4 ms·

> not all companies that break bad laws are good. This to me, is the key of the problem. Yes, the taxi medallion system was broken in many cities and Uber is f

by wklauss 12y ago

> not all companies that break bad laws are good. This to me, is the key of the problem. Yes, the taxi medallion system was broken in many cities and Uber is forcing to at least acknowledge that regulation in it's current form it's not longer useful. But I think that as a company Uber it's not a positive force on the public transportation market. Quite the opposite. I love tu use it when I'm in San Francisco but cannot shake the feeling that we are screwing ourselves long term by supporting it.

pdonis 12y ago
> I love tu use it when I'm in San Francisco but cannot shake the feeling that we are screwing ourselves long term by supporting it. Have you considered not using it?
crdoconnor 12y ago
>This to me, is the key of the problem. Yes, the taxi medallion system was broken in many cities and Uber is forcing to at least acknowledge that regulation in it's current form it's not longer useful. The medallion system was never "useful". It was simply a feudalistic setup designed with the help of regulatory capture to allow private investors to impose a private tax on riders and drivers. Uber is simply modifying the feudal system, placing themselves at the top instead of the medallion owners. Given the range of big investors and political support for the company (that stretches all the way up to Obama), I would guess that it's not even a change in who owns the taxi system - Goldman sachs are probably simply buying up uber stock and dumping medallions on easily duped investors - pension funds and the like, while lobbying their ass off to give Uber a free pass on all this lyft sabotage bullshit.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Goldman sachs are probably simply buying up uber stock and dumping medallions on easily duped investors Owning a taxi medallion is like owning a McDonald's franchise. Doesn't exactly make you a Master of the Universe. A $1 million investment in an NYC medallion nets you a maximum of about $75,000 a year: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me.... The average McDonald's franchise nets $200-250k/year, and costs about $750k-1.5 million to buy.
  - dnautics 12y ago
    That's a bad analogy. For years medallions were owned to be flipped and sold at a higher price. Owning a taxi medallion is like owning a McDonald's franchise in the middle of a city where property values have skyrocketed to the tune of 20% per annum for the past decade.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      You mean like any boomer who bought a house in NYC or SF or DC in the 1980's? The point is that taxi medallion owners aren't Goldman Sachs-esque financial fatcats. That's an absurd part of the Uber versus taxi cab narrative.
      - dnautics 12y ago
        they don't have goldman-sachs-esque assets, but they have experienced goldman-sachs-esque asset growth, and they have done it in large part colluding with the government. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/government-sachs-goldmans_n_210561.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/government-sachs-go...) Anyways those boomers are annoying (my father is one); explaining to him how he got incredibly lucky is like bashing my head against a wall, especially contrasting with my own personal, relative financial failure.
        rayiner 12y ago
        They didn't "collude" with the government. The whole premise of taxi medallions was to limit supply to maintain taxi driver wages and limit oversupply of cabs in a crowded city. Indeed, the number of cab medallions issued has outpaced population growth in NYC over the last several decades. As for "Goldman Sachs-esque" returns, the price of a taxi medallion increased from about $100k in 1985 to $250k in 2005. Less than the return most Americans got on their house over that time. There was a major spike in the last decade, but it doesn't seem to be correlated with any real change in demand for cabs, or any specific regulatory action. As far as I can tell, the spike in price is just the result of the general attractiveness of safe but low-yield investments in this poor economy. In any case, these are $1 million investments that net maybe $50-75k per year, and are appreciating quickly but not more so than say real estate in SF or NYC. The owners of these medallions aren't big money players. The investors behind Uber are.

by wklauss 12y ago

pdonis 12y ago

> I love tu use it when I'm in San Francisco but cannot shake the feeling that we are screwing ourselves long term by supporting it. Have you considered not using it?

crdoconnor 12y ago

>This to me, is the key of the problem. Yes, the taxi medallion system was broken in many cities and Uber is forcing to at least acknowledge that regulation in it's current form it's not longer useful. The medallion system was never "useful". It was simply a feudalistic setup designed with the help of regulatory capture to allow private investors to impose a private tax on riders and drivers. Uber is simply modifying the feudal system, placing themselves at the top instead of the medallion owners. Given the range of big investors and political support for the company (that stretches all the way up to Obama), I would guess that it's not even a change in who owns the taxi system - Goldman sachs are probably simply buying up uber stock and dumping medallions on easily duped investors - pension funds and the like, while lobbying their ass off to give Uber a free pass on all this lyft sabotage bullshit.

rayiner 12y ago
> Goldman sachs are probably simply buying up uber stock and dumping medallions on easily duped investors Owning a taxi medallion is like owning a McDonald's franchise. Doesn't exactly make you a Master of the Universe. A $1 million investment in an NYC medallion nets you a maximum of about $75,000 a year: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me.... The average McDonald's franchise nets $200-250k/year, and costs about $750k-1.5 million to buy.
- dnautics 12y ago
  That's a bad analogy. For years medallions were owned to be flipped and sold at a higher price. Owning a taxi medallion is like owning a McDonald's franchise in the middle of a city where property values have skyrocketed to the tune of 20% per annum for the past decade.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    You mean like any boomer who bought a house in NYC or SF or DC in the 1980's? The point is that taxi medallion owners aren't Goldman Sachs-esque financial fatcats. That's an absurd part of the Uber versus taxi cab narrative.
    - dnautics 12y ago
      they don't have goldman-sachs-esque assets, but they have experienced goldman-sachs-esque asset growth, and they have done it in large part colluding with the government. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/government-sachs-goldmans_n_210561.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/government-sachs-go...) Anyways those boomers are annoying (my father is one); explaining to him how he got incredibly lucky is like bashing my head against a wall, especially contrasting with my own personal, relative financial failure.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        They didn't "collude" with the government. The whole premise of taxi medallions was to limit supply to maintain taxi driver wages and limit oversupply of cabs in a crowded city. Indeed, the number of cab medallions issued has outpaced population growth in NYC over the last several decades. As for "Goldman Sachs-esque" returns, the price of a taxi medallion increased from about $100k in 1985 to $250k in 2005. Less than the return most Americans got on their house over that time. There was a major spike in the last decade, but it doesn't seem to be correlated with any real change in demand for cabs, or any specific regulatory action. As far as I can tell, the spike in price is just the result of the general attractiveness of safe but low-yield investments in this poor economy. In any case, these are $1 million investments that net maybe $50-75k per year, and are appreciating quickly but not more so than say real estate in SF or NYC. The owners of these medallions aren't big money players. The investors behind Uber are.