> None of this shows Lyft's business model is broken. In fact it shows it's working splendidly for Lyft. Even if this is true, should this be celebrated even i

> None of this shows Lyft's business model is broken. In fact it shows it's working splendidly for Lyft. Even if this is true, should this be celebrated even it comes at the expense of the > 99% of the population that doesn't work for Lyft as well as the thousands of drivers who are being exploited by their business practices? It is a relatively small minority of citizens who actually rely on these businesses for their day to day lives but their externalities are borne by all. > The idea that taxi dispatchers could be more efficient, or as efficient, is ludicrous. Does nobody remember regularly waiting 30-60 minutes for a taxi from a dispatcher? Even if you're right, this presupposes that it is a net benefit to have easily available taxis. It also seems to suggest that efficiency is best measured by latency between ordering a taxi and being picked up. Taxis are easily the least efficient form of transit. They are even worse than private vehicles because of the deadheading. Then there is the whole induced demand problem where they actually make traffic worse as people with the means opt out of more efficient mass transit so overall transit efficiency suffers even if it is (seemingly) more convenient for many users. > In any case, yes surely Lyft could cut costs drastically in order to become more profitable, but it's also continuing to invest in growth as much as possible. So they can try to hold the public hostage and mobilize their minority user base against any legislation that will rein in their excesses.