5 ms·

Lyft and Uber are favored due to convenience and price. Nothing stops a regulated Uber that pays fair wages from convenience...but the price paid will have to

Lyft and Uber are favored due to convenience and price. Nothing stops a regulated Uber that pays fair wages from convenience...but the price paid will have to become higher to support people. This is like McDonald's paying workers $3 an hour, charging $2 for a value menu meal, and then people saying 'wow, McDonald's has made Burger King obsolete!'. Of course customers will prefer the cheaper service that screws workers and does not pay fairly, but (some) workers will work it because it's their only choice.

umvi 6y ago
Before Uber/Lyft existed, the taxi experience sucked. Uber/Lyft provided: - A way to pre-pay - A way to communicate current location and destination clearly to driver - All from an intuitive app on your phone I'm guessing you never went to NYC, tried in vain to find a taxi when you needed one, then got a taxi driver who barely spoke English, tried to communicate where to go, ended up paying way more than you intended?
- aabhay 6y ago
  I agree, but imagine that this Uber/Lyft experience was not subsidized by VC money. Would you be willing to pay 2x of a typical taxi to get this enhanced experience? Probably most people would stick with the street taxi in that case...
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > subsidized by VC money Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?
    - LunaSea 6y ago
      How long do you think that this will stay like this? After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.
      - smsm42 6y ago
        > How long do you think that this will stay like this? If I knew how to answer questions like that, you'd see me on TV giving interviews about my trillion-dollar hedge fund. > After competition dies out prices will skyrocket. I have yet to see a single scenario where this actually happened without being a product of government-granted monopoly (e.g. patents in pharma). But if Uber is going to charge me 3x for the same ride (just as taxis do now) I'll stop using them (just as I stopped using taxis). In the meantime, I've been saving money for a decade. I think it's a good deal.
    - paulmd 6y ago
      Well, yes, typically subsidizing goods/services below the cost of production (or below the market-determined "fair value") is considered anticompetitive because it drives the fair competitors out of the market (as without the subsidies they can't compete) and then once achieve monopoly control of the market, the subsidies stop and the quality of service plummets and/or the price skyrockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
      - smsm42 6y ago
        Except the prices didn't skyrocket and the quality of service didn't plummet for the last 10 years. I think if VCs are willing to give me 10 years of cheap quality rides, I'm in.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    It would never be more expensive. And price is not the main factor (it already gets expensive quickly), the service and user experience is why people pick Uber.
    - davidcbc 6y ago
      Then it should be no problem for Uber to up their fares so they can hire drivers as employees
      - manigandham 6y ago
        As stated, the service and user experience would change. That means less riders. That means even less drivers. It doesn’t work the same.
- qppo 6y ago
  Anyone remember calling a taxi dispatch over and over? I used to have to call both taxi dispatches in my area (there were only two!) just to guarantee I'd have a cab get me to the airport in time. And you had to pay cash. I think we can all agree that taxis sucked before Uber/Lyft forced them to update. But that doesn't mean we can't have a better taxi experience using the tech stack Uber/Lyft created.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  This is true, but a better comparison would be to the current taxi market. As much I dislike the realities of the medallions, it's important to acknowledge that taxis have generally upped their game too.
- asah 6y ago
  All of this exists in the Curb app, which btw is competing just fine in NYC.

umvi 6y ago

Before Uber/Lyft existed, the taxi experience sucked. Uber/Lyft provided: - A way to pre-pay - A way to communicate current location and destination clearly to driver - All from an intuitive app on your phone I'm guessing you never went to NYC, tried in vain to find a taxi when you needed one, then got a taxi driver who barely spoke English, tried to communicate where to go, ended up paying way more than you intended?

aabhay 6y ago
I agree, but imagine that this Uber/Lyft experience was not subsidized by VC money. Would you be willing to pay 2x of a typical taxi to get this enhanced experience? Probably most people would stick with the street taxi in that case...
- smsm42 6y ago
  > subsidized by VC money Wait, so I get a comfortable ride, I get it fast, I get it cheap, somebody else pays for the majority of it, that somebody else has tons of their own money, not coming from my taxes, which they spend willingly on giving me a good cheap ride - and somehow this is a bad thing?
  - LunaSea 6y ago
    How long do you think that this will stay like this? After competition dies out prices will skyrocket.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > How long do you think that this will stay like this? If I knew how to answer questions like that, you'd see me on TV giving interviews about my trillion-dollar hedge fund. > After competition dies out prices will skyrocket. I have yet to see a single scenario where this actually happened without being a product of government-granted monopoly (e.g. patents in pharma). But if Uber is going to charge me 3x for the same ride (just as taxis do now) I'll stop using them (just as I stopped using taxis). In the meantime, I've been saving money for a decade. I think it's a good deal.
  - paulmd 6y ago
    Well, yes, typically subsidizing goods/services below the cost of production (or below the market-determined "fair value") is considered anticompetitive because it drives the fair competitors out of the market (as without the subsidies they can't compete) and then once achieve monopoly control of the market, the subsidies stop and the quality of service plummets and/or the price skyrockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
    - smsm42 6y ago
      Except the prices didn't skyrocket and the quality of service didn't plummet for the last 10 years. I think if VCs are willing to give me 10 years of cheap quality rides, I'm in.
- manigandham 6y ago
  It would never be more expensive. And price is not the main factor (it already gets expensive quickly), the service and user experience is why people pick Uber.
  - davidcbc 6y ago
    Then it should be no problem for Uber to up their fares so they can hire drivers as employees
    - manigandham 6y ago
      As stated, the service and user experience would change. That means less riders. That means even less drivers. It doesn’t work the same.
qppo 6y ago
Anyone remember calling a taxi dispatch over and over? I used to have to call both taxi dispatches in my area (there were only two!) just to guarantee I'd have a cab get me to the airport in time. And you had to pay cash. I think we can all agree that taxis sucked before Uber/Lyft forced them to update. But that doesn't mean we can't have a better taxi experience using the tech stack Uber/Lyft created.
edmundsauto 6y ago
This is true, but a better comparison would be to the current taxi market. As much I dislike the realities of the medallions, it's important to acknowledge that taxis have generally upped their game too.
asah 6y ago
All of this exists in the Curb app, which btw is competing just fine in NYC.