5 ms·

> How on earth do you get from there to licenses being a kind of property? How on earth do you prevent it? You need to provide stable access to licenses, so t

> How on earth do you get from there to licenses being a kind of property? How on earth do you prevent it? You need to provide stable access to licenses, so that if Joe drives a cab he doesn't end up jobless next year because he lost the taxi license lotto. Suddenly Joe has something he can sell, access to his license. Say we tie the license to the person driving the cab then Lucky cabs can't fire a bad driver because then they lose a license.

bane 12y ago
You issue as many licenses as their are passing applicants.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  That defeats the purpose of the license. It's not like a driver's license where the goal is to establish some baseline level of competency, it's there specifically to limit the number of taxis/liquor stores/etc.
  - bane 12y ago
    In many areas it is just like a drivers license and that regime works pretty well. It's a weird desire to arbitrary limit licenses. What's the purpose of that? Limiting the number of sellers doesn't really do much to limit buyers or consumption. It sounds like a bad idea that's carried forward out of momentum not something that needs to be fixed. It should be replaced with the better approach.
    - stonemetal 12y ago
      It is an attempt to prevent a tragedy of the commons. NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. Therefore they limit the number of taxis to ease congestion.
      - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        >NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. // Are you sure it will increase the overall number of vehicles on the roads? There can only be more taxis if there is sufficient demand to pay for them and their drivers. If there are more taxis then there's a downward pressure on prices which, yes, creates the possibility of more demand. But reality doesn't follow that simple a model - it's probably chaotic - as more taxi availability will potentially reduce car and bus usage. If it doesn't reduce car usage then who's getting in the taxis? Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership. Perhaps people who normally use a bus or walk can now afford a cab - can't have poor people using our transportation /s. Some people will switch to buses from cars because a bus is fine for many journeys and now it's affordable to do bus+cab journey or to do buses mostly and get a cab occasionally. Suppose there are so many people who have a clean driving license, can pass an advanced motorist test and pass a hospitality test (eg good enough language skills) and pay for a car that passes the necessary road-fitness and emissions tests and thus those people can get a city taxi license. There are so many licensed cabs that the road traffic gets slowed down. Then people will take the bus or walk; there will be less demand and drivers will have to do other jobs. If there are still too many cabs then the barrier for entry can be increased - add your cities second language to the hospitality requirements, add a skid-pan test, increase the ecological requirements on the cars used. Isn't that the free market at work?
        potatosareok 12y ago
        I can't speak to this as a subject I've done a lot of research on, but this reminded me of a story I heard on NPR a few years ago. The story argues that taxis actually spend a disproportionate amount of time on the street, relative to other cars, and so have a disproportionately large effect on the overall city congestion. This is because cars drive point-to-point but taxis stay on the street all day. The conclusion drawn is that this increased congestion will actually cost tons of money. This point is directly opposed to your statement that "Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership". I can't argue that either point is right or wrong, but I'd like to know if you had any information I can read supporting your point about taxis being better optimized for cities. In any case, I just wanted to contribute this story as another data point along the way. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new-york-city-need-more-taxis http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...
    - danudey 12y ago
