6 ms·

Uber Makes Its Pain New Yorkers’ Problem

31 points by davidf18 11y ago

overpaidgoogler 11y ago
People support Uber because they support the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth, but not fix prices, including wages. Yes it's tough being a taxi driver, but the real problem is that it's tough being a person who for whatever reason can't get a high paying job. Fixing high wages for taxi drivers doesn't solve this problem, because it doesn't provide jobs for those who don't get to be taxi drivers.
- gaius 11y ago
  Society has decided that certain jobs should come with certain minimum standards attached to them, that's true of caterers, hotels, surgeons, airline pilots... and taxi drivers.
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    A free market sets the standards by aggregating individual decision's
  - overpaidgoogler 11y ago
    "Society has decided" is not a good substitute for an actual reason for a policy. I'm not arguing against democracy here. I also think you are confusing minimum pay with minimum qualifications. A medallion is not a qualification, it is an arbitrary limit (yes there are other reasons for the limit like congestion, but the article discuses pay)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Not being able to get a "high paying job" is not really the problem. The problem is that the "market" has so far failed to distribute enough wealth to satisfy everyone's needs and for most of those that you can argue that market has been able to satisfy, they are essentially slaves to that market, with little to no mobility.
  - prodigal_erik 11y ago
    There's a difference between "you're not qualified for this job" and "too many other people are doing this job".
  - pjscott 11y ago
    Presumably Uber's customers have decided that the New York taxis do not meet their minimum standards -- else they would just take a taxi. And who better to make this decision than the people involved?
    - gaius 11y ago
      The flaw in your argument is that if anything goes wrong they will expect New York's authorities to intervene.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    "Society" rarely makes such decisions. Governments do. The narrative that government is controlled by society as a whole for its overall benefit is a fascinating fiction.
- Gys 11y ago
  'the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth' I do not think this is correct. The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. 'Re'-distributing wealth would mean the government interfering. For example by setting fixed prices so drivers earn more money and Uber making less profit (higher losses ;-) (and/or passengers paying higher prices).
  - overpaidgoogler 11y ago
    Yes, restrictions on prices indirectly redistribute wealth. But what I was saying was that the government should only redistribute wealth directly, via welfare and taxes (eg income, sales or vat).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - Gys 11y ago
      You say less regulation means higher prices ?! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market 'A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.' So if supply is higher then demand, for example a kind of unlimited number of taxi's, then the prices go down. I think in theory with easy entrance to a market the prices can drop as low as variable costs. But I cannot find a reference to that at the moment.
  - amelius 11y ago
    > The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. The free market only causes agglutination of money.
rahimnathwani 11y ago
"A cabdriver on average will make about $17 or $18 an hour over shifts that can last 12 hours. That is little more than the $15 an hour fast-food workers are scheduled to get" Minimum wage in NY is currently $8.75 per hour. So, according to the article, taxi drivers are earning more than twice that. And that's after they've paid to rent a $1MM medallion.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  For context, EMT workers in NYC earn just a bit over $15 an hour when they start out.
  - Trombone12 11y ago
    So fast food workers and EMT workers get the same wages? Wow, I hope the EMTs at least get significant raises fairly fast.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      They don't now. But they would make basically the same thing if the bill to raise fast food workers' (and no one else's) wages goes through.
thatusertwo 11y ago
I'm very skeptical of Uber, but I don't think limiting the number of cars is any type of solution.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 11y ago
  It's a fairly traditional one, because "too many taxis clogging up the roads" is a common complaint of residents. The first taxi-regulation law in 17th-century London was passed to limit the number of hackney carriages (along with requiring minimum maintenance standards of the vehicles). Of course preferences vary; people who want to take taxis will tend to prefer there be more, while drivers of private vehicles will tend to prefer there be fewer. Residents typically also prefer fewer, unless their own use of taxis overrides that preference.
discardorama 11y ago
FTA: "In the late 1930s, there were just under 12,000 medallions in circulation; more than 75 years later, in a city larger by one million people and benefiting from far greater prosperity, there are only 13,000." Population growth alone would require another 600 medallions. But remember: in the 1930s, we were just coming out (or on the upswing) of the Great Recession; so affluence would dictate a much larger number. So why is the number so low? > Instead, arcane aspects of state and local law and, crucially, the power wielded by wealthy and politically generous fleet owners — who don’t want to see the creation of more medallions lest the value of theirs decline — make that [more medallions] virtually impossible. There you have it. It is, for the lack of a better word, greed. When you have hedgefunds owning medallions[1], you know it's a bad sign. Essential services for the general populace should not be a vehicle for hedge funds. An ideal (or, a better) system would be responsive. It would look at how busy cabs are, and accordingly change the number of medallions in circulation. Every year (or every nth year, take your pick), have a Dutch auction[2] of the desired number of medallions. Disallow renting of medallions (only the owner gets to drive the cab), which will kill speculation. Put an app around the whole system, so users can hail cabs from their mobile devices. Pain eased. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303653004579214314123978606 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023036530045792143... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction
- revelation 11y ago
  How are there so little medallions, yet so many idle taxis? And taxi drivers still making barely over minimum wage (if you subtract the living costs)? This theory that greedy property owners stifled medallion creation is certainly appealing but it doesn't seem supported by the facts at hand.
  - mcintyre1994 11y ago
    Can you elaborate what you mean by subtracting living costs? Are you saying that after all necessary expenses they have slightly more than minimum wage left over? That seems like a wage that shouldn't be compared to just minimum wage, given that in many places (I don't know about new York) minimum wage is below what you'd consider a living wage that covers necessary expenses.
freewizard 11y ago
If there's one thing gov need to do against Uber/Lyft, that's set a high bar for drivers' capability, not limit their numbers.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  In the face of higher requirements, Uber would likely let anyone drive and then cast the appropriate narrative (in other words, their current gameplan)
  - pekk 11y ago
    Since they don't currently respect the law, it doesn't make any difference how you decide to change the law because they're still not going to respect it.
davidf18 11y ago
Limiting medallions creates market inefficiencies which is no good to anyone except the medallion owners. With $1 million medallions drivers have to pay a significant portion of their gross receipts for renting the artificially expensive taxi. One taxi driver claims to gross $250-$300 for a 12 hour shift, but he pays $150 of that to lease the taxi (with medallion). http://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/nyc-taxi/shift-life-cab-driver http://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/nyc-taxi/shift-life-cab-driv... Thus, about half of our fares plus tips go to paying for the taxi with medallion, before paying for gas.
- Trombone12 11y ago
  The story opens with retelling the reasons the medallion system was created... it's probably not a good idea to completely ignore the historical events: "There were too many drivers going after too few passengers — fares were slashed, tensions between fleets escalated, violence erupted"
  - davidf18 11y ago
    Well, a person born on the day in 1937 when the limit was put in effect would have been retired at age 65 13 years ago (age 78). As the economy improved, e.g., post WW II in 1945, 70 years ago, this limit should have been revisited. All this limit has served to do is to make taxis in NYC far more expensive than they should be (in Manhattan not many own cars) and taxi drivers making far less money than they should be.
    - Trombone12 11y ago
      If you meant to say that the limits should be revised, may I suggest using wording that actually carries that meaning? I find it hard to see an argument about revising limits in the statement: "limiting medallions creates market inefficiencies which is no good to anyone"
jacknews 11y ago
Is it just me, or does the photo in this piece quite obviously show protesting Uber tech/marketing employees, not drivers? If that's the case, and in fact Uber mainly services the relatively affluent, and not typical Bronx residents, then this is a pretty disgusting and disingenuous piece of marketing/lobbying on Uber's part.

