Live data from Hacker News

The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

blog.priceonomics.com

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#31
post #22

> The reason taxi drivers have to pay for the right to work is that they need access to a taxi medallion to do their job. A medallion is a permit issued by the government that is required to drive a cab in most cities in America. If you don’t use the medallion yourself, you can rent it out to other drivers on your own or, more commonly, through a taxi company. Taxi companies that rent out access to the medallions hav…

Taxi drivers are allowed to get medallions. But since the supply is so low, they usually cost a few hundred thousand dollars. So people rent instead.

Fixing that by outlawing medallion-rental is like trying to make housing costs cheaper by outlawing apartments. A much better solution would be to eliminate medallions, which could be done without removing the licensing system filter.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#32

There is a flipside however, for those who think deregulation is the answer. In Amsterdam, the taxi market has been completely deregulated. You do not want to get a taxi there unless you order it from a trusted source, and even then it's ridiculously expensive. And you don't want to try to disrupt that market unless you have good organized crime connections...

That seems more like a failure with "regulating" organized crime than a call for regulating taxi cabs.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#33
post #19
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is fine, but that's not why taxi's were regulated, at least in New York. The regulations go back to the depression and were put in place specifically to limit competition in order to keep prices high and protect employment of existing cab drivers. The history is right on the NYC gov page: http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_... -- quoting from the NYC site: "Widespread pove…

As you wrote: "The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business." Protecting a critical industry from market failure is more than just "protecting employment"

Why would you say that it would lead to market failure? It would have led to more cabs, lower fares, and more jobs (albeit at lower wages).

BTW - if it wasn't clear, I didn't write that sentence. I copied and pasted it from the nyc.gov site I linked. I'll edit my post to make it more clear. But I think it important that the regulators themselves are being honest about why the regulations came to be.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#34
post #22

> The reason taxi drivers have to pay for the right to work is that they need access to a taxi medallion to do their job. A medallion is a permit issued by the government that is required to drive a cab in most cities in America. If you don’t use the medallion yourself, you can rent it out to other drivers on your own or, more commonly, through a taxi company. Taxi companies that rent out access to the medallions hav…

>I don't see how the medallion itself (a permit issued by the government)

Well... now you're playing word games. A medallion, as commonly understood, is a very specific type of government-issued permit, with special properties (like being transferable and severely limited in supply).

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#36
post #32

There is a flipside however, for those who think deregulation is the answer. In Amsterdam, the taxi market has been completely deregulated. You do not want to get a taxi there unless you order it from a trusted source, and even then it's ridiculously expensive. And you don't want to try to disrupt that market unless you have good organized crime connections...

That seems more like a failure with "regulating" organized crime than a call for regulating taxi cabs.

what it means is you changed one monopoly for another.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#37
>After the customer leaves the car, there is no record of their behavior in the taxi.

Really? I haven't looked hard for them in NYC Yellow Cabs, but every livery car I've hired has had a security camera inside.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy you're replying to just gave you a reason to limit the supply of taxis: regulating them is expensive.

That's not a reason to limit the supply of taxis. That's a reason to charge a fee for a taxi license that defrays the cost of regulating them.

Sounds like a reason to stop regulating taxis to me. If some sort of independent "certification" is needed, there's no reason the free market can't provide such a service. In fact, it such a service is actually valuable, it's almost inevitable that it would emerge.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#39
post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

Honest question, why sinister? What has happened?

Another poster is claiming the unregulated Amsterdam market has been taken over by organised crime. That actually sounds sinister.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#40
I drove a taxi as a summer job in college in my hometown (small city near Boston). I thought I would share a few observations.

In our city, there were three companies that owned the medallions. An unwritten rule: The city was divided into territories, and we weren't supposed to pick up in the other territories unless we were flagged down. If someone from another territory called our company, they were told to call one of the others and arrange for the pickup.

75% of our business was call-ins or pre-arranged pickups (students, travellers, sometimes people with revoked licenses). Another 20% was pickups at the taxi stands outside the subways stations or hotels. There were a very small number of people flagging us down on the street. In Boston, there are many more street pickups. Note that this was all before the cellphone era.

We also couldn't pick up in Boston, unless someone called us in advance. Even if we were flagged while driving through the city (for instance, coming back from a drop-off), we had to ignore. This was by law, to prevent cabs from Cambridge or other towns from taking business away from the Boston cabs (and Boston cabs from taking business from Cambridge and the 'burbs, etc.). It made airport runs a bit of a risk -- while the fare was higher, since it was almost impossible to be able to pick someone up after dropping off someone at Logan, we were basically losing the opportunity to take other passengers for 30 minutes (or longer, depending on the traffic).

I should also add that rates in Boston were cheaper than other nearby cities and towns. This would make some passengers angry -- "it only cost me $X to come from the airport. Why is it $X + $20 now?"

We got a cut of proceeds off the meter, plus tips. Part-timers had to take the worst shifts, and the worst cars -- old LTDs and Ford Fairmonts that often had major mechanical problems. It was a poor way to make extra money -- unless you had a busy shift (rush hour, or rainy days) there was lots of down-time, which meant fewer receipts.

Post reply on HN