3 ms·
> this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history. This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has t
by dahfizz 5y ago
> this has never been a problem in a major city in recorded history.
This _has_ been the case in major cities around the world before Uber took over. NYC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly. These companies grew large enough to buy up all available labor (this was made easier by the medallion system).
Uber is no different. It _already_ has a dominant market position. Other rideshare companies _already_ share their drivers. The amount of drivers who drive for Lyft only is vanishingly small. If you force all those drivers to choose, they will choose Uber and Lyft will die.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"YC has the yellow cab monopoly. London had the black cab monopoly." Exactly, legislative monopoly - they didn't run out of people with cars willing to drive. You are talking about labour shortage, that's a completely different argument
- vidarh 5y agoThere is no "black cab monopoly". Black cabs are not operated by a single company. It's a number of companies, and a huge number of individual operators, competing with dozens of private hire companies.
- randomswede 5y agoAnd there is not (unlike the medallion system, as I understand it) any specific limit on how many can pass The Knowledge (the test you have to do to become a black cab driver; before that, you can get a taxi license and work for a minicab firm). The reason it's not instant is that it is one of those "requires a substantial investment of time" scenarios. So I don't think painting "London's black cabs" as a monopoly holds water.