6 ms·

Here in San Francisco, some of the "old money" people control a large chunk of the medallions. The whole process is very opaque. Drivers usually rent the taxis

by ajays 15y ago

Here in San Francisco, some of the "old money" people control a large chunk of the medallions. The whole process is very opaque. Drivers usually rent the taxis from these owners; typically, it's $100 for an 8-hour shift, double that for weekends. Sometimes I think about what would be a fairer scheme than locking away a medallion for life? One possibility would be to have 5-year Dutch auctions of medallions. This way the City keeps getting value out of the medallions, and can increase the supply as the population grows.

anamax 15y ago
> This way the City keeps getting value out of the medallions, and can increase the supply as the population grows. How dare you suggest that we increase the number of cabs? Cabbies don't make a "living wage" as it is, so the number must be restricted. (That's how the political campaign to defeat such measures works.)
uvdiv 15y ago
"One possibility would be to have 5-year Dutch auctions of medallions." Or you could stop pretending the government can legitimately criminalize a harmless business activity at the behest of a rent-seeking cartel. Money is not obscene. Driving a customer from A to B in exchange for payment is not a crime.
- buyx 15y ago
  Or you could stop pretending the government can legitimately criminalize a harmless business activity at the behest of a rent-seeking cartel. I agree with you, to some extent. However, some level of regulation is necessary, otherwise "harmless" can quickly become "harmful". The case of South Africa is instructive. In South Africa, the Apartheid government entirely deregulated the minibus taxi industry in the late 1980's. It was to be a cheap source of transport for the black population, since public transport links, particularly in newly established "white flight" areas were very poor (whites tended to have cars, blacks didn't). Also the idea was that individual taxi owner/drivers would help foster black entrepreneurship. The best description of what happened next I've read is "the miracle of the 1980's turned into the nightmare of the 1990's". Instead of one-man one taxi, we got one owner, with many taxis. Taxi owners formed cartels, and violence in competition for routes led to murderous street warfare ("taxi wars"). The weakened state (1990-1996) was unable to intervene. Starting with the Mandela administration, attempts were made to re-regulate taxi operations, but were consistently stymied by the taxi organisations. Even as recently as the last 2 years, taxi owners, through road blockades (and a fatal shooting) managed to strong-arm the government into giving them control of a new Johannesburg bus system. In any town and city in South Africa, overloaded, barely roadworthy taxis blast through intersections disregarding traffic rules, stopping dangerously, their drivers desperate to increase their takings, menacing their own passengers and other motorists with their aggression. Fatalities are not uncommon.
  - uvdiv 15y ago
    It goes without saying that every policy is contingent on a functioning government capable of protecting its residents from violence. You'd hardly expect the United States to have the same problems as violence-ridden South Africa, regardless of policy. That said, I don't understand your reasoning. You claim that free-enterprise taxis are responsible for violence in SA. But if that government, according to your account, can't even maintain basic road safety, how could they possibly enforce a taxi monopoly? If they tried to set one up, they'd simply create a black market of cabs, which they'd have no control over. If anything that should be worse; "illegal" cabs would evade police and would not undergo whatever licensing/safety checks ordinary cabs get. (On a tangent, a state-enforced cartel is quite analogous to the dystopia you describe. Instead of private businesses using mob violence to "defend" "their" turf, the police enforces it for them. Same crime, only institutionalized, sanitized, and socially acceptable.)
    - buyx 15y ago
      Yes, they lost control of road traffic enforcement as well, but not to the extent that they lost control of the taxi industry. Having some form of regulation would have kept the taxi operators busy evading the state rather than acting with criminal impunity (maybe even behaving better to not arouse suspicion), a better result than what actually happened. And the state is stronger now than it was in the past, but the legacy of deregulation lives on - getting the genie back into the bottle is harder than letting it out. Same crime, only institutionalized, sanitized, and socially acceptable. "Sanitized and socially acceptable"...sounds good to me.
- ajays 15y ago
  I generally agree with you; but you do need some controls, otherwise SF would be overrun with such drivers. The capacity of the streets is limited, you know. The idea in general is to have more people using public transportation, as it is healthier and better for the environment. But: given the fact that we _do_ have some sort of a licensing scheme (medallions), it would be better to have short-term leases, than lock away a medallion in the pocket of some well-connected dude who makes a killing renting it out.
  - uvdiv 15y ago
    "but you do need some controls, otherwise SF would be overrun with such drivers." That's a pretty laughable scare-story if you think about it. Streets literally clogged with taxis? They'd be out of business long before that. Price controls do not work. There is no legitimacy for central planning in business activities, least of all in a nominally "free" country. "The idea in general is to have more people using public transportation, as it is healthier and better for the environment." No it's not. If it were, they would be criminalizing personal cars just like taxis. They're not. It's purely about enforcing a lucrative cartel. (Not replying to the implicit suggestion that government should criminalize any sort of transport for "environmental reasons". I used to think that was a right-wing strawman...) "But: given the fact that we _do_ have some sort of a licensing scheme (medallions)," Medallions aren't licensing, they are cartel enforcement. They are about maintaining a price-controlled, quota'd monopoly for a politically-connected union class -- as opposed to inspecting, training, and certifying drivers and taxi cars for safety. They are orthogonal concepts.
    - ajays 15y ago
      I have spoken to a few cab drivers. They would love to drive their own cabs in the City, but don't have the license (i.e. medallion) to do it. What is to stop them from buying rickety old smog-producing cars and clogging up the city streets? And the glut of cabs will cause a downward spiral in quality of service. Why maintain a clean cab when it cuts into the profits, and your competitor is not doing so? "Medallions aren't licensing, they are cartel enforcement. They are about maintaining a price-controlled, quota'd monopoly for a politically-connected union class -- as opposed to inspecting, training, and certifying drivers and taxi cars for safety. They are orthogonal concepts." But your cousin can come and make the same argument you are making about inspecting/training/certifying drivers: that it is to maintain a 'cartel' and deny access to other drivers. Who will do this inspecting, etc.? The same government that you are scoffing at?