31 points by davidf18 11y ago

People support Uber because they support the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth, but not fix prices, including wages. Yes it's tough being a taxi driver, but the real problem is that it's tough being a person who for whatever reason can't get a high paying job. Fixing high wages for taxi drivers doesn't solve this problem, because it doesn't provide jobs for those who don't get to be taxi drivers.

gaius 11y ago
Society has decided that certain jobs should come with certain minimum standards attached to them, that's true of caterers, hotels, surgeons, airline pilots... and taxi drivers.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  A free market sets the standards by aggregating individual decision's
- overpaidgoogler 11y ago
  "Society has decided" is not a good substitute for an actual reason for a policy. I'm not arguing against democracy here. I also think you are confusing minimum pay with minimum qualifications. A medallion is not a qualification, it is an arbitrary limit (yes there are other reasons for the limit like congestion, but the article discuses pay)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Not being able to get a "high paying job" is not really the problem. The problem is that the "market" has so far failed to distribute enough wealth to satisfy everyone's needs and for most of those that you can argue that market has been able to satisfy, they are essentially slaves to that market, with little to no mobility.
- prodigal_erik 11y ago
  There's a difference between "you're not qualified for this job" and "too many other people are doing this job".
- pjscott 11y ago
  Presumably Uber's customers have decided that the New York taxis do not meet their minimum standards -- else they would just take a taxi. And who better to make this decision than the people involved?
  - gaius 11y ago
    The flaw in your argument is that if anything goes wrong they will expect New York's authorities to intervene.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  "Society" rarely makes such decisions. Governments do. The narrative that government is controlled by society as a whole for its overall benefit is a fascinating fiction.
Gys 11y ago
'the logic of the free market, which is that the government should redistribute wealth' I do not think this is correct. The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. 'Re'-distributing wealth would mean the government interfering. For example by setting fixed prices so drivers earn more money and Uber making less profit (higher losses ;-) (and/or passengers paying higher prices).
- overpaidgoogler 11y ago
  Yes, restrictions on prices indirectly redistribute wealth. But what I was saying was that the government should only redistribute wealth directly, via welfare and taxes (eg income, sales or vat).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - Gys 11y ago
    You say less regulation means higher prices ?! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market 'A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.' So if supply is higher then demand, for example a kind of unlimited number of taxi's, then the prices go down. I think in theory with easy entrance to a market the prices can drop as low as variable costs. But I cannot find a reference to that at the moment.
- amelius 11y ago
  > The free market is a way by itself to distributes wealth. The free market only causes agglutination of money.

rahimnathwani 11y ago

"A cabdriver on average will make about $17 or $18 an hour over shifts that can last 12 hours. That is little more than the $15 an hour fast-food workers are scheduled to get" Minimum wage in NY is currently $8.75 per hour. So, according to the article, taxi drivers are earning more than twice that. And that's after they've paid to rent a $1MM medallion.

