Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#181

Post by gwern »

JackFr wrote: post #107
gwern wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's far from obvious that demand has outstripped supply. The population of Manhattan was significantly higher in 1937 than it is now 1.9 million vs. 1.6 million. On a population basis it would seem that we would need fewer rather than more cabs. Wrong population number, in the case of Manhattan where real estate prices are so high that 'number of people officially living there' becomes the wrong metric, and the ri…

You miss the point -- it's not about the number -- it's about the change since 1937. No where in the reference you provide is there any evidence that this number has grown since 1937. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/subways_on_roll_fDYxgwu92... From the Apr 10th NY Post: "More than 1.65 billion straphangers used the system in 2012 — numbers that haven’t been seen since 1946 when ridership was more than 2 billion,…

> Many New Yorkers then worked six days a week and many of today’s free-transfer points required a second fare.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#182

Post by adventured »

jonknee wrote: post #148
adventured wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and the fact that the US is 1/7th as densely populated as the UK (UK is 260 people per km, the US is 34/km). The US is #179 on the population density list country wise. If someone won't sell you a piece of land, there's a vast supply of other land to look at. The only place you'll run into a problem is in a few high density metros like NYC.

Those are pretty dishonest stats though considering the vast majority of that land is extremely rural and much of it is owned by the Federal government (the Feds own 28% of all land in the country). The UK doesn't have something like Alaska which is both huge and empty (Alaska alone is 7 times the size of the UK, but has just 730k people).

If the US ever had a land crunch, it could easily open up vast new tracks of land for settlement via the US Govt. It's very valuable to have that ability. The Feds are already beginning to sell off their hoard of property due to fiscal problems.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#183

Post by damian2000 »

Great article. I'm interested as to what the effects would be on the taxi industry from these ride sharing apps combined with self driving cars. I think it would likely result in a further more efficient transport system - less people having to own cars, a decreased need for car parking.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#184

Post by ajays »

adventured wrote: post #182
jonknee wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are pretty dishonest stats though considering the vast majority of that land is extremely rural and much of it is owned by the Federal government (the Feds own 28% of all land in the country). The UK doesn't have something like Alaska which is both huge and empty (Alaska alone is 7 times the size of the UK, but has just 730k people).

If the US ever had a land crunch, it could easily open up vast new tracks of land for settlement via the US Govt. It's very valuable to have that ability. The Feds are already beginning to sell off their hoard of property due to fiscal problems.

That's assuming anyone would want to live on the barren North Slope of Alaska. Just because it's land doesn't mean you can live there comfortably...

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#185

Post by ajays »

macspoofing wrote: post #35
brador wrote: post #25

Taxi drivers significantly under report earnings for tax purposes. They always claim close to minimum wage. You'll find the same in every cash business.

Probably, but I can guarantee you that the vast majority don't make a lot of money.

I once asked a cab driver how much he made (in SF), and after humming and hawing, he implied that he made close to $90K/year, mostly tax-free.

Take it for what it's worth (sample size == 1), but there are a lot of people who would love to be driving a cab in SF. Cab drivers who rent the cabs pay $300 for an 8-hour shift on weekends (Friday evening - Saturday morning), and still manage to make enough money to make it worth their while.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#186

Post by gamble »

rdtsc wrote: post #154
lukeschlather wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cornerstone of democratic philosophy is that there's a huge difference between a central democratic government and some lord.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so sure. As a little guy I still owe someone money even though I "own" the property. There is also mineral rights and such that make it complicated. Then zoning. At the end of the end of the day someone comes and slaps me for not paying them "rent".

The significant difference is that taxes are assessed on an impartial basis - usually a percentage of current market value. The classic problem with landlords is that tenants have no incentive to increase productivity when the landlord captures all of the gains by increasing rent. Even today, businesses often end up in situations where the landlord sees that they're doing well and jacks up the rent in the belief that moving to another location will be too disruptive. My municipal government can demand property tax, but it doesn't hike it every time I get a raise at work.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#187

Post by ajays »

codex wrote: post #87

Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets. Most of the time, cabs just drive around waiting for a fare. This is because cabs are often hailed when they are seen, but even if a cab is summoned by a phone call (or smartphone) the closet cab to the fare is…

"Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets."

You're missing a huge piece of the equation: politics and corruption. Medallions were currency used to do favors to politicians, power-brokers, etc. It was a cheap way for someone to make some cash by renting it out. The government created the monopoly and scarcity; then those in power used it to make money. A story that's repeated all over the place.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#188

Post by ajays »

People are bringing up "market forces", etc.

The solution that I think would work in SF is as follows. Charge a flat rate (say, $50K/year; though a Dutch Auction might be reasonable too) for leasing out a permit to qualified drivers. You qualify drivers by running background checks, and testing them on the knowledge of the city. Pass a law that makes illegally running a cab a serious offence. This will automatically solve the "tragedy of the commons" or "too many cabs" problem, because if there are too many cabs, they won't be able to make the $50K/year needed to break even. If 2000 cabs (a number 20% larger than the current fleet size) enroll in this, you're looking at an additional $100M/year.

To run the program, have a small enforcement wing of SFMTA (instead of the current gigantic bureaucracy that micromanages everything). Offer up an open API so people can build apps that track cabs, hail cabs, etc.

The medallion system is 19th century. We need a 21st century system.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#189

Post by evv »

elchief wrote: post #151

Odd, no mention of driverless cars, which are sure to wipe out the taxi industry entirely.

The last sentence of the article:

> Ride-sharing apps should be allowed to take over the market - until they too are disrupted by self-driving cars. And so it goes.

There are a large number of technical and political hurdles before driverless taxis will be possible. We will need autonomous vehicles on the road for many years for legislation to adapt and for people to become comfortable with the driverless concept from a safety and liability standpoint. Still, I'm with you that it is inevitable, and very exciting.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#190

Post by brc »

gamble wrote: post #186
rdtsc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, yes. In practice, not so sure. As a little guy I still owe someone money even though I "own" the property. There is also mineral rights and such that make it complicated. Then zoning. At the end of the end of the day someone comes and slaps me for not paying them "rent".

The significant difference is that taxes are assessed on an impartial basis - usually a percentage of current market value. The classic problem with landlords is that tenants have no incentive to increase productivity when the landlord captures all of the gains by increasing rent. Even today, businesses often end up in situations where the landlord sees that they're doing well and jacks up the rent in the belief that…

Referring to 'lord' here is actual lords, like the Lord of Westminster. When I lived there, I paid something like 55 pounds a year into the lords pocket for use of the land.

Landlord in your usage is a different terminology. In the UK a lord with lands either doesn't have the ability, or in practice, does not raise the land rents arbitrarily. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in UK properly law could weigh in.

As other have said, in theory it is different. In practice it isn't. A single property owner has about as much chance of swaying the central government as they have of swaying the earl of whatever.

Post reply on HN