5 ms·

God forbid a service provider be able to decide for themselves what services they actually want to sell.

SHOwnsYou 16y ago
This is absolutely ridiculous. Cab drivers are free to pursue any other career path if they so choose and are made aware of the rules before they get behind the wheel. They are implicitly agreeing to the laws governing Yellow Cabs by driving one. What you're suggesting would be like if I told my boss I wasn't programming today and if he wanted any work out of me that he better come up with something else.
- mynameishere 16y ago
  Err, no. It would be like XYZ random client coming to your boss and saying, "I want a website that does FOO. I'm paying your standard fee, and if you don't build it, I'm filing a complaint with the government." Also, FOO might just be something that statistically increases the chance of your boss getting robbed/murdered.
  - cma 16y ago
    This would be after your boss took a job that legally required him to perform FOO upon request.
  - SHOwnsYou 16y ago
    If your boss is required by law to provide FOO upon payment of the standard fee, then our examples are the same. Cab drivers aren't blind sided by the potential pitfalls of their job. They know the hazards when they start. To suggest anything else is not only ridiculous, but it undermines the judgment of cab drivers.
    - mikerhoads 16y ago
      I'm questioning the existence of the law not the judgment of the taxi drivers. I'm also questioning why hackers would report people under this law in the transportation industry when an analogous law in their own industry would be rebelled against and circumvented almost immediately.
      - SHOwnsYou 16y ago
        If there were similar laws in my industry then I wouldn't have sympathy for myself. I knew the risks of my industry before I started the job. I made a decision to take it based on my salary/benefits vs the potential hazards. Cab drivers do the same. The law is in place to prevent people from being exploited by cab drivers. If my industry likewise needed further anti-exploitation rules, I wouldn't be opposed to them. But not only that, as fun as it is to debate the merits or pitfalls of laws regarding yellow cab drivers in NYC, at some point it is important to recognize that the laws are a certain way and until they are changed or made "blue", they are the system that we have to work within.
        mikerhoads 16y ago
        Your last sentence confuses me. The way to change them is to first debate their merits and pitfalls. Your entire case seems to be "The law is the way that it is and thats final, anyone who doesn't like it just shouldn't be a cab driver". My argument is that "this system is inefficient and does more harm for the majority of consumers and cab drivers while benefitting the larger cab companies that can work their way towards a monopoly or oligopoly easily so we should act, as consumers, to reform it (or at the very least jeer it)". If there is a similar law in your industry you'd just give up? Your argument of knowing the risk beforehand is irrelevant. I'm not a cab driver nor do I want to be, I'm just pointing out that this system is ill conceived and as most of us our entrepreneurs, aspiring entrepreneurs or just problem solvers in general I am surprised that this sort of scheme of creating an artificially high barrier of entry, price fixing and regulation has received such a positive response.
        SHOwnsYou 16y ago
- mikerhoads 16y ago
  That is not an equal comparison. Your boss either owns the company you work for or was hired by the person/group that owns the company to tell you what to do. New York City does not own the taxi cab/service. A better example would be your local government creating a system that requires you to pay $100,000+ for a medallion just for the right to create code in your city and then forcing you to accommodate any potential client's request for software.
  - SHOwnsYou 16y ago
    NYC might not own the yellow cabs, but they certainly dictate some of the rules governing them. The are extended that ability in exchange for the working agreement between the government of NYC and the yellow cabs. It is the exact same as "your boss... was hired by the person that owns the company to tell you what to do."
    - mikerhoads 16y ago
      Of course they can make rules, but the rules they did make have simultaneously driven up cab fare and made the jobs much worse for the drivers/operators. What I am saying is that these rules are not well thought out rules.
      - roberts_vc 16y ago
        I disagree. Being required to take you almost anywhere you ask, most likely arose because of racial discrimination. That's perfectly well thought out. The cabbies or cab companies are allowed by the city to operate, and that's a nearly steady stream of money, based on a limited number of medallions. The least the public can expect, is that any authorized cab will take them to where they want to go. And yeah, I avoid the black car "limos" whenever possible. They're like vermin way-uptown (way, way too many of 'em), and they charge whatever they feel like charging. Always negotiate that fee before you get in. I don't feel sorry for cabbies. It's not much more of a job than a shoe-shine boy with a driver's license, and some of these guys still shouldn't be behind the wheel. It's also better, as a customer, once you learn the map yourself. I've had these guys deliberately take congested or longer, round-about routes, to jack up the price. Once you know the map yourself, you can sometimes insist on a certain route, within reason. Tons of NYC cabbies were also recently busted leaving some kind of "outer borough surcharge" feature engaged on the meter, within Manhattan where it doesn't apply. Tell me how all the money they raked in over the years doing this, could ever be returned to the customers? It's an adversarial relationship, IMO. I don't trust a single one of 'em, as far as I could throw his non-English-speaking, sweat-stinking a. To generalize.
- mdda 16y ago
  Even though the cab drivers are 'free agents', the economics of the business are pretty harsh (due to the city limiting the number of yellow cabs) : http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-08-05-taxi-cab-new-york-city-medallions_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-08-05-t... I believe (maybe incorrectly) that an individual driver pays (>$100) to take a taxi out on a shift. 12 hours later, when they return the cab, it's a pure win/lose situation. The drivers themselves don't feel like the city is subsidizing them at all. Whereas the rules are put here by the city to create the public good of reliable, non-discriminatory transport everywhere, the drivers actively pay for the fact that the city is creating artificial shortage of cabs...
greenyoda 16y ago
NYC grants yellow taxicabs a monopoly (they're the only vehicles allowed to pick you up when you hail them on the street) and regulates the number of licensed cabs, which creates an artificial shortage of taxis. In return for these pleasant market conditions, the taxis have to play by the rules.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Cab drivers are free to pursue any other career path if they so choose and are made aware of the rules before they get behind the wheel. They are implicitly agreeing to the laws governing Yellow Cabs by driving one. What you're suggesting would be like if I told my boss I wasn't programming today and if he wanted any work out of me that he better come up with something else.

