5 ms·

The "Sharing Economy" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal rebranded taxis. Illegal rebranded hotels. etc

mkirklions 8y ago
The only reason these were illegal was cronyism. And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.
- pragmacoders 8y ago
  If I'm lucky, I'll never see the term "Capitalism has proven..." again, in my lifetime
- matchbok 8y ago
  Eh, the only people who like unregulated mini-hotels (airbnb) in residential areas are the ones making money.
  - repsilat 8y ago
    And, to be fair, the ones paying money to stay in those mini-hotels. (And, to be clear, "the ones making money" includes local businesses benefiting from increased tourism, and their employees.)
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      And to be clear, the local businesses would benefit from tourists staying in real hotels just as much, if not more, than the ones staying in AirBnBs, because such tourists are more likely to dine out and do things around town. But restaurants dislike tourists because most tourists tip less than Americans, so a high concentration of these "mini-hotels" is detrimental to restaurants and their staff.
      - rickycook 8y ago
        tipping culture and minimum wage in the US is detrimental to restaurants; not the tourists buying the food!
  - AckSyn 8y ago
    Are you kidding? I love the $29-$39/night rooms I have when traveling. It's a boon.
- dbt00 8y ago
  Taxi licensing was not cronyism, it was simple economics. Taxicabs can either have x drivers all at a subsistence level, or 0.5x drivers with a reasonable standard of living. Licensing with a cap and fixed rates becomes a policy decision driven by the public interest.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    That's ridiculous. $140K taxi medallions are simple economics? Each $140K a company had to pay for some stupid medallion could have employed two people for a year. Medallions and protectionism just created localized monopolies that had few incentives to improve service, innovate on tech, and even provide clean vehicles. There's no other industry that needs this artificial cap, as if demand and supply can be accurately controlled for by government policy officials. What a joke.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Why is this not true for every type of market? Taco stands, barbershops, web designers, attorneys, parking lots, dog walkers, etc? Couldn't you just replace "taxicabs" and "drivers" with any kind of business or industry? Isn't the collective end goal of the competitive marketplace supposed to be razor thin margins due to competition? I live in NYC and prior to Uber, 1) taxi medallions were valued at high six figures, 2) service was terrible, 3) prices were too high, and 4) actual drivers still made shit money. I think Uber and Lyft and others have improved all of that, to be honest. Competition is a beautiful thing.
shittyadmin 8y ago
I mean, you get more than that, no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis". They looked at it and went "ooh I can use it from my phone with the push of a button and it's cheaper". The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to compete on efficiency, ease of use and price. Ridiculous, anti-competitive laws were in place in these systems, I applaud their death.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis" I can disprove that all by myself, since that's exactly how I reacted when I first heard of Uber.
  - russh 8y ago
    Same here, I truly don't understand how they got away with it.
- dbt00 8y ago
  I mean, Uber Black was allowing existing private car services to float their services on an on-demand market and soak up excess capacity. Sidecar/UberX/Lyft etc have always just been wildcat taxis, except at least a real wildcat taxicab probably has some experience. In my experience, most uberx/lyft drivers have been doing it less than a year, the good ones all leave as soon as they see how bad the pay is, and nobody knows what the fuck they're doing. It's amazing they haven't killed more people, tbh.
- rchaud 8y ago
  > no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis" That's because it was falsely framed as "ride sharing" to begin with, when it was obviously a taxi service. It should also go without saying that millions in VC cash can prettify anything and buy enough positive PR and lobbying to give the service an air of legitimacy.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  > The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to ... Rebrand existing services with unregulated, zero-hours contractors, using their own unregulated assets, with a layer of brokering software. It's marketing wank, for both consumers and workers.
Torgo 8y ago
"Family planning" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal birth control. Illegal abortions. etc

mkirklions 8y ago

The only reason these were illegal was cronyism. And before you get excited about the safety we get with regulation. Capitalism has proven with billion dollar companies, we don't want regulated taxis.

pragmacoders 8y ago
If I'm lucky, I'll never see the term "Capitalism has proven..." again, in my lifetime
matchbok 8y ago
Eh, the only people who like unregulated mini-hotels (airbnb) in residential areas are the ones making money.
- repsilat 8y ago
  And, to be fair, the ones paying money to stay in those mini-hotels. (And, to be clear, "the ones making money" includes local businesses benefiting from increased tourism, and their employees.)
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    And to be clear, the local businesses would benefit from tourists staying in real hotels just as much, if not more, than the ones staying in AirBnBs, because such tourists are more likely to dine out and do things around town. But restaurants dislike tourists because most tourists tip less than Americans, so a high concentration of these "mini-hotels" is detrimental to restaurants and their staff.
    - rickycook 8y ago
      tipping culture and minimum wage in the US is detrimental to restaurants; not the tourists buying the food!
- AckSyn 8y ago
  Are you kidding? I love the $29-$39/night rooms I have when traveling. It's a boon.
dbt00 8y ago
Taxi licensing was not cronyism, it was simple economics. Taxicabs can either have x drivers all at a subsistence level, or 0.5x drivers with a reasonable standard of living. Licensing with a cap and fixed rates becomes a policy decision driven by the public interest.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  That's ridiculous. $140K taxi medallions are simple economics? Each $140K a company had to pay for some stupid medallion could have employed two people for a year. Medallions and protectionism just created localized monopolies that had few incentives to improve service, innovate on tech, and even provide clean vehicles. There's no other industry that needs this artificial cap, as if demand and supply can be accurately controlled for by government policy officials. What a joke.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Why is this not true for every type of market? Taco stands, barbershops, web designers, attorneys, parking lots, dog walkers, etc? Couldn't you just replace "taxicabs" and "drivers" with any kind of business or industry? Isn't the collective end goal of the competitive marketplace supposed to be razor thin margins due to competition? I live in NYC and prior to Uber, 1) taxi medallions were valued at high six figures, 2) service was terrible, 3) prices were too high, and 4) actual drivers still made shit money. I think Uber and Lyft and others have improved all of that, to be honest. Competition is a beautiful thing.

shittyadmin 8y ago

I mean, you get more than that, no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis". They looked at it and went "ooh I can use it from my phone with the push of a button and it's cheaper". The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to compete on efficiency, ease of use and price. Ridiculous, anti-competitive laws were in place in these systems, I applaud their death.

notacoward 8y ago
> no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis" I can disprove that all by myself, since that's exactly how I reacted when I first heard of Uber.
- russh 8y ago
  Same here, I truly don't understand how they got away with it.
dbt00 8y ago
I mean, Uber Black was allowing existing private car services to float their services on an on-demand market and soak up excess capacity. Sidecar/UberX/Lyft etc have always just been wildcat taxis, except at least a real wildcat taxicab probably has some experience. In my experience, most uberx/lyft drivers have been doing it less than a year, the good ones all leave as soon as they see how bad the pay is, and nobody knows what the fuck they're doing. It's amazing they haven't killed more people, tbh.
rchaud 8y ago
> no one looked at Uber and went "ooh, illegal taxis" That's because it was falsely framed as "ride sharing" to begin with, when it was obviously a taxi service. It should also go without saying that millions in VC cash can prettify anything and buy enough positive PR and lobbying to give the service an air of legitimacy.
oliwarner 8y ago
> The whole point of the "sharing economy" is to ... Rebrand existing services with unregulated, zero-hours contractors, using their own unregulated assets, with a layer of brokering software. It's marketing wank, for both consumers and workers.

Torgo 8y ago

"Family planning" was always a lie. It was always about illegal acts rebranded. Illegal birth control. Illegal abortions. etc