4 ms·

> “There would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive.” This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi co

> “There would be no taxis for the disabled because the costs would be prohibitive.” This is 100% false because I know for a fact if there was no other taxi company providing services to the disabled I would start my own company for the disabled today.

jedberg 5y ago
No you wouldn't. You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile. There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.
- GaryTang 5y ago
  > ”You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.” How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.
    - GaryTang 5y ago
      What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model. To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people. You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people. And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
  - uoaei 5y ago
    This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious. It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause". It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases". And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  And don't forget that you'd wind up having to charge more than the other transport companies in the area, because your costs are higher. And then you'd wind up getting sued, because you're charging disabled customers more than your competitors are charging other people (and people love to sue over stuff like this, even if the result is "oh well, now you get NOTHING").

jedberg 5y ago

No you wouldn't. You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile. There is a reason the ADA exists. Because before then, everyone assumed businesses would cater to disabled people because they wouldn't want to lose out on the business. But it turns out they are such a small market, it doesn't affect their bottom line.

GaryTang 5y ago
> ”You would quickly find that the market is too small to be worthwhile.” How many markets will be too small to be worthwhile after prices increase? I would wager it would be more than the contrary
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Why do you think prices will increase so much? There's a limit to how much people can pay for a service, even if they fundamentally need it. And I'd wager that in aggregate, people with disabilities are more financially limited than people without.
  - GaryTang 5y ago
    What comes to mind is the fact that the prevalence of adults with a disability in the United States is significantly higher in rural areas compared to large metropolitan areas and those rural areas are already underserved by commuting options given the current model. To your point that they are more financially limited — that is the reason why disability benefits exist.
- jedberg 5y ago
  Probably a lot. And they won't be served anymore. All the more reason the government has to mandate serving disabled people. You're arguing that the free market will serve disabled people. That's been tried many times, and it never works out. That's why the government mandates serving disabled people. And let's not even talk about the ethics of suggesting that disabled people get charged more just for being disabled, something they don't have control over.
- uoaei 5y ago
  This kind of fallacious reasoning is very pernicious. It assumes very simple cause-effect relationships by default. See "fallacy of the single cause". It cannot be countered except by elaborating on the complexities of this particular example. Which are then promptly dismissed out of hand because they are "special cases". And as a result, the person using this rationale never learns their lesson that, actually, the world is much more complicated than that, and this kind of simple 1-2-3 doesn't fit with basically anything except those processes which are determined primarily by averages.
RHSeeger 5y ago
And don't forget that you'd wind up having to charge more than the other transport companies in the area, because your costs are higher. And then you'd wind up getting sued, because you're charging disabled customers more than your competitors are charging other people (and people love to sue over stuff like this, even if the result is "oh well, now you get NOTHING").