4 ms·

Some perspective from a Spaniard: The Spanish taxi guild/lobby is very, very strong. Spain has a strong public transit system, but taxis are widely used nevert

Some perspective from a Spaniard: The Spanish taxi guild/lobby is very, very strong. Spain has a strong public transit system, but taxis are widely used nevertheless. Taxi drivers went on strike this year during specific dates and all hell broke loose. They have much to lose, since a taxi license is very expensive and considered an investment, there is a second hand license market, etc. Some people buy houses, they buy taxi licenses. It is a heavily regulated market, since free competition would draw prices to a point so low that the business is not profitable (or so they say) On one hand, I've never seen a rich taxi driver. I'd argue it's a low/mid-level job for low/middle class people who have nothing else to do. Similar to construction workers; if they lose their job they cannot work as anything else. On the other hand, I'm pro-competition, but I respect regulated markets for some areas (healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, energy, etc). So why not taxis? I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make a strong point for or against taxi drivers. While Spain is known for its political corruption, courts of law have been pretty professional and their rulings are usually fair and law-compliant. So if a court has banned Uber, it's because the Spanish law protects taxi drivers. It's a political matter. In summary, devaluing or voiding taxi licenses would leave tens of thousands of people in debt, probably without a job, and with nothing else to work of. Yes, I know that if it were for ice drivers, we would never have had electric fridges, but I can also sympathize. It's basically a matter of jobs. The Spanish government doesn't want our 30% unemployement to be any higher, taxis to be on strike and in general people to be angrier. TL;DR: Spain is a heavily regulated country and the EU directives also point to that direction. Taxi drivers are a low-mid demographic which need protection or, at least, protection from a total disruption of their jobs from new agents like Uber. Yes, this is bad for free competition, but this is Europe, and the level of legal protection is like this: workers > consumers > companies.

mobiplayer 12y ago
From another Spaniard: Do you know why you don't see rich taxi drivers? There are two answers: 1) Because YOU don't know any. Me neither, but I know a few very wealthy ones (very wealthy for my standards, as in "they own a handful houses") 2) Because the license owner is usually not the driver. This is the trend today at least in Barcelona. They hire at least 3 drivers for an 8 hours shift each, so the taxi works 24 hours a day. So you talk to drivers that are nothing but employees (falsos autónomos probably).
kartikkumar 12y ago
> Similar to construction workers; if they lose their job they cannot work as anything else. But this isn't true right? It's not that Uber is eliminating taxi jobs, it's that they are competing with the status quo. Surely, if current drivers would lose their jobs, they'd be more than welcome to hop on-board the Uber train (or I guess I should say "Uber car"). Is there a reason that you think that these drivers wouldn't be able to become Uber drivers? I only have a cursory understanding of the whole taxi situation since I hardly ever use a taxi (although I happened to have called one to take me to the airport tomorrow morning).
- citricsquid 12y ago
  Uber make grandiose claims about the amount their drivers can earn, these claims have been demonstrated to be false, Uber drives down the cost of using Uber which in turn drives down the amount that drivers earn[1]. Driving for Uber is uneconomical for some drivers in some areas, if the trend continues more and more drivers for Uber are going to find it uneconomical. If the concern the taxi drivers have is that they are going to lose their career, Uber is certainly not a viable alternative, because while it may provide a job right now who knows what it will provide in a years time. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10?r=US http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making...
  - kartikkumar 12y ago
    That's interesting, and at the same time perplexing. This seems to be a market that is opening up, with multiple options for drivers. If it's truly the case that a significant number of Uber drivers are struggling to make ends meet when working full-time, sure this should lead to an exodus? This is suggested right at the end of the article: > There's no way you will stay with Uber if you want to make ends meet. So either Uber will fix things, or drivers will leave." I don't know what contractual obligations are forced onto drivers so maybe they're tied up for a certain period of time. The following quote from the article though suggests that it shouldn't be the case: > Uber is not obligated to pay its drivers minimum wage; the drivers aren't employees, they're independent contractors. Neither do I know if there is a "non-compete" clause of some sort that prevents them from working for Lyft, Sidecar, or even reverting back to traditional taxi services. The article suggests that at present this is not the case: > "Right now, the TLC is open, so you can work with multiple bases," Diallo tells us. " All in all, I find the business case for Uber intriguing because I don't fully understand the fuss. Admittedly, this is likely to my lack of understanding of the powerplay behind all of this, but I struggle to understand how drivers have gone from the "no-Uber world" to the "I-rely-on-Uber-and-can't-get-away-and-can't-make-ends-meet-world".
swatow 12y ago
In general government regulation should prevent negative externalities, not restrict entry to certain occupations in order to keep wages high for those occupations. The issues you cite (healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, energy, etc) all involve externalities or market failures. Low wages are not an eternality or a market failure. Issues of redistribution are best dealt with by taxation [1]. Why does a person who earns a low income deserve more of a break, just because they happen to be a taxi driver? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare...
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. But then, systematic discrimination against new entrants to the labor market and similar barriers to entry have long been typical of many European nations, and it's one of the reasons that youth unemployment over there is such a big problem even in healthier economies than the current one. A quick Google suggests that Spain's youth unemployment rate is about 54% (... contrast with the #1 EU outlier, Germany, with the most liberalized economy and youth unemployment at 7.8%) Unfortunately, this is probably one of those economic systems typified by positive feedback cycles.
  - boacon 12y ago
    Spaniard here. The main difference between political parties in Spain is whether they prefer to build or burn churches, so to speak. In economic matters they are all highly interventionist, and we like it this way, sadly.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    > It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. I don't think it's that simple. A taxi medallion is an agreement made with the government. If the government then turns around and allows Uber in, what other agreements that they've made will they go back on? It undermines the social contract and the reputation of the government.

