4 ms·

It's a matter of chance that they coincide with some 3rd world country models as the latter's fuels are survival/corruption/perceived lawlessness It's not a ma

It's a matter of chance that they coincide with some 3rd world country models as the latter's fuels are survival/corruption/perceived lawlessness It's not a matter of chance. The earlier government regulation was better than no regulation, but had significant downsides. Taxi regulation got corrupt and the market didn't work very well. Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. I can't attest to how well Fiverr works.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago
Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. I can only expect to hail a taxi on demand if I'm in a big city, airport, train station, or other transit center; if I'm in a rural area, suburb, or even a smaller city, I'll probably have to call to arrange a pickup and hope it actually arrives. (My personal luck with calling for taxis has been...spotty at best, while for Uber and Lyft so far it's been 100%.) But "cleaning up and regulating the market?" I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. Ride shares tend to be cheaper than taxis, and I don't doubt that part of the cost of a taxi fare is due to regulation -- but a large part of it comes from the uncomfortable fact that Uber and Lyft are both subsidizing rides with VC money. If they actually charged enough for the ride to make a profit, average ride prices would easily double. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. Taxis used to be smelly and dirty. Drivers were quite cavalier in their attitudes towards customers. Hailing a taxi was difficult and chancy. I was scammed by drivers who would take me on indirect routes for more money. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. That is precisely the point. I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. There are now rapid and technologically mediated consequences for both drivers and riders for behaving badly. Uber drivers are always polite, and riders are always polite. Riders are now strongly motivated to never keep their drivers waiting, which was not the case for taxis. The vehicles smell better! Drivers never scam you by driving a circuitous route. It's pretty obvious to me that the market is much better regulated through the technology. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front. The point is that while Uber is far from a poster child -- no argument there -- the technology (read: the rapid flow of accurate information in the market) still has them doing a better job than regulatory mechanisms from the 20th century.
  - mtnGoat 8y ago
    FWIW, the most rank smelling drivers/cars ive ever had, were both Uber drivers.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I've also had quite rude Uber drivers, who were worse than the worst cab driver I've ever had. They are by far an exception. I've also been in a taxi that smelled like an ashtray many times. I think it's happened just once to me with Uber. Overall, the track record is much better with Uber.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Ignoring the benefits to taxi drivers, and focusing on a pure economic standpoint, Uber/Lyft did clean up the market place by busting local government taxi commissions which had previously created both economic minimums and maximums around fixed prices and fixed number of cars on the road respectively. This lead drivers to focus on only a certain type of trip, and reduced the total number of rides people took due to a higher cost, uber pool further added to the later one there. This said, every tragedy of the commons scenario that was previously avoided by regulation happened, the streets of major cities are almost entirely cars for hire, where it's nearly impossible to make a living wage working as a driver on only 40 hours a week. This right here is the cost of neoliberalism, yes more people have jobs, the economy expanded to meet a more desired demand, but the workers in the field are largely worse off than had they all been protected in other industries alongside scarce resources being even more competitive than they were previously.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    This said, every tragedy of the commons scenario that was previously avoided by regulation happened, What are the downsides that regulation avoided, which are now happening? the streets of major cities are almost entirely cars for hire, where it's nearly impossible to make a living wage working as a driver on only 40 hours a week. Making a living wage wasn't so great for beginning cab drivers either. They had to rent their cabs from medallion holders, which often meant they had to take a lot of rides before they saw dollar 1.
