21–30 of 539 posts
1) They are profitable because they are finding loopholes in relevant legislation, or,
2) they are profitable because they are injecting competition and new ideas into a stagnating industry dominated by government-protected monopolies (or oligopolies).
Your opinion of the law will likely depend on which narrative you find more persuasive.
There are two competing narratives about ride-hailing apps success: 1) They are profitable because they are finding loopholes in relevant legislation, or, 2) they are profitable because they are injecting competition and new ideas into a stagnating industry dominated by government-protected monopolies (or oligopolies). Your opinion of the law will likely depend on which narrative you find more persuasive.
During periods of extremely high surge pricing, I take regulated taxis instead. At first I think, 'wow I love competition its such a good thing this alternative service was around' but then I try to pay the cab driver, here is the experience in 2016: - The meter system is broken - The cab driver presses buttons frantically on a black box before resorting to hitting it in hopes that it responds to external stimuli - T…
Or, quite frequently, the cab driver doesn't want to process credit cards and are you sure you don't have cash?
It should be totally opposite: 1) uber drivers are in lower income than taxis drivers 2) uber economy is new and innovative, while taxi is old and dying
3) uber is a taxi company and should follow the same laws and regulations as other taxi companies. Which would of course destroy uber's business model which is based on dodging the law, sorry, "disruption".
It should be totally opposite: 1) uber drivers are in lower income than taxis drivers 2) uber economy is new and innovative, while taxi is old and dying
or better 3) uber is a taxi company and should follow the same laws and regulations as other taxi companies. Which would of course destroy uber's business model which is based on dodging the law, sorry, "disruption".
This is a pretty surreal move: >The law says the money will help taxi businesses to adopt "new technologies and advanced service, safety and operational capabilities" and to support workforce development... [Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association] said the money could go toward improving a smartphone app his association has started using, or to other big needs. I'm not an…
I mostly agree with you, and I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I just read a book ("Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank) that makes some interesting points about how liberals have shifted from representing working people to representing professionals, and to worshiping innovation. While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.…
An excerpt if anyone is interested like I was,
This is a pretty surreal move: >The law says the money will help taxi businesses to adopt "new technologies and advanced service, safety and operational capabilities" and to support workforce development... [Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association] said the money could go toward improving a smartphone app his association has started using, or to other big needs. I'm not an…
This is wrong. This is exactly how they want you to think. Cab drivers are not going to become homeless or jobless, they will work(drive) for a new companies(I agree if market is healthy enough, which is not).But they frame the issue kind of like "losing job" and "becoming homeless" just because they don't want to change. (I said cab drivers because it is what we talk. Other sectors are the same)
P.S. when it comes to education and health and natural environment, I am 100% pro regulation and government interference(kind of like I am firm communist in those three categories). But other than those three I am 100% percent for free market, and I believe invisible hand will get the job done.
Well, things should be equal. Why should a taxi service have to perform a regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it? Either make the Uber driver go through regular inspections or cancel the regulation for the cabbies.
None of which has anything to do with this tax. This is directly using taxation to hand one business a market advantage over another business.
For example, and I'm going offtopic here, but in USA they have lobbying, which is basically legalized bribe. Then people wonder why they chose to do the taxation weirdness from the article. Somebody probably got paid to shave % off Uber income, and I'd bet it won't stop here too.
When the system if flawed from the bottom up, you really can't be wondering why some parts of it are illogical. Especially when money are allowed to directly and openly influence people in power.
There are two competing narratives about ride-hailing apps success: 1) They are profitable because they are finding loopholes in relevant legislation, or, 2) they are profitable because they are injecting competition and new ideas into a stagnating industry dominated by government-protected monopolies (or oligopolies). Your opinion of the law will likely depend on which narrative you find more persuasive.
They are pretty clearly profitable for both of those reasons. They are not at all mutually exclusive.