3 ms·
The argument that Uber is providing reasonable service despite regulations does not justify removing them. In a city like New York, where traditional taxi serv
by hackyhacky 12y ago
The argument that Uber is providing reasonable service despite regulations does not justify removing them.
In a city like New York, where traditional taxi services are deeply entrenched, Uber must provide service that is at least as good as the status quo. The guarantees that the state enforces to protect consumers in registered taxi services serve as baseline, and Uber knows this. If that baseline did not exist, that is, if Uber were competing only against unregulated commercial services, there would be a race to the bottom, and suddenly New York would start looking a lot like Bangalore.
In this way, regulation improves things even to those who use services that are not regulated.
- forrestthewoods 12y agoWhat's wrong with a race to the bottom? Big corporations often run with a profit margin of only 1 to 4 percent. That's great for consumers. Drive those prices as low as they can go. Excellent! People keep using the phrase "protect consumers". How, exactly? In very precise words please. Making drivers hold appropriate insurance, excellent. That protects me as a consumer. Having extremely constrained medallions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? No, that does not protect me as a consumer at all. Forcing Uber to do this bullshit independent driver hack also does not protect me or provide value. It would be far superior if drivers were regular employees of Uber but that puts them under heavy regulation which protects established business players far, far, far more than it protects or serves the consumer.