      The reason they're limited in Vancouver (as an example) is because the structure is divided three ways; the cab companies (e.g. Yellow Cab, Black Top Cabs, etc.), the vehicle owner, and the driver (though some few drivers own their vehicles). Drivers pay a fixed/minimum amount to the vehicle owner and the cab companies, and then they drive around to get as many fares as they can so that they can make sure to make enough to cover their costs, after which they start making a profit. With more cabs on the road, there are more fares to go around, which means that drivers have to split the same number of fares over a larger pool of drivers, which means the entire industry gets poorer; everyone makes more money except the drivers, who need to start being more aggressive, cutting corners, cheating, ignoring regulations, etc. just to make a living. No one wants that.
    - bane 12y ago
      Too late to edit: it's kind of interesting how each of the replies to me used the taxi industry in their counter arguments, but not liquor licenses which is what the topic is about.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  That makes sense if you're thinking of a drivers' license (where you have to pass a qualification test), but these licenses serve solely to restrict the supply. It varies by the locale, but I'm not even sure if there are any qualifying tests for obtaining a taxi license (other than basic criteria, like having a commercial drivers' license in good standing, etc.) in most parts of the US. (London is an interesting exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom)
notahacker 12y ago
Making licenses tradable really doesn't affect the stability of access to licenses or facility to fire drivers in the slightest. You tie the licences to whoever pays for them, and give that entity - firm or individual - grandfather rights to the same number of taxi licences as last year. Sure, if the licences are paid for and renewed by the firms it makes individual drivers dispensable and at risk of unemployment if the taxi firm wants cheaper labour, and if they're paid for and renewed by particular drivers it disincentivises firms from firing then for underperformance; allowing the "owners" of the medallion to collect large amounts of economic rent on a secondary market doesn't change that at all assuming the total number of licenses is still fixed at the same amount. If anything, arguably it's worse for Joe if Lucky Cabs owns his medallion and also has the opportunity to sell at a profit, and Lucky Cabs are similarly badly off if their drivers own the medallions but don't particularly care for keeping customers happy (perhaps because they're counting down the years til they can sell the medallion on for an order of magnitude more than they originally paid for it). If you want to encourage flexibility in licenses which are short term leased rather than "owned" you can even give holders the option of pro rata rebates (at the price paid) for trading them in early to encourage people that aren't using their licence to return them. Basically, the city is in total control of the terms on which medallions can be leased and can collect the full market value of the medallions itself; to not do so is economically indefensible, unless you think giving cash windfalls to its original taxi drivers and speculators is high on the list of civic priorities
danudey 12y ago
In Vancouver, you have a license for a cab (not a driver), and you can put any qualifying driver in that cab. Fire a driver, get a new one, you can still have a cab on the road, but they're not transferable (and they're limited in quantity). That said, Vancouver's taxi system is a little wonky, though possibly not atypical; there are usually three parties involved: the driver, the person who owns the vehicle, and the person who owns the license (i.e. the cab company), and drivers who don't own their own vehicle typically have to split their profits three ways. More commonly, you pay X dollars per night (split among the two others) and then hope that you make enough fares to make a profit. Which you usually do, of course. Part of the reason is because the city limits the number of licenses that can be issued; the other part is by crushing competition like Uber under old, outdated laws and regulations (in BC, Uber's black car service falls under the criteria of 'limo', and limos have a minimum charge of ~$65). Which kind of makes sense; if Uber started killing the cab companies, it would be the drivers who would suffer first, and not the companies themselves.
- philwelch 12y ago
  Drivers can work for Uber though.