mobiplayer 12y ago

From another Spaniard: Do you know why you don't see rich taxi drivers? There are two answers: 1) Because YOU don't know any. Me neither, but I know a few very wealthy ones (very wealthy for my standards, as in "they own a handful houses") 2) Because the license owner is usually not the driver. This is the trend today at least in Barcelona. They hire at least 3 drivers for an 8 hours shift each, so the taxi works 24 hours a day. So you talk to drivers that are nothing but employees (falsos autónomos probably).

kartikkumar 12y ago

> Similar to construction workers; if they lose their job they cannot work as anything else. But this isn't true right? It's not that Uber is eliminating taxi jobs, it's that they are competing with the status quo. Surely, if current drivers would lose their jobs, they'd be more than welcome to hop on-board the Uber train (or I guess I should say "Uber car"). Is there a reason that you think that these drivers wouldn't be able to become Uber drivers? I only have a cursory understanding of the whole taxi situation since I hardly ever use a taxi (although I happened to have called one to take me to the airport tomorrow morning).

citricsquid 12y ago
Uber make grandiose claims about the amount their drivers can earn, these claims have been demonstrated to be false, Uber drives down the cost of using Uber which in turn drives down the amount that drivers earn[1]. Driving for Uber is uneconomical for some drivers in some areas, if the trend continues more and more drivers for Uber are going to find it uneconomical. If the concern the taxi drivers have is that they are going to lose their career, Uber is certainly not a viable alternative, because while it may provide a job right now who knows what it will provide in a years time. [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10?r=US http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making...
- kartikkumar 12y ago
  That's interesting, and at the same time perplexing. This seems to be a market that is opening up, with multiple options for drivers. If it's truly the case that a significant number of Uber drivers are struggling to make ends meet when working full-time, sure this should lead to an exodus? This is suggested right at the end of the article: > There's no way you will stay with Uber if you want to make ends meet. So either Uber will fix things, or drivers will leave." I don't know what contractual obligations are forced onto drivers so maybe they're tied up for a certain period of time. The following quote from the article though suggests that it shouldn't be the case: > Uber is not obligated to pay its drivers minimum wage; the drivers aren't employees, they're independent contractors. Neither do I know if there is a "non-compete" clause of some sort that prevents them from working for Lyft, Sidecar, or even reverting back to traditional taxi services. The article suggests that at present this is not the case: > "Right now, the TLC is open, so you can work with multiple bases," Diallo tells us. " All in all, I find the business case for Uber intriguing because I don't fully understand the fuss. Admittedly, this is likely to my lack of understanding of the powerplay behind all of this, but I struggle to understand how drivers have gone from the "no-Uber world" to the "I-rely-on-Uber-and-can't-get-away-and-can't-make-ends-meet-world".

swatow 12y ago

In general government regulation should prevent negative externalities, not restrict entry to certain occupations in order to keep wages high for those occupations. The issues you cite (healthcare, transportation, telecommunications, energy, etc) all involve externalities or market failures. Low wages are not an eternality or a market failure. Issues of redistribution are best dealt with by taxation [1]. Why does a person who earns a low income deserve more of a break, just because they happen to be a taxi driver? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare...

fennecfoxen 12y ago
It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. But then, systematic discrimination against new entrants to the labor market and similar barriers to entry have long been typical of many European nations, and it's one of the reasons that youth unemployment over there is such a big problem even in healthier economies than the current one. A quick Google suggests that Spain's youth unemployment rate is about 54% (... contrast with the #1 EU outlier, Germany, with the most liberalized economy and youth unemployment at 7.8%) Unfortunately, this is probably one of those economic systems typified by positive feedback cycles.
- boacon 12y ago
  Spaniard here. The main difference between political parties in Spain is whether they prefer to build or burn churches, so to speak. In economic matters they are all highly interventionist, and we like it this way, sadly.
- wdewind 12y ago
  > It's not just that. It's a question of why a person deserves more of a break just because they happen to be currently employed as a taxi driver whereas someone else seeks to be newly employed as an Uber driver. I don't think it's that simple. A taxi medallion is an agreement made with the government. If the government then turns around and allows Uber in, what other agreements that they've made will they go back on? It undermines the social contract and the reputation of the government.