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

Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 539 posts

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#51

Post by yazaddaruvala »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #43
MicroBerto wrote: post #39

Sounds like time for some politicians to get voted out of office. Voters may not care about certain things, but they definitely care about their transportation.

Working class folks care more about their jobs than Uber's profits (rightfully so).

There are more working class folks, who this disadvantages than advantages. I'm sure the people of Mass who use Uber, would look at this as an extra tax put onto them. And Uber will cost more.

For example, when regulation (which was needed) around driver verification came out: I remember a very clear message on the Uber app about why the price of each ride went up $1.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#52

Post by dsacco »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #14
rev_bird wrote: post #2

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.…

I like your comment as a contribution to discussion, but I'd like to see a dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in of itself.

I see this implied quite a bit on Hacker News. Usually something along the lines of, "But doing this will increase income inequality" stated as a counterpoint.

If overall quality of life increases, I am personally unconcerned with income inequality. I haven't seen definitive evidence that income inequality is itself a bad thing if it is a byproduct of capitalist processes that are improving life for basically every measurable metric.

I'm not saying we should dismiss it, but I'd like to engage in more consideration rather than make it a boogeyman.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#53

Post by edko »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #14
rev_bird wrote: post #2

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.…

When self-drivers become the norm, taxi and truck drivers, and their families (a significant section of the economy) will be the first to suffer, but it will not end there. The knock-on recessive effect on every other sector of the economy will be huge. Anyone thinking lightly along the lines of "truck drivers should adapt to the new economy", feeling safe for being in another industry, should remember how the housing crisis didn't just affect mortgage banks and the construction sector, but absolutely everyone, for many years.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#55

Post by Dylan16807 »

dsacco wrote: post #42
0xFFC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to see cab drivers turn into homeless drifters 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…

It doesn't make sense to say, "Except for [subset of policy a], I am 100% in favor of [policy a], but for [subset of policy a] I am 100% in favor of [policy b]." That's like saying, "Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free." It muddles your point. Just a nit.

It makes sense to me. Try something more like "I don't think people should get into debt, except for student loans". They support policy A for some markets, and policy B for other markets. That's not muddled.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#56

Post by acidburnNSA »

dharmon wrote: post #47
acidburnNSA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The book The Box talks about longshoremen unions fighting the age of shipping containers and the unemployment it caused by eliminating the need for manually packing ships. The solution that worked best were unions that accepted this path was inevitable, and instead of insisting on setting fire to the ship, negotiated transition payments for soon-to-be unemployed longshoremen. Essentially phasing out their jobs, givin…

I like it. For self-driving trucks, someone suggested to me once that we could give all the truck drivers promotions to "logistics supervisors." They ride along and do paperwork and the trucking companies stop hiring for that position.

I just feel like it's more likely that the trucking companies see that they can save money by firing them and tell them goodbye.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#57

Post by yazaddaruvala »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #41
raziel414 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can provide an example. I live in Seattle, and use "One Bus Away" everyday. It provides a map showing of all the public bus stops, and real time estimates for bus arrivals at each stop.

One Bus Away was developed by University of Washington students, not government bureaucrats.

How do you believe University of Washington students know the location of each bus in the Metro Seattle area, in "real time"?

Also, to play devil's advocate, isn't UW technically government funded, at least subsidized for "in state" students?

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#58

Post by woah »

dsacco wrote: post #42
0xFFC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to see cab drivers turn into homeless drifters 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…

It doesn't make sense to say, "Except for [subset of policy a], I am 100% in favor of [policy a], but for [subset of policy a] I am 100% in favor of [policy b]." That's like saying, "Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free." It muddles your point. Just a nit.

It doesn't make sense to drive every viewpoint to an absurd conclusion either. I'm guessing you're close to 100% communist about roads, unless you would like to pay someone every morning when you walk out your door.

The government does some things horribly, but the private sector does some things even worse. I think it's reasonable to look at the evidence and conclude that the balance is wrong sometimes.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#59

Post by acidburnNSA »

vanattab wrote: post #50
acidburnNSA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

What is so bad about income inequality? What is important is standard of living rises and there is a reasonable economic mobility.

A suitable question, and I'm without a suitable answer.

For me, the whole Donald Trump meets Marie Antoinette thing seems concerning. There are obviously large and powerful forces upset about inequality. I don't think we as a society can count on people agreeing that it's ok.

Post reply on HN