- CountSessine 8y ago
  To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation Then let me invite you to come visit my city, Vancouver, the last major city in North America where ride-share isn't available and taxis are the only game in town. First, taxi regulations stipulate that taxis get to charge a flat-rate tariff on every ride. They have to/get to charge this. Whatever this tariff was meant to accomplish, it incentivizes taxi drivers to ignore their dispatcher when taxis are in high demand (like on weekend evenings) and only pick up off the street for short hops around downtown. If you need a trip further out (say 5 miles), forget about it - you'll wait for hours before you can get a cab (I have, on multiple occasions). Second, taxi medallions are crazy-expensive (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and are a cash-cow for municipalities. They're meant to tie taxi cabs to a local city, but they also make elastic cab-supply impossible - you can never have more cabs on the road than you have medallions and because the medallions are so expensive they need to be amortized with constant use. That incentivizes everyone to have far fewer medallions than the industry would need to satisfy demand during peak periods. The most efficient deployment of medallions for a taxi company is to have enough medallions to satisfy minimum, not peak demand. And don't think that medallions will guarantee good local service - just because a taxi company has a medallion issued by the municipality that you live in doesn't mean that they can pick you up and drive you home. I live in Burnaby (city next to Vancouver) where Bonny's Taxi has a legally-granted monopoly, but if I'm downtown (which is in Vancouver) I can't call Bonny's to pick me up - medallions regulate pick-up, not drop-off. And even if you manage to flag down a cab on a busy night, they'll quite commonly flat-out refuse to take you anywhere other than downtown. They're barred from doing this, but the industry is self-policing and you can guess how likely it is that a driver would face any consequences for this. Maybe if you film them and post it to social media. But certainly not otherwise. And who can blame them? They have to pay down their medallion-mortgage, and exploiting the flat-rate tariff on short-hop rides downtown is the best way to do that. Also, carry cash. Many taxi drivers will insist on cash. "Oh, my machine is broken. You need to pay with cash." Again, they're barred from doing this, but again, the industry is self-policing and you can guess how often complaints lead to consequences. It still happens all the time. And because these are a great bunch of guys, their industry spends millions lobbying the provincial government to stall legislation that would allow ride-share in Vancouver. British Columbia went through a period in the 70's where it was indistinguishable from a Soviet republic with a planned economy, and implemented socialized car insurance. Everyone needs to buy basic liability auto insurance from our govt car insurer (at about twice the market rate in other provinces), and that insurer has simply refused to insure ride-sharers. That's been a far more effective barrier to ride-share than has existed anywhere else that I'm aware of. And the taxi industry spends aggressively to make sure that that doesn't change. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front. They are exactly that "poster child". Uber at their very very worst is better than the taxi companies and the taxi industry in a city where ride-share isn't available.
- btilly 8y ago
  You have received anecdotes, but not the underlying reason. With a taxi, if you complain about poor service, the driver will remain a taxi driver. Therefore drivers have little cause to care about customers that they will never see again. With an Uber driver, drivers that fail to get good reviews quickly stop being Uber drivers. The result is that Uber drivers are much better on average than taxi drivers.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. I can only expect to hail a taxi on demand if I'm in a big city, airport, train station, or other transit center; if I'm in a rural area, suburb, or even a smaller city, I'll probably have to call to arrange a pickup and hope it actually arrives. (My personal luck with calling for taxis has been...spotty at best, while for Uber and Lyft so far it's been 100%.) But "cleaning up and regulating the market?" I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. Ride shares tend to be cheaper than taxis, and I don't doubt that part of the cost of a taxi fare is due to regulation -- but a large part of it comes from the uncomfortable fact that Uber and Lyft are both subsidizing rides with VC money. If they actually charged enough for the ride to make a profit, average ride prices would easily double. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front.

stcredzero 8y ago
To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. Taxis used to be smelly and dirty. Drivers were quite cavalier in their attitudes towards customers. Hailing a taxi was difficult and chancy. I was scammed by drivers who would take me on indirect routes for more money. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. That is precisely the point. I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. There are now rapid and technologically mediated consequences for both drivers and riders for behaving badly. Uber drivers are always polite, and riders are always polite. Riders are now strongly motivated to never keep their drivers waiting, which was not the case for taxis. The vehicles smell better! Drivers never scam you by driving a circuitous route. It's pretty obvious to me that the market is much better regulated through the technology. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front. The point is that while Uber is far from a poster child -- no argument there -- the technology (read: the rapid flow of accurate information in the market) still has them doing a better job than regulatory mechanisms from the 20th century.
