "screw you" to anyone.
  - bbeonx 8y ago
    No, of course not. Most restaurants fail. This is expected. There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them. If the restaurant industry collapsed next year I'd say the same thing for them too. But there is a qualitative difference between ad hoc business failures and a systematic change. But I agree that bailouts != empathy. Still, bailouts aren't the only option, and as a society it is in our interest to help a sector when it goes under. It may happen to you or me next. EDIT: I should specify that I'm speaking about owner-operated cabs.
    - bogomipz 8y ago
      >" There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them." The "industry" is not failing. There are still 13,586 yellow taxis on the streets in NYC[1] picking up and dropping off fares. And there no shortage of New Yorkers on the street raising their right hand and intently scanning for the "on duty" lights of yellow cars. The "industry" is not the valuation of metal medallions bolted to the hood of the cars. You seem to be conflating the too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City

grimbly 8y ago

Honestly, what innovation has Uber provided? More congestion than ever[1]? More ways to skirt the law[2]? We already had an app to order a taxi: The phone app. We already had infrastructure to vet drivers: The registration systems in local governance. Taxi drivers were already taking credit cards. "You don't have to worry about paying" isn't innovation; as a cab driver, I witness nightly Uber-in-middle-of-road-unloading-and-loading violations, while no taxi would ever dream of that where I am from. In the winter, people push their Uber up the street--and still pay for the ride. "Deservedly busted by innovation" was their marketing ploy before it was so heavily debunked; they have pivoted, since. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-lyft-congestion-20180225-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-uber-lyf... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-...