4 ms·

Might make sense to invoke Chesterton’s fence a little here. The reason those rules came into effect was that there was a boom and crash tendency, so there woul

by CPLX 7y ago

Might make sense to invoke Chesterton’s fence a little here. The reason those rules came into effect was that there was a boom and crash tendency, so there would be way way too many taxis, nobody would make a living as a result, then they’d all go out of business and there would be too few.

DennisP 7y ago
Then it seems that would be a problem today, now that we also have Uber and Lyft. But really, I don't see what's unique about the taxi market as opposed to any other market, where we don't put a limit on supply and things work out just fine.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Roads are a public resources and have limits, otherwise you'll end up with a situation where the road is dominated exclusively by private business.
  - saimiam 7y ago
    This is exactly what’s happening in cities across the world including suburban Mumbai, where I live. Ride shares like Uber and Ola, a myriad delivery services, and privately owned rickshaws are choking the city. We’ve basically handed the city roads over to last mile logistics and ride share companies to the extent that one can’t safely drive in the city because everyone else on the road has a delivery/pickup deadline to meet. It has gotten to point when I get calls from people I barely know asking me to teach them how to drive so that they can work for Ola/Uber/Last mile logistics. Eventually, we’re all going to become shut ins because the alternative is to risk life and limb trying to share the road with people who are trying to play chicken with each other just to get somewhere a minute earlier.
- CPLX 7y ago
  It is a problem today. Evidence suggests that the market clearing price for taxi services is below the subsistence level for the people doing it, and above a tolerable level of cars and congestion. Your basic premise is also unsound. Markets produce failures and unstable situations constantly, and the government steps in to address what would otherwise be a market failure. We license hairdressers and financial planners, we inspect airplanes and meat, and a million other things. In nearly every case it’s for the same reason we regulate taxis, which is that we tried not regulating it and were unhappy with the outcomes.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    > We license hairdressers I'm broadly in favor of more regulation, as a way to protect consumers. However, this is absolutely not the example I'd choose. Hairdressing licenses (and a lot of similar laws) are overwhelmingly bad regulations which exists to protect a minority of incumbents. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      There are a few health code issues too. We too easily forget those days when it was possible to pick up disease when getting a haircut. That has never been much of a thing for cabs.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      There's a need to be properly trained for hair cutting, styling, coloring/dye jobs, perms, etc. These are skilled professions that apply potentially harmful chemicals to people heads, with hygiene issues involved. And the licensing requirement is really not onerous as it's nearly automatic upon passing the requisite curriculum. A 1-year program in the area typically costs between $8000 to $10000 with many students eligible for financial aid grants or subsidized loans. None of this is particularly onerous considering you can easily finish with a job paying ~$35000 a year to start and $50,000 with some experience, much more if you're really good at it and develop a loyal clientele or find a higher end salon to employ you or open your own business. There aren't state quotas on how many people can go through these programs, they aren't otherwise limited, and I'm not aware of any type of incumbency pressure exerted to increase requirements and raise the bar beyond these reasonable levels.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      That's just people repeating Milton Friedman's blathering about things he knows nothing about. You don't want licensing and regulation of hair dressers? Enjoy your Hepatitis.
  - dTal 7y ago
- dbt00 7y ago
  Welcome to the boom half of a boom and bust cycle. It’s lasting longer because the amount of capital invested in subsidizing Uber/Lyft but it’s still going to turn eventually.

by CPLX 7y ago

DennisP 7y ago

Then it seems that would be a problem today, now that we also have Uber and Lyft. But really, I don't see what's unique about the taxi market as opposed to any other market, where we don't put a limit on supply and things work out just fine.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Roads are a public resources and have limits, otherwise you'll end up with a situation where the road is dominated exclusively by private business.
- saimiam 7y ago
  This is exactly what’s happening in cities across the world including suburban Mumbai, where I live. Ride shares like Uber and Ola, a myriad delivery services, and privately owned rickshaws are choking the city. We’ve basically handed the city roads over to last mile logistics and ride share companies to the extent that one can’t safely drive in the city because everyone else on the road has a delivery/pickup deadline to meet. It has gotten to point when I get calls from people I barely know asking me to teach them how to drive so that they can work for Ola/Uber/Last mile logistics. Eventually, we’re all going to become shut ins because the alternative is to risk life and limb trying to share the road with people who are trying to play chicken with each other just to get somewhere a minute earlier.
CPLX 7y ago
It is a problem today. Evidence suggests that the market clearing price for taxi services is below the subsistence level for the people doing it, and above a tolerable level of cars and congestion. Your basic premise is also unsound. Markets produce failures and unstable situations constantly, and the government steps in to address what would otherwise be a market failure. We license hairdressers and financial planners, we inspect airplanes and meat, and a million other things. In nearly every case it’s for the same reason we regulate taxis, which is that we tried not regulating it and were unhappy with the outcomes.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  > We license hairdressers I'm broadly in favor of more regulation, as a way to protect consumers. However, this is absolutely not the example I'd choose. Hairdressing licenses (and a lot of similar laws) are overwhelmingly bad regulations which exists to protect a minority of incumbents. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/epis...
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    There are a few health code issues too. We too easily forget those days when it was possible to pick up disease when getting a haircut. That has never been much of a thing for cabs.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    There's a need to be properly trained for hair cutting, styling, coloring/dye jobs, perms, etc. These are skilled professions that apply potentially harmful chemicals to people heads, with hygiene issues involved. And the licensing requirement is really not onerous as it's nearly automatic upon passing the requisite curriculum. A 1-year program in the area typically costs between $8000 to $10000 with many students eligible for financial aid grants or subsidized loans. None of this is particularly onerous considering you can easily finish with a job paying ~$35000 a year to start and $50,000 with some experience, much more if you're really good at it and develop a loyal clientele or find a higher end salon to employ you or open your own business. There aren't state quotas on how many people can go through these programs, they aren't otherwise limited, and I'm not aware of any type of incumbency pressure exerted to increase requirements and raise the bar beyond these reasonable levels.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    That's just people repeating Milton Friedman's blathering about things he knows nothing about. You don't want licensing and regulation of hair dressers? Enjoy your Hepatitis.
- dTal 7y ago
dbt00 7y ago
Welcome to the boom half of a boom and bust cycle. It’s lasting longer because the amount of capital invested in subsidizing Uber/Lyft but it’s still going to turn eventually.