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

Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

bostonglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#101

Post by Argorak »

lukasm wrote: post #4
Argorak wrote: post #2

The article concentrates on aspects that are certainly archaic - the expectancy that a taxi driver knows every street in a city. On the other hand, it totally ignores the benefits of the regulation: the client can have normalized expectations over all businesses. E.g. in germany, your insurance status if an Uber car crashes is unknown - it depends whether the driver is insured. On the other hand, it is clearly regula…

Is that really a problem? If he's not insured you're just gonna sue him or Uber.

That's a common misconception. If I loose a leg, the driver will probably never be able to pay the sum, go through personal bankruptcy and leave me with a nice sum I sued for, but no actual money.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#102

Post by alkonaut »

jmckib wrote: post #83
alkonaut wrote: post #44

Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping into a taxi. Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely. In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. T…

> I miss the days of more regulation, but won't use Uber merely because they don't guarantee union wages etc like the other companies do. This raises the question, do you refuse to use any service that doesn't guarantee union wages? If so, picking up an econ textbook will pay for itself in no time.

It's hard to trace products through the entire chain of production, but yes, in Sweden it's quite hard to buy products and services produced without the union setting the wages (there are no minimum wages set by law, only unions, and the union negotiates wages also for non-union employees). It might be under the headline "Scandinavian model" of that econ textbook.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#103

Post by gambiting »

streptomycin wrote: post #96
psaintla wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, that isn't just London, in NYC it is the same way. There are seasonal changes in traffic that can completely alter the route you should take to different parts of the city that seem illogical. Navigation systems don't currently take that into account.

Why don't they? Google normally seems pretty good about recognizing changes in traffic patterns and selecting alternate routes.

A good taxi driver will recognize that if there is a major event in an hour, it's better to avoid some routes, even though Google maps might still be showing them as perfectly clear. They won't be in 30 minutes.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#104

Post by alkonaut »

mhb wrote: post #67
alkonaut wrote: post #44

Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping into a taxi. Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely. In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. T…

Why do you conclude that the unregulated taxi prices aren't lower than they would be with regulation?

Empirical only, of course it isn't a perfect natural experiment as there is no control group. We can't know what the regulated prices would have been.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#105

Post by alkonaut »

sirsar wrote: post #61
alkonaut wrote: post #44

Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping into a taxi. Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely. In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. T…

> Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely. Sidestepping lots of regulation is the only way to get around the archaic parts. There certainly won't be a referendum on taxis.

I think that is very much up to the local political climate, whether there are companies/groups that want to protect the status quo, and so on. Uber is a global thing, it may have started because of local taxi regulation in the US, but all I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily the same thing everywhere.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#107

Post by 001sky »

Schwoisser wrote: post #77
001sky wrote: post #11

Taxi cabs are just one of the professions suffering from the problem of competition being in conflict with professional standards (ie, self-regulation). The only option that will be fully serviceable remains government regulation, but it will need to take on a new format.

How do you know? Is there a study that shows cabs need government regulation.

If you're imagination needs broadening... se, eg

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7948931

or the many parallels to

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7935819

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#108

Post by jmckib »

alkonaut wrote: post #102
jmckib wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I miss the days of more regulation, but won't use Uber merely because they don't guarantee union wages etc like the other companies do. This raises the question, do you refuse to use any service that doesn't guarantee union wages? If so, picking up an econ textbook will pay for itself in no time.

It's hard to trace products through the entire chain of production, but yes, in Sweden it's quite hard to buy products and services produced without the union setting the wages (there are no minimum wages set by law, only unions, and the union negotiates wages also for non-union employees). It might be under the headline "Scandinavian model" of that econ textbook.

Ah, sorry to knock your country of residence, perhaps unions work differently in Sweden. In the USA, unions use their monopoly power to push wages above the competitive rate, at the expense of consumers, the unemployed, and nonunion workers. Imagine if you were looking for your first job, and you were only allowed to be employed at union rates. It would not be easy to convince an employer to hire you. Perhaps that's why so many youth in Sweden are unemployed?

Also, in the US, I have the freedom to negotiate my own wages, rather than having them negotiated for me by a union over which I have no control. This means that if I work harder or smarter I will earn more. Personally, I like having control over my own destiny in this way, and society at large reaps the benefits of more motivated and productive workers.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#109

Post by alkonaut »

jmckib wrote: post #108
alkonaut wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to trace products through the entire chain of production, but yes, in Sweden it's quite hard to buy products and services produced without the union setting the wages (there are no minimum wages set by law, only unions, and the union negotiates wages also for non-union employees). It might be under the headline "Scandinavian model" of that econ textbook.

Ah, sorry to knock your country of residence, perhaps unions work differently in Sweden. In the USA, unions use their monopoly power to push wages above the competitive rate, at the expense of consumers, the unemployed, and nonunion workers. Imagine if you were looking for your first job, and you were only allowed to be employed at union rates. It would not be easy to convince an employer to hire you. Perhaps that's…

If wages were left to market mechanisms, there would be no need for a set minimum wage. The fact that there is a minimum wage, and that many earn just that, is a clear indication that the market price of labor isn't negotiated between parties of equal strength.

To be clear: regardless of who sets the minimum wage, there is a minimum wage, and you aren't free to take a job under that level. To be honest, it would seem easier to "control" the union of which you are a member, than to adjust the minimum wage. It's just two organizations where one (congress/parliament) feels larger and further away.

A huge drawback of a single minimum wage (not differing between different parts of the labor market) is that it will spel trouble for companies when businesses on different parts of the cycle would be treated the same. As an example, here companies relying on export such as truck makers are hugely sensitive to drops in global economy, and unions will accept frozen wages to limit layoffs as soon as bad times hit, which it does early in the cycle. Meanwhile service jobs or the public sector may be at a completely different point in the economy cycle, with perhaps 1-2 years before bad times hit. To use the same wages in both parts of the labor market would be a rather blunt solution.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#110

Post by jmckib »

alkonaut wrote: post #109
jmckib wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, sorry to knock your country of residence, perhaps unions work differently in Sweden. In the USA, unions use their monopoly power to push wages above the competitive rate, at the expense of consumers, the unemployed, and nonunion workers. Imagine if you were looking for your first job, and you were only allowed to be employed at union rates. It would not be easy to convince an employer to hire you. Perhaps that's…

If wages were left to market mechanisms, there would be no need for a set minimum wage. The fact that there is a minimum wage, and that many earn just that, is a clear indication that the market price of labor isn't negotiated between parties of equal strength. To be clear: regardless of who sets the minimum wage, there is a minimum wage, and you aren't free to take a job under that level. To be honest, it would seem…

I agree with you that a minimum wage can be beneficial in industries where wages are not negotiated between parties of equal strength, for example, the giant Walmart that employs half the people in town. In this case, economic models show that a minimum wage could actually increase employment by pushing wages closer to what the competitive wage would be.

However, I'd argue that in many (if not most) industries this is not the case. In fast-food and software, for example, the workers are free to move between employers at will, giving the workers significant power to negotiate.

I remain skeptical that governments (or unions) are smart enough to set the correct minimum wage without going under or overboard, which would hurt the unemployed and consumers. A better solution, I think, is a basic income system that ensures nobody is in poverty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Post reply on HN