4 ms·
It is rational from a self-serving standpoint from the taxist point of reference. The rational is to hurt Uber and consumers and by doing so giving Taxis an adv
by ptmvp 8y ago
It is rational from a self-serving standpoint from the taxist point of reference. The rational is to hurt Uber and consumers and by doing so giving Taxis an advantage (ie, they can now reach you faster than a Uber).
It is a huge loss if you look at it from a societal welfare point of view.
- mulmen 8y agoI think the social welfare math is more complicated than you suggest. The cab driver jobs saved may offset the inconvenience for example. Certainly from a car-hailing-rider perspective the Uber wait is worse but social welfare is much more complex.
- ptmvp 8y agoI agree it is more complicated than what I outlined above, but I do think the aggregate welfare lost from the detriment in service quality of car-hailing multiplied by the number of potential consumers hurt represents a bigger loss than any gain cab-drivers could obtain with this measure. I find the measure exactly the wrong type of regulation, the one that hurts a large segment of society to protect a small group (which had already benefited from a decades-long state imposed monopoly and became stagnant and comformist as a result). As a small disclaimer, I do admit I have a bias against cab-drivers in general, but I do not think it clouds my judgement in this case.
- mulmen 8y agoI agree it is a bad form of regulation. Uber has benefits to consumers but it’s unclear to me what other benefits they offer to society as a whole. The regulatory structures need to catch up but I don’t think Uber as it exists in 2019 is a viable long term solution.
- narag 8y agoThe cab driver jobs saved may offset the inconvenience for example. On the contrary, the measure instantly caused the loss of thousands of jobs.