5 ms·

I agree with you that it sucks, and I don't see any disagreement with what I said. Again, the medallion only goes as far as ensuring that all drivers get a sust

I agree with you that it sucks, and I don't see any disagreement with what I said. Again, the medallion only goes as far as ensuring that all drivers get a sustainable wage. Ride share has driver attrition because they don't. Whether it's a fair system is a different question.

josephcsible 3y ago
> Again, the medallion only goes as far as ensuring that all drivers get a sustainable wage. I'm saying that no, it doesn't do that. Taxi drivers are staying afloat despite medallions, not because of them.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  The purpose of the medallion is to create a guild. In practice, the coexistence of ride-sharing defeats that purpose, subjecting all drivers to the risk of unlivable wages, and penalizing guild members with dues.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    Even before Uber and Lyft existed, taxi medallions didn't accomplish their goal.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Taxi medallions drastically reduced the number of Taxi on city streets which was the primary reason they where introduced. Overtime the system was intended to do various things like hold drivers accountable which it very much did, as well as various things it failed at.
    - nunuvit 3y ago
      Because of the cost? You're really making me guess at your reasoning.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    > subjecting all drivers to the risk of unlivable wages but how? the market would decide how much a taxi driver earns based on the simple law of supply and demand. Unlivable wage for one might be a very livable wage for another one. The consumers would massively benefit from increased competition.
    - nunuvit 3y ago
      You answered your own question. The simple law of supply and demand can create unlivable wages for one. By controlling supply, you decide what types of people can make a livable wage. Maybe you want locals with families to have the opportunity to drive. So you control the supply until they can afford local rents and still have time to spend with their kids. Of course, cities often turned it into extortion, but they don't have to do that.

josephcsible 3y ago

> Again, the medallion only goes as far as ensuring that all drivers get a sustainable wage. I'm saying that no, it doesn't do that. Taxi drivers are staying afloat despite medallions, not because of them.

nunuvit 3y ago
The purpose of the medallion is to create a guild. In practice, the coexistence of ride-sharing defeats that purpose, subjecting all drivers to the risk of unlivable wages, and penalizing guild members with dues.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Even before Uber and Lyft existed, taxi medallions didn't accomplish their goal.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Taxi medallions drastically reduced the number of Taxi on city streets which was the primary reason they where introduced. Overtime the system was intended to do various things like hold drivers accountable which it very much did, as well as various things it failed at.
  - nunuvit 3y ago
    Because of the cost? You're really making me guess at your reasoning.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > subjecting all drivers to the risk of unlivable wages but how? the market would decide how much a taxi driver earns based on the simple law of supply and demand. Unlivable wage for one might be a very livable wage for another one. The consumers would massively benefit from increased competition.
  - nunuvit 3y ago
    You answered your own question. The simple law of supply and demand can create unlivable wages for one. By controlling supply, you decide what types of people can make a livable wage. Maybe you want locals with families to have the opportunity to drive. So you control the supply until they can afford local rents and still have time to spend with their kids. Of course, cities often turned it into extortion, but they don't have to do that.