3 ms·
> it was protecting an existing industry from competition Otherwise known as "keeping people employed at a living wage." When the market decides that human lab
by superuser2 14y ago
> it was protecting an existing industry from competition
Otherwise known as "keeping people employed at a living wage." When the market decides that human labor is worth nothing, it's irresponsible not to contradict it.
I will agree that medallions should have gone away after the crisis, but it wasn't "parasitic" at the time.
- tsotha 14y ago>Otherwise known as "keeping people employed at a living wage." Or, stated differently, keeping some people employed at above-market wages and others unemployed with no wages at all. >When the market decides that human labor is worth nothing, it's irresponsible not to contradict it. If that ever happens we'll know regulation is needed.
- YokoZar 14y agoYou can also spin this as "keeping people who need a ride poor by raising the price of the good they depend on", or even "preventing the poor from working by making it uneconomical for them to get to work". If you're going to argue in favor of breaking competition, you absolutely have to have a better argument than "it's good for the sellers." There's two sides to every economic transaction, and I see no evidence that cab-medallion-owners are drastically more worthy people than cab-riders.
- jacoblyles 14y agoIn many of these cities, it is impossible to flag a cab at any price during peak hours. It would be far more efficient for the government to top up the earnings of low-earners than to manipulate the supply of cabs.