- mtnGoat 8y ago
  FWIW, the most rank smelling drivers/cars ive ever had, were both Uber drivers.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I've also had quite rude Uber drivers, who were worse than the worst cab driver I've ever had. They are by far an exception. I've also been in a taxi that smelled like an ashtray many times. I think it's happened just once to me with Uber. Overall, the track record is much better with Uber.
zjaffee 8y ago
Ignoring the benefits to taxi drivers, and focusing on a pure economic standpoint, Uber/Lyft did clean up the market place by busting local government taxi commissions which had previously created both economic minimums and maximums around fixed prices and fixed number of cars on the road respectively. This lead drivers to focus on only a certain type of trip, and reduced the total number of rides people took due to a higher cost, uber pool further added to the later one there. This said, every tragedy of the commons scenario that was previously avoided by regulation happened, the streets of major cities are almost entirely cars for hire, where it's nearly impossible to make a living wage working as a driver on only 40 hours a week. This right here is the cost of neoliberalism, yes more people have jobs, the economy expanded to meet a more desired demand, but the workers in the field are largely worse off than had they all been protected in other industries alongside scarce resources being even more competitive than they were previously.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  This said, every tragedy of the commons scenario that was previously avoided by regulation happened, What are the downsides that regulation avoided, which are now happening? the streets of major cities are almost entirely cars for hire, where it's nearly impossible to make a living wage working as a driver on only 40 hours a week. Making a living wage wasn't so great for beginning cab drivers either. They had to rent their cabs from medallion holders, which often meant they had to take a lot of rides before they saw dollar 1.
CountSessine 8y ago
To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation Then let me invite you to come visit my city, Vancouver, the last major city in North America where ride-share isn't available and taxis are the only game in town. First, taxi regulations stipulate that taxis get to charge a flat-rate tariff on every ride. They have to/get to charge this. Whatever this tariff was meant to accomplish, it incentivizes taxi drivers to ignore their dispatcher when taxis are in high demand (like on weekend evenings) and only pick up off the street for short hops around downtown. If you need a trip further out (say 5 miles), forget about it - you'll wait for hours before you can get a cab (I have, on multiple occasions). Second, taxi medallions are crazy-expensive (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and are a cash-cow for municipalities. They're meant to tie taxi cabs to a local city, but they also make elastic cab-supply impossible - you can never have more cabs on the road than you have medallions and because the medallions are so expensive they need to be amortized with constant use. That incentivizes everyone to have far fewer medallions than the industry would need to satisfy demand during peak periods. The most efficient deployment of medallions for a taxi company is to have enough medallions to satisfy minimum, not peak demand. And don't think that medallions will guarantee good local service - just because a taxi company has a medallion issued by the municipality that you live in doesn't mean that they can pick you up and drive you home. I live in Burnaby (city next to Vancouver) where Bonny's Taxi has a legally-granted monopoly, but if I'm downtown (which is in Vancouver) I can't call Bonny's to pick me up - medallions regulate pick-up, not drop-off. And even if you manage to flag down a cab on a busy night, they'll quite commonly flat-out refuse to take you anywhere other than downtown. They're barred from doing this, but the industry is self-policing and you can guess how likely it is that a driver would face any consequences for this. Maybe if you film them and post it to social media. But certainly not otherwise. And who can blame them? They have to pay down their medallion-mortgage, and exploiting the flat-rate tariff on short-hop rides downtown is the best way to do that. Also, carry cash. Many taxi drivers will insist on cash. "Oh, my machine is broken. You need to pay with cash." Again, they're barred from doing this, but again, the industry is self-policing and you can guess how often complaints lead to consequences. It still happens all the time. And because these are a great bunch of guys, their industry spends millions lobbying the provincial government to stall legislation that would allow ride-share in Vancouver. British Columbia went through a period in the 70's where it was indistinguishable from a Soviet republic with a planned economy, and implemented socialized car insurance. Everyone needs to buy basic liability auto insurance from our govt car insurer (at about twice the market rate in other provinces), and that insurer has simply refused to insure ride-sharers. That's been a far more effective barrier to ride-share than has existed anywhere else that I'm aware of. And the taxi industry spends aggressively to make sure that that doesn't change. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front. They are exactly that "poster child". Uber at their very very worst is better than the taxi companies and the taxi industry in a city where ride-share isn't available.
btilly 8y ago
You have received anecdotes, but not the underlying reason. With a taxi, if you complain about poor service, the driver will remain a taxi driver. Therefore drivers have little cause to care about customers that they will never see again. With an Uber driver, drivers that fail to get good reviews quickly stop being Uber drivers. The result is that Uber drivers are much better on average than taxi drivers.