3 ms·

No they don't. Taxi drivers are exploited end-to-end. There's a reason why the medallions eclipsed a million dollars in price. The drivers have to lease their c

No they don't. Taxi drivers are exploited end-to-end. There's a reason why the medallions eclipsed a million dollars in price. The drivers have to lease their cars on a daily basis, and start at around $160 leasing fee in the hole. They're driving for many hours before they start making any money at all. That's not "power and control", that's getting totally screwed. And every Uber or Lyft driver who has ever driven taxis before will tell you that.

dudus 6y ago
Just because taxi drivers were exploited it doesn't mean Uber drivers aren't. They are exploited in different ways.
whyenot 6y ago
I don't know about other major cities in California, but in San Francisco, taxi medallions were free until Gavin Newsom decided to "monetize" them in 2010. After that the city sold them for $250,000 each while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them. When Uber and Lyft arrived, their drivers didn't need medallions and there were no limits on how many drivers either company could have on the street. The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  They were "free", but they've always been supplied lower than demand (that is, the number of permits grew slower than the population's need for taxis did), an arrangement that worked well for cab drivers since it allowed less competition, and a profitable secondary market for the medallions. Lyft/Uber/etc gutted that demand. Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that.
  - thereisnospork 6y ago
    >Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that. I can certainly blame the city for letting the demand exceed the supply. Irrespective of 22 Uber et all was a well deserved comeuppance for the taxi industry.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  >while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them That's better than most predatory lending around these medallions in other cities. >The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed. Unless there was some wording in the medallion law that would prohibit competitors from entering the market or set a buy-back value, I don't think anyone was screwed. Risky assets imply... Risks!
wpietri 6y ago
Have you actually talked to taxi drivers about this? Pre-plague, I've talked with hundreds about their views on their work, and at least dozens about Uber. Were cab companies beloved? Mostly not. Did drivers see themselves as being "totally screwed"? Definitely not. And they almost universally despise Uber. The daily vehicle rental approach in their eyes has advantages. Number one is zero capex. Number two is predictable, controllable opex. Number three is a hard cap on the number of drivers on the road, meaning they have a good idea of the supply/demand balance. Number four is competition; if they didn't like one cab company, they could switch to a variety of others. And number five is regulation: if they were having issues with a cab company, they could take it up with the taxi commission. Contrast this with Uber/Lyft, which is a dupoly with almost no regulation, few constraints, and which has shifted core capex and opex onto drivers, as well as most of the risk. With power and incentive to push driver pay well below sustainability. And of course a history of labor exploitation and the willingness to spent approximately infinite money to lock that exploitation into law.
- zepto 6y ago
  Have you talked to Uber drivers? Did they see themselves as being “totally screwed”? AB5 was written by a union. Not by Uber drivers.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    I have talked with quite a number of former Uber drivers. And I've kept an eye on the declining amount Uber drivers are making, and how Uber has shifted much of their business risk to the working poor. You might consider that an Uber driver is not going to be frank with an Uber customer about how shitty Uber is. Or frank with themselves, honestly.

dudus 6y ago

Just because taxi drivers were exploited it doesn't mean Uber drivers aren't. They are exploited in different ways.

whyenot 6y ago

I don't know about other major cities in California, but in San Francisco, taxi medallions were free until Gavin Newsom decided to "monetize" them in 2010. After that the city sold them for $250,000 each while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them. When Uber and Lyft arrived, their drivers didn't need medallions and there were no limits on how many drivers either company could have on the street. The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed.

lostcolony 6y ago
They were "free", but they've always been supplied lower than demand (that is, the number of permits grew slower than the population's need for taxis did), an arrangement that worked well for cab drivers since it allowed less competition, and a profitable secondary market for the medallions. Lyft/Uber/etc gutted that demand. Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that.
- thereisnospork 6y ago
  >Not saying 'good' or 'bad', just, you can't blame the city for the price of the medallion; it already had a high one due to the demand outstripping the supply. Makes sense that the government would seek to profit when it supplies them, given that. I can certainly blame the city for letting the demand exceed the supply. Irrespective of 22 Uber et all was a well deserved comeuppance for the taxi industry.
908B64B197 6y ago
>while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them That's better than most predatory lending around these medallions in other cities. >The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed. Unless there was some wording in the medallion law that would prohibit competitors from entering the market or set a buy-back value, I don't think anyone was screwed. Risky assets imply... Risks!

wpietri 6y ago

Have you actually talked to taxi drivers about this? Pre-plague, I've talked with hundreds about their views on their work, and at least dozens about Uber. Were cab companies beloved? Mostly not. Did drivers see themselves as being "totally screwed"? Definitely not. And they almost universally despise Uber. The daily vehicle rental approach in their eyes has advantages. Number one is zero capex. Number two is predictable, controllable opex. Number three is a hard cap on the number of drivers on the road, meaning they have a good idea of the supply/demand balance. Number four is competition; if they didn't like one cab company, they could switch to a variety of others. And number five is regulation: if they were having issues with a cab company, they could take it up with the taxi commission. Contrast this with Uber/Lyft, which is a dupoly with almost no regulation, few constraints, and which has shifted core capex and opex onto drivers, as well as most of the risk. With power and incentive to push driver pay well below sustainability. And of course a history of labor exploitation and the willingness to spent approximately infinite money to lock that exploitation into law.

zepto 6y ago
Have you talked to Uber drivers? Did they see themselves as being “totally screwed”? AB5 was written by a union. Not by Uber drivers.
- wpietri 6y ago
  I have talked with quite a number of former Uber drivers. And I've kept an eye on the declining amount Uber drivers are making, and how Uber has shifted much of their business risk to the working poor. You might consider that an Uber driver is not going to be frank with an Uber customer about how shitty Uber is. Or frank with themselves, honestly.