3 ms·

The barrier to entry for a taxi service, in a sensible jurisdiction, is very low - put a sign on your car and start driving people around. Uber and Lyft became

The barrier to entry for a taxi service, in a sensible jurisdiction, is very low - put a sign on your car and start driving people around. Uber and Lyft became so popular precisely because there are so many insensibly-regulated jurisdictions that made even this start-your-own-taxi-service illegal in order to create artificial scarcity. Highly-regulated medallion taxi services suck - both independent taxis as well as Uber are a threat to them because they're comprehensively better for customers. You literally have to legislate good service away for medallion taxis to work. And that's exactly what AB5 was.

jrowley 6y ago
And I’d argue the barrier to entry for taxi businesses should be higher. More cars on the road doesn’t help the environment, or speed up anyone’s commute. Allowing Uber to circumvent this is moving our state in the wrong direction. And uber’s experience while better in some ways, is only better at the cost of the environment, and workers rights. If we don’t allow artificial scarcity/restrictions on number of cars on the road, maybe we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels too.
- CountSessine 6y ago
  How on earth does that address climate change? Get rid of ride share and encourage personal car ownership? The fundamental problem is that gas is cheap and no one is forced to pay for the externalities - not those shitty medallion taxis, not rideshare, not personal car owners - no one. Another fundamental problem is that people need to get around and personal cars are more attractive than public transit. Impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax and you’ll address the externalities by encouraging more carbon efficient travel. Medallion taxis are a solution to exactly nothing. AB5 has nothing to do with climate change. It’s grubby cartel-building disguised as labour-championing policy.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  When there were higher barriers to entry, with the medallion system, it was awful. How to balance the two?

jrowley 6y ago

And I’d argue the barrier to entry for taxi businesses should be higher. More cars on the road doesn’t help the environment, or speed up anyone’s commute. Allowing Uber to circumvent this is moving our state in the wrong direction. And uber’s experience while better in some ways, is only better at the cost of the environment, and workers rights. If we don’t allow artificial scarcity/restrictions on number of cars on the road, maybe we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels too.

CountSessine 6y ago
How on earth does that address climate change? Get rid of ride share and encourage personal car ownership? The fundamental problem is that gas is cheap and no one is forced to pay for the externalities - not those shitty medallion taxis, not rideshare, not personal car owners - no one. Another fundamental problem is that people need to get around and personal cars are more attractive than public transit. Impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax and you’ll address the externalities by encouraging more carbon efficient travel. Medallion taxis are a solution to exactly nothing. AB5 has nothing to do with climate change. It’s grubby cartel-building disguised as labour-championing policy.
edmundsauto 6y ago
When there were higher barriers to entry, with the medallion system, it was awful. How to balance the two?