4 ms·

A city doesn't cap the number of restaurants. Why should they cap the number of Uber drivers, or taxis for that matter. When the city puts a cap on taxi license

A city doesn't cap the number of restaurants. Why should they cap the number of Uber drivers, or taxis for that matter. When the city puts a cap on taxi licenses that means that the license owners get to charge a fee to their drivers so drivers don't get the benefits of less competition just rent seekers.

shalmanese 11y ago
Cities do cap the number of restaurants, albeit indirectly. City planning uses zoning and permitting to adjust the density of restaurants in various neighbourhoods and allows and denies liquor licenses and the like to keep noise and traffic to an acceptable level.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
TylerE 11y ago
Because having supply > demand is bad, resulting in cars idling in the streets, increasing pollution and gridlock.
- bmmayer1 11y ago
  That makes no sense. Idle cars don't make money and therefore have no incentive to stay in the business for long. The biggest problem with Ubers and taxis right now is that demand for drivers is way, way higher than supply. More Ubers/taxis on the road means less waiting time, more carpooling, less car ownership and less idling, not to mention lower prices.
- lsllc 11y ago
  Why? it won't last for long ... it'll balance out as drivers realize it's not profitable. Let market forces do their job. It's reasonable for government to regulate safety, but not supply.
  - TylerE 11y ago
    You're assuming it's a binary condition. I think there is a substantial gap between "excessive supply" and "SO much excess supply that the drivers are losing money".
CPLX 11y ago
Of course the city caps the number of restaurants. I have a sneaking suspicion that you live in a place that would not be accurately described as a "city" if you believe this.
theophrastus 11y ago
If high schools could jam in a segment on economic civics, perhaps using some version of "SimCity" to drive the situation home, then nicely informed voters wouldn't be so like to make overly broad statements. I don't know how many times i've heard the microphone at a city council meeting occupied by someone who is simultaneously demanding for reduced business taxes and that something be done about the homeless camping in their doorway; (and if the cognitive dissonance is pointed out to them, they inevitably stammer something about it all being a matter of governmental waste) Please consider the history of any large city and what happened when the taxi industry was initially unregulated. It wasn't pretty.

shalmanese 11y ago

Cities do cap the number of restaurants, albeit indirectly. City planning uses zoning and permitting to adjust the density of restaurants in various neighbourhoods and allows and denies liquor licenses and the like to keep noise and traffic to an acceptable level.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

TylerE 11y ago

Because having supply > demand is bad, resulting in cars idling in the streets, increasing pollution and gridlock.

bmmayer1 11y ago
That makes no sense. Idle cars don't make money and therefore have no incentive to stay in the business for long. The biggest problem with Ubers and taxis right now is that demand for drivers is way, way higher than supply. More Ubers/taxis on the road means less waiting time, more carpooling, less car ownership and less idling, not to mention lower prices.
lsllc 11y ago
Why? it won't last for long ... it'll balance out as drivers realize it's not profitable. Let market forces do their job. It's reasonable for government to regulate safety, but not supply.
- TylerE 11y ago
  You're assuming it's a binary condition. I think there is a substantial gap between "excessive supply" and "SO much excess supply that the drivers are losing money".

CPLX 11y ago

Of course the city caps the number of restaurants. I have a sneaking suspicion that you live in a place that would not be accurately described as a "city" if you believe this.

theophrastus 11y ago

If high schools could jam in a segment on economic civics, perhaps using some version of "SimCity" to drive the situation home, then nicely informed voters wouldn't be so like to make overly broad statements. I don't know how many times i've heard the microphone at a city council meeting occupied by someone who is simultaneously demanding for reduced business taxes and that something be done about the homeless camping in their doorway; (and if the cognitive dissonance is pointed out to them, they inevitably stammer something about it all being a matter of governmental waste) Please consider the history of any large city and what happened when the taxi industry was initially unregulated. It wasn't pretty.