by ajays 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> This way the City keeps getting value out of the medallions, and can increase the supply as the population grows. How dare you suggest that we increase the number of cabs? Cabbies don't make a "living wage" as it is, so the number must be restricted. (That's how the political campaign to defeat such measures works.)

uvdiv 15y ago

"One possibility would be to have 5-year Dutch auctions of medallions." Or you could stop pretending the government can legitimately criminalize a harmless business activity at the behest of a rent-seeking cartel. Money is not obscene. Driving a customer from A to B in exchange for payment is not a crime.

buyx 15y ago
Or you could stop pretending the government can legitimately criminalize a harmless business activity at the behest of a rent-seeking cartel. I agree with you, to some extent. However, some level of regulation is necessary, otherwise "harmless" can quickly become "harmful". The case of South Africa is instructive. In South Africa, the Apartheid government entirely deregulated the minibus taxi industry in the late 1980's. It was to be a cheap source of transport for the black population, since public transport links, particularly in newly established "white flight" areas were very poor (whites tended to have cars, blacks didn't). Also the idea was that individual taxi owner/drivers would help foster black entrepreneurship. The best description of what happened next I've read is "the miracle of the 1980's turned into the nightmare of the 1990's". Instead of one-man one taxi, we got one owner, with many taxis. Taxi owners formed cartels, and violence in competition for routes led to murderous street warfare ("taxi wars"). The weakened state (1990-1996) was unable to intervene. Starting with the Mandela administration, attempts were made to re-regulate taxi operations, but were consistently stymied by the taxi organisations. Even as recently as the last 2 years, taxi owners, through road blockades (and a fatal shooting) managed to strong-arm the government into giving them control of a new Johannesburg bus system. In any town and city in South Africa, overloaded, barely roadworthy taxis blast through intersections disregarding traffic rules, stopping dangerously, their drivers desperate to increase their takings, menacing their own passengers and other motorists with their aggression. Fatalities are not uncommon.
- uvdiv 15y ago
  It goes without saying that every policy is contingent on a functioning government capable of protecting its residents from violence. You'd hardly expect the United States to have the same problems as violence-ridden South Africa, regardless of policy. That said, I don't understand your reasoning. You claim that free-enterprise taxis are responsible for violence in SA. But if that government, according to your account, can't even maintain basic road safety, how could they possibly enforce a taxi monopoly? If they tried to set one up, they'd simply create a black market of cabs, which they'd have no control over. If anything that should be worse; "illegal" cabs would evade police and would not undergo whatever licensing/safety checks ordinary cabs get. (On a tangent, a state-enforced cartel is quite analogous to the dystopia you describe. Instead of private businesses using mob violence to "defend" "their" turf, the police enforces it for them. Same crime, only institutionalized, sanitized, and socially acceptable.)
  - buyx 15y ago
    Yes, they lost control of road traffic enforcement as well, but not to the extent that they lost control of the taxi industry. Having some form of regulation would have kept the taxi operators busy evading the state rather than acting with criminal impunity (maybe even behaving better to not arouse suspicion), a better result than what actually happened. And the state is stronger now than it was in the past, but the legacy of deregulation lives on - getting the genie back into the bottle is harder than letting it out. Same crime, only institutionalized, sanitized, and socially acceptable. "Sanitized and socially acceptable"...sounds good to me.
ajays 15y ago
I generally agree with you; but you do need some controls, otherwise SF would be overrun with such drivers. The capacity of the streets is limited, you know. The idea in general is to have more people using public transportation, as it is healthier and better for the environment. But: given the fact that we _do_ have some sort of a licensing scheme (medallions), it would be better to have short-term leases, than lock away a medallion in the pocket of some well-connected dude who makes a killing renting it out.
- uvdiv 15y ago
  "but you do need some controls, otherwise SF would be overrun with such drivers." That's a pretty laughable scare-story if you think about it. Streets literally clogged with taxis? They'd be out of business long before that. Price controls do not work. There is no legitimacy for central planning in business activities, least of all in a nominally "free" country. "The idea in general is to have more people using public transportation, as it is healthier and better for the environment." No it's not. If it were, they would be criminalizing personal cars just like taxis. They're not. It's purely about enforcing a lucrative cartel. (Not replying to the implicit suggestion that government should criminalize any sort of transport for "environmental reasons". I used to think that was a right-wing strawman...) "But: given the fact that we _do_ have some sort of a licensing scheme (medallions)," Medallions aren't licensing, they are cartel enforcement. They are about maintaining a price-controlled, quota'd monopoly for a politically-connected union class -- as opposed to inspecting, training, and certifying drivers and taxi cars for safety. They are orthogonal concepts.
  - ajays 15y ago
    I have spoken to a few cab drivers. They would love to drive their own cabs in the City, but don't have the license (i.e. medallion) to do it. What is to stop them from buying rickety old smog-producing cars and clogging up the city streets? And the glut of cabs will cause a downward spiral in quality of service. Why maintain a clean cab when it cuts into the profits, and your competitor is not doing so? "Medallions aren't licensing, they are cartel enforcement. They are about maintaining a price-controlled, quota'd monopoly for a politically-connected union class -- as opposed to inspecting, training, and certifying drivers and taxi cars for safety. They are orthogonal concepts." But your cousin can come and make the same argument you are making about inspecting/training/certifying drivers: that it is to maintain a 'cartel' and deny access to other drivers. Who will do this inspecting, etc.? The same government that you are scoffing at?