3 ms·
This feels too harsh. It's not that either the business models need destroyed or that regulations should never change, but that some middle ground is worked out
by michaelbuckbee 8y ago
This feels too harsh. It's not that either the business models need destroyed or that regulations should never change, but that some middle ground is worked out that benefits society at large.
All the services we're talking about have both real utility and (for the most part) unplanned costs and impacts.
The Taxi Medallion system is/was horribly corrupt and inefficient. Uber (for all their faults) is an improvement in terms of safety, convenience and less discriminatory practices.
Similarly, AirBnB isn't defacto a horrible presence in cities (tons of great experiences), but hosts should abide by neighborhood norms, pay hotel taxes, etc.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoUber, for all its faults, may be a vast improvement on the USA approach to taxis. In many of the other countries Uber has presence it has done damage to a sector that was not horribly corrupt or inefficient. Yet the workers and governments still have to react to rule breaking that effectively treats everywhere on the planet as some US city with a broken and corrupt taxi system. In the UK I would call Uber a very marginal increase in convenience (all taxis have apps if that's your preferred method), but absolutely and demonstrably significantly worse in terms of safety, discriminatory practices, and worker's incomes. So overall I don't think it is too harsh, at least here.