bane 12y ago

You issue as many licenses as their are passing applicants.

joshuapants 12y ago
That defeats the purpose of the license. It's not like a driver's license where the goal is to establish some baseline level of competency, it's there specifically to limit the number of taxis/liquor stores/etc.
- bane 12y ago
  In many areas it is just like a drivers license and that regime works pretty well. It's a weird desire to arbitrary limit licenses. What's the purpose of that? Limiting the number of sellers doesn't really do much to limit buyers or consumption. It sounds like a bad idea that's carried forward out of momentum not something that needs to be fixed. It should be replaced with the better approach.
  - stonemetal 12y ago
    It is an attempt to prevent a tragedy of the commons. NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. Therefore they limit the number of taxis to ease congestion.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      >NY doesn't have enough road capacity to handle all of the taxis that would be profitable in a free market. // Are you sure it will increase the overall number of vehicles on the roads? There can only be more taxis if there is sufficient demand to pay for them and their drivers. If there are more taxis then there's a downward pressure on prices which, yes, creates the possibility of more demand. But reality doesn't follow that simple a model - it's probably chaotic - as more taxi availability will potentially reduce car and bus usage. If it doesn't reduce car usage then who's getting in the taxis? Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership. Perhaps people who normally use a bus or walk can now afford a cab - can't have poor people using our transportation /s. Some people will switch to buses from cars because a bus is fine for many journeys and now it's affordable to do bus+cab journey or to do buses mostly and get a cab occasionally. Suppose there are so many people who have a clean driving license, can pass an advanced motorist test and pass a hospitality test (eg good enough language skills) and pay for a car that passes the necessary road-fitness and emissions tests and thus those people can get a city taxi license. There are so many licensed cabs that the road traffic gets slowed down. Then people will take the bus or walk; there will be less demand and drivers will have to do other jobs. If there are still too many cabs then the barrier for entry can be increased - add your cities second language to the hospitality requirements, add a skid-pan test, increase the ecological requirements on the cars used. Isn't that the free market at work?
      - potatosareok 12y ago
        I can't speak to this as a subject I've done a lot of research on, but this reminded me of a story I heard on NPR a few years ago. The story argues that taxis actually spend a disproportionate amount of time on the street, relative to other cars, and so have a disproportionately large effect on the overall city congestion. This is because cars drive point-to-point but taxis stay on the street all day. The conclusion drawn is that this increased congestion will actually cost tons of money. This point is directly opposed to your statement that "Taxis are better optimised resources in urban areas than car-ownership". I can't argue that either point is right or wrong, but I'd like to know if you had any information I can read supporting your point about taxis being better optimized for cities. In any case, I just wanted to contribute this story as another data point along the way. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new-york-city-need-more-taxis http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...
  - danudey 12y ago
    The reason they're limited in Vancouver (as an example) is because the structure is divided three ways; the cab companies (e.g. Yellow Cab, Black Top Cabs, etc.), the vehicle owner, and the driver (though some few drivers own their vehicles). Drivers pay a fixed/minimum amount to the vehicle owner and the cab companies, and then they drive around to get as many fares as they can so that they can make sure to make enough to cover their costs, after which they start making a profit. With more cabs on the road, there are more fares to go around, which means that drivers have to split the same number of fares over a larger pool of drivers, which means the entire industry gets poorer; everyone makes more money except the drivers, who need to start being more aggressive, cutting corners, cheating, ignoring regulations, etc. just to make a living. No one wants that.
  - bane 12y ago
    Too late to edit: it's kind of interesting how each of the replies to me used the taxi industry in their counter arguments, but not liquor licenses which is what the topic is about.
chimeracoder 12y ago
That makes sense if you're thinking of a drivers' license (where you have to pass a qualification test), but these licenses serve solely to restrict the supply. It varies by the locale, but I'm not even sure if there are any qualifying tests for obtaining a taxi license (other than basic criteria, like having a commercial drivers' license in good standing, etc.) in most parts of the US. (London is an interesting exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom)

notahacker 12y ago

Making licenses tradable really doesn't affect the stability of access to licenses or facility to fire drivers in the slightest. You tie the licences to whoever pays for them, and give that entity - firm or individual - grandfather rights to the same number of taxi licences as last year. Sure, if the licences are paid for and renewed by the firms it makes individual drivers dispensable and at risk of unemployment if the taxi firm wants cheaper labour, and if they're paid for and renewed by particular drivers it disincentivises firms from firing then for underperformance; allowing the "owners" of the medallion to collect large amounts of economic rent on a secondary market doesn't change that at all assuming the total number of licenses is still fixed at the same amount. If anything, arguably it's worse for Joe if Lucky Cabs owns his medallion and also has the opportunity to sell at a profit, and Lucky Cabs are similarly badly off if their drivers own the medallions but don't particularly care for keeping customers happy (perhaps because they're counting down the years til they can sell the medallion on for an order of magnitude more than they originally paid for it). If you want to encourage flexibility in licenses which are short term leased rather than "owned" you can even give holders the option of pro rata rebates (at the price paid) for trading them in early to encourage people that aren't using their licence to return them. Basically, the city is in total control of the terms on which medallions can be leased and can collect the full market value of the medallions itself; to not do so is economically indefensible, unless you think giving cash windfalls to its original taxi drivers and speculators is high on the list of civic priorities

danudey 12y ago

In Vancouver, you have a license for a cab (not a driver), and you can put any qualifying driver in that cab. Fire a driver, get a new one, you can still have a cab on the road, but they're not transferable (and they're limited in quantity). That said, Vancouver's taxi system is a little wonky, though possibly not atypical; there are usually three parties involved: the driver, the person who owns the vehicle, and the person who owns the license (i.e. the cab company), and drivers who don't own their own vehicle typically have to split their profits three ways. More commonly, you pay X dollars per night (split among the two others) and then hope that you make enough fares to make a profit. Which you usually do, of course. Part of the reason is because the city limits the number of licenses that can be issued; the other part is by crushing competition like Uber under old, outdated laws and regulations (in BC, Uber's black car service falls under the criteria of 'limo', and limos have a minimum charge of ~$65). Which kind of makes sense; if Uber started killing the cab companies, it would be the drivers who would suffer first, and not the companies themselves.

philwelch 12y ago
Drivers can work for Uber though.