Hacker News Reader

Comment by thecopy | Hacker News Reader

I agree with everything but:

>Uber and Lyft