mynameishere 16y ago
Err, no. It would be like XYZ random client coming to your boss and saying, "I want a website that does FOO. I'm paying your standard fee, and if you don't build it, I'm filing a complaint with the government." Also, FOO might just be something that statistically increases the chance of your boss getting robbed/murdered.
- cma 16y ago
  This would be after your boss took a job that legally required him to perform FOO upon request.
- SHOwnsYou 16y ago
  If your boss is required by law to provide FOO upon payment of the standard fee, then our examples are the same. Cab drivers aren't blind sided by the potential pitfalls of their job. They know the hazards when they start. To suggest anything else is not only ridiculous, but it undermines the judgment of cab drivers.
  - mikerhoads 16y ago
    I'm questioning the existence of the law not the judgment of the taxi drivers. I'm also questioning why hackers would report people under this law in the transportation industry when an analogous law in their own industry would be rebelled against and circumvented almost immediately.
    - SHOwnsYou 16y ago
      If there were similar laws in my industry then I wouldn't have sympathy for myself. I knew the risks of my industry before I started the job. I made a decision to take it based on my salary/benefits vs the potential hazards. Cab drivers do the same. The law is in place to prevent people from being exploited by cab drivers. If my industry likewise needed further anti-exploitation rules, I wouldn't be opposed to them. But not only that, as fun as it is to debate the merits or pitfalls of laws regarding yellow cab drivers in NYC, at some point it is important to recognize that the laws are a certain way and until they are changed or made "blue", they are the system that we have to work within.
      - mikerhoads 16y ago
        Your last sentence confuses me. The way to change them is to first debate their merits and pitfalls. Your entire case seems to be "The law is the way that it is and thats final, anyone who doesn't like it just shouldn't be a cab driver". My argument is that "this system is inefficient and does more harm for the majority of consumers and cab drivers while benefitting the larger cab companies that can work their way towards a monopoly or oligopoly easily so we should act, as consumers, to reform it (or at the very least jeer it)". If there is a similar law in your industry you'd just give up? Your argument of knowing the risk beforehand is irrelevant. I'm not a cab driver nor do I want to be, I'm just pointing out that this system is ill conceived and as most of us our entrepreneurs, aspiring entrepreneurs or just problem solvers in general I am surprised that this sort of scheme of creating an artificially high barrier of entry, price fixing and regulation has received such a positive response.
        SHOwnsYou 16y ago
mikerhoads 16y ago
That is not an equal comparison. Your boss either owns the company you work for or was hired by the person/group that owns the company to tell you what to do. New York City does not own the taxi cab/service. A better example would be your local government creating a system that requires you to pay $100,000+ for a medallion just for the right to create code in your city and then forcing you to accommodate any potential client's request for software.
- SHOwnsYou 16y ago
  NYC might not own the yellow cabs, but they certainly dictate some of the rules governing them. The are extended that ability in exchange for the working agreement between the government of NYC and the yellow cabs. It is the exact same as "your boss... was hired by the person that owns the company to tell you what to do."
  - mikerhoads 16y ago
    Of course they can make rules, but the rules they did make have simultaneously driven up cab fare and made the jobs much worse for the drivers/operators. What I am saying is that these rules are not well thought out rules.
    - roberts_vc 16y ago
      I disagree. Being required to take you almost anywhere you ask, most likely arose because of racial discrimination. That's perfectly well thought out. The cabbies or cab companies are allowed by the city to operate, and that's a nearly steady stream of money, based on a limited number of medallions. The least the public can expect, is that any authorized cab will take them to where they want to go. And yeah, I avoid the black car "limos" whenever possible. They're like vermin way-uptown (way, way too many of 'em), and they charge whatever they feel like charging. Always negotiate that fee before you get in. I don't feel sorry for cabbies. It's not much more of a job than a shoe-shine boy with a driver's license, and some of these guys still shouldn't be behind the wheel. It's also better, as a customer, once you learn the map yourself. I've had these guys deliberately take congested or longer, round-about routes, to jack up the price. Once you know the map yourself, you can sometimes insist on a certain route, within reason. Tons of NYC cabbies were also recently busted leaving some kind of "outer borough surcharge" feature engaged on the meter, within Manhattan where it doesn't apply. Tell me how all the money they raked in over the years doing this, could ever be returned to the customers? It's an adversarial relationship, IMO. I don't trust a single one of 'em, as far as I could throw his non-English-speaking, sweat-stinking a. To generalize.
mdda 16y ago
Even though the cab drivers are 'free agents', the economics of the business are pretty harsh (due to the city limiting the number of yellow cabs) : http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-08-05-taxi-cab-new-york-city-medallions_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-08-05-t... I believe (maybe incorrectly) that an individual driver pays (>$100) to take a taxi out on a shift. 12 hours later, when they return the cab, it's a pure win/lose situation. The drivers themselves don't feel like the city is subsidizing them at all. Whereas the rules are put here by the city to create the public good of reliable, non-discriminatory transport everywhere, the drivers actively pay for the fact that the city is creating artificial shortage of cabs...

greenyoda 16y ago

NYC grants yellow taxicabs a monopoly (they're the only vehicles allowed to pick you up when you hail them on the street) and regulates the number of licensed cabs, which creates an artificial shortage of taxis. In return for these pleasant market conditions, the taxis have to play by the rules.