As a series of propositional arguments frozen in time, it's a little difficult. As a story it's a little easier. Licenses to drive taxicabs, called Taxi Medall

As a series of propositional arguments frozen in time, it's a little difficult. As a story it's a little easier. Licenses to drive taxicabs, called Taxi Medallions used to limit the number of taxicab drivers below demand. Buying the license to operate was a valid investment choice, for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This ensured secure work, wages and support admin for taxis. It wasn't perfect, it just was what it was. Gig economy apps disrupted this process heavily by soaking up the demand for extra taxi cab services and providing a plug'n'play model for contractors to drive for their taxi service. This was a good deal in the beginning as wages were favourable and lower overheads gave individual drivers a chance to compete with taxicab co's. Medallion prices cratered, meaning a 600k+ medallion had to be bought out by the gov years later a one-sixth the price. Prices and wages dropped on Apps. Apps never stopped signing up drivers, leading to a glut of taxi drivers that exceeded demand. App surge-pricing models meant the best times to drive were the most expensive for the customer and the highest-competition for the glut of drivers. Drivers could not guarantee consistent customers and therefore wages, or growth in wages so they had varying degrees of economic pressure. Some with car rental payments and personal expenses can not break even. Apps do not enforce normal working conditions, so if someone cannot meet financial requirements with an 8hr shift, they are incentivized to hit 12hrs driving, for an average wage. When do you get a new job when you're trapped in a 12hr shift, dead end job with no growth or exit strategy? It's lose-lose. Or maybe lose-break even.