6 ms·

And that is the risk you run with a free market. If people don't like it, then they can just keep using Taxis, and if it's not profitable for Uber, they will g

And that is the risk you run with a free market. If people don't like it, then they can just keep using Taxis, and if it's not profitable for Uber, they will go under. I imagine a lot of these arguments cropped up when UPS and Fedex came about, to compete with the USPS.

untog 13y ago
Well, no, because then people in bad neighbourhoods get screwed over. There is, I'm sure, more than enough business going to good neighbourhoods to keep Uber afloat. So then taxis would only ever be going to bad neighbourhoods. There is a reason for things like taxi regulation- it's to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.
- ahallock 13y ago
  But everyone isn't getting treated fairly. Is it fair to the cab company to have to service areas they normally wouldn't? Perhaps some of the cab drivers don't feel safe traveling to certain areas. I couldn't get cable where I lived in upstate NY because I was in a remote area. Should the cable company have been forced to provide service to my house to make things fair? What you call "fair" only seems to apply to one side of the equation. I'm also not convinced that poorer people would lose out on service. Can you cite anything for that? It seems like there would still be options, even if the quality weren't as good.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > I couldn't get cable where I lived in upstate NY because I was in a remote area. Should the cable company have been forced to provide service to my house to make things fair? In fact many municipalities grant cable monopolies for precisely that purpose. Do I think this is a good idea? No, I don't think it's that valuable to service people outside dense urban areas. If they want services, they should move closer to the city. However, I don't think its fair to decry a cable monopoly for invoking the protection it receives as part of such a bargain against a competitor.

untog 13y ago

Well, no, because then people in bad neighbourhoods get screwed over. There is, I'm sure, more than enough business going to good neighbourhoods to keep Uber afloat. So then taxis would only ever be going to bad neighbourhoods. There is a reason for things like taxi regulation- it's to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

ahallock 13y ago
But everyone isn't getting treated fairly. Is it fair to the cab company to have to service areas they normally wouldn't? Perhaps some of the cab drivers don't feel safe traveling to certain areas. I couldn't get cable where I lived in upstate NY because I was in a remote area. Should the cable company have been forced to provide service to my house to make things fair? What you call "fair" only seems to apply to one side of the equation. I'm also not convinced that poorer people would lose out on service. Can you cite anything for that? It seems like there would still be options, even if the quality weren't as good.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > I couldn't get cable where I lived in upstate NY because I was in a remote area. Should the cable company have been forced to provide service to my house to make things fair? In fact many municipalities grant cable monopolies for precisely that purpose. Do I think this is a good idea? No, I don't think it's that valuable to service people outside dense urban areas. If they want services, they should move closer to the city. However, I don't think its fair to decry a cable monopoly for invoking the protection it receives as part of such a bargain against a competitor.