JohnTHaller 11y ago
For context, EMT workers in NYC earn just a bit over $15 an hour when they start out.
- Trombone12 11y ago
  So fast food workers and EMT workers get the same wages? Wow, I hope the EMTs at least get significant raises fairly fast.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    They don't now. But they would make basically the same thing if the bill to raise fast food workers' (and no one else's) wages goes through.

thatusertwo 11y ago

I'm very skeptical of Uber, but I don't think limiting the number of cars is any type of solution.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 11y ago
It's a fairly traditional one, because "too many taxis clogging up the roads" is a common complaint of residents. The first taxi-regulation law in 17th-century London was passed to limit the number of hackney carriages (along with requiring minimum maintenance standards of the vehicles). Of course preferences vary; people who want to take taxis will tend to prefer there be more, while drivers of private vehicles will tend to prefer there be fewer. Residents typically also prefer fewer, unless their own use of taxis overrides that preference.

discardorama 11y ago

FTA: "In the late 1930s, there were just under 12,000 medallions in circulation; more than 75 years later, in a city larger by one million people and benefiting from far greater prosperity, there are only 13,000." Population growth alone would require another 600 medallions. But remember: in the 1930s, we were just coming out (or on the upswing) of the Great Recession; so affluence would dictate a much larger number. So why is the number so low? > Instead, arcane aspects of state and local law and, crucially, the power wielded by wealthy and politically generous fleet owners — who don’t want to see the creation of more medallions lest the value of theirs decline — make that [more medallions] virtually impossible. There you have it. It is, for the lack of a better word, greed. When you have hedgefunds owning medallions[1], you know it's a bad sign. Essential services for the general populace should not be a vehicle for hedge funds. An ideal (or, a better) system would be responsive. It would look at how busy cabs are, and accordingly change the number of medallions in circulation. Every year (or every nth year, take your pick), have a Dutch auction[2] of the desired number of medallions. Disallow renting of medallions (only the owner gets to drive the cab), which will kill speculation. Put an app around the whole system, so users can hail cabs from their mobile devices. Pain eased. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303653004579214314123978606 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023036530045792143... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction

revelation 11y ago
How are there so little medallions, yet so many idle taxis? And taxi drivers still making barely over minimum wage (if you subtract the living costs)? This theory that greedy property owners stifled medallion creation is certainly appealing but it doesn't seem supported by the facts at hand.
- mcintyre1994 11y ago
  Can you elaborate what you mean by subtracting living costs? Are you saying that after all necessary expenses they have slightly more than minimum wage left over? That seems like a wage that shouldn't be compared to just minimum wage, given that in many places (I don't know about new York) minimum wage is below what you'd consider a living wage that covers necessary expenses.

freewizard 11y ago

If there's one thing gov need to do against Uber/Lyft, that's set a high bar for drivers' capability, not limit their numbers.

bdcravens 11y ago
In the face of higher requirements, Uber would likely let anyone drive and then cast the appropriate narrative (in other words, their current gameplan)
- pekk 11y ago
  Since they don't currently respect the law, it doesn't make any difference how you decide to change the law because they're still not going to respect it.

davidf18 11y ago

Limiting medallions creates market inefficiencies which is no good to anyone except the medallion owners. With $1 million medallions drivers have to pay a significant portion of their gross receipts for renting the artificially expensive taxi. One taxi driver claims to gross $250-$300 for a 12 hour shift, but he pays $150 of that to lease the taxi (with medallion). http://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/nyc-taxi/shift-life-cab-driver http://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/nyc-taxi/shift-life-cab-driv... Thus, about half of our fares plus tips go to paying for the taxi with medallion, before paying for gas.

Trombone12 11y ago
The story opens with retelling the reasons the medallion system was created... it's probably not a good idea to completely ignore the historical events: "There were too many drivers going after too few passengers — fares were slashed, tensions between fleets escalated, violence erupted"
- davidf18 11y ago
  Well, a person born on the day in 1937 when the limit was put in effect would have been retired at age 65 13 years ago (age 78). As the economy improved, e.g., post WW II in 1945, 70 years ago, this limit should have been revisited. All this limit has served to do is to make taxis in NYC far more expensive than they should be (in Manhattan not many own cars) and taxi drivers making far less money than they should be.
  - Trombone12 11y ago
    If you meant to say that the limits should be revised, may I suggest using wording that actually carries that meaning? I find it hard to see an argument about revising limits in the statement: "limiting medallions creates market inefficiencies which is no good to anyone"

jacknews 11y ago

Is it just me, or does the photo in this piece quite obviously show protesting Uber tech/marketing employees, not drivers? If that's the case, and in fact Uber mainly services the relatively affluent, and not typical Bronx residents, then this is a pretty disgusting and disingenuous piece of marketing/lobbying on Uber's part.