6 ms·

Yeah, the app was nice, no argument there. The problem is two-fold - one, it harmed economic actors who were not using a PE subsidized model. That means actual

Yeah, the app was nice, no argument there. The problem is two-fold - one, it harmed economic actors who were not using a PE subsidized model. That means actual businesses were lost in exchange for one that basically cannot be profitable without a monopoly on pricing. Second, their below-cost pricing also enticed municipalities to replace public transportation services with ride shares paid for by the muni. Now that the rates are jacked up, those calculations make no sense (which of course, they never did without subsidy). If your city already sold the busses and laid off transit employees, you are SOL. Not a problem in NY or SF, but definitely an issue in towns and small cities. A free bonus one would be the audacity that Uber and Lyft demonstrated in forcing through a California proposition to create a special labor classification in order to keep enabling their less-than-profitable businesses.

bko 4y ago
> it harmed economic actors who were not using a PE subsidized model The only impact on the "economic actors" I noticed was that traditional cabs are now less likely to rip me off knowing I can always call an Uber > Second, their below-cost pricing also enticed municipalities to replace public transportation services with ride shares paid for by the muni The point of public transportation is to help people, not the other way around. Public transportation isn't a good in its own right. Let's be clear that public transportation failed the least well off. Trains and buses run less frequently in poorer neighborhoods and on off peak hours. Uber was a god-send for these people. If a private solution can do a better job than public transportation, be more accountable, be sustainable in terms of profit without the need for public funding, then I say private solution should win
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  > The only impact on the I noticed That's probably more about what you pay attention to than the actual impacts. > If a private solution can do a better job than public transportation I just explained why it didn't - the price point was completely based on private subsidy. I live in an urban area of a major city, and there are times and areas where it takes 30+ minutes to get a ride, including a few months ago when I was maybe 10 minutes from the international airport at a reasonable hour (~10PM). Busses and trains have schedules which are fairly reliable. They run late sometimes, but there is a pretty reasonable guarantee that they will show up. They won't cancel after 10 minutes, the muni is ADA complaint, and will only cost you $2.50 to get within a few blocks of your destination. Yes, buses have a coverage problem in the suburbs, but my suburban relatives (who love ridesharing) have also been complaining about the price and availability the last 12 months, so it doesn't seem like Uber/Lyft are able to fill the last-mile niche reliably at this point anyways.
  - xnx 4y ago
    Public transportation is also heavily based on subsidies. The ticket price only covers a fraction of the cost.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      Public transportation is a service, not a business meant to run a profit. I don’t mind subsidies when the public pays for its own stuff.

bko 4y ago

> it harmed economic actors who were not using a PE subsidized model The only impact on the "economic actors" I noticed was that traditional cabs are now less likely to rip me off knowing I can always call an Uber > Second, their below-cost pricing also enticed municipalities to replace public transportation services with ride shares paid for by the muni The point of public transportation is to help people, not the other way around. Public transportation isn't a good in its own right. Let's be clear that public transportation failed the least well off. Trains and buses run less frequently in poorer neighborhoods and on off peak hours. Uber was a god-send for these people. If a private solution can do a better job than public transportation, be more accountable, be sustainable in terms of profit without the need for public funding, then I say private solution should win

arrosenberg 4y ago
> The only impact on the I noticed That's probably more about what you pay attention to than the actual impacts. > If a private solution can do a better job than public transportation I just explained why it didn't - the price point was completely based on private subsidy. I live in an urban area of a major city, and there are times and areas where it takes 30+ minutes to get a ride, including a few months ago when I was maybe 10 minutes from the international airport at a reasonable hour (~10PM). Busses and trains have schedules which are fairly reliable. They run late sometimes, but there is a pretty reasonable guarantee that they will show up. They won't cancel after 10 minutes, the muni is ADA complaint, and will only cost you $2.50 to get within a few blocks of your destination. Yes, buses have a coverage problem in the suburbs, but my suburban relatives (who love ridesharing) have also been complaining about the price and availability the last 12 months, so it doesn't seem like Uber/Lyft are able to fill the last-mile niche reliably at this point anyways.
- xnx 4y ago
  Public transportation is also heavily based on subsidies. The ticket price only covers a fraction of the cost.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    Public transportation is a service, not a business meant to run a profit. I don’t mind subsidies when the public pays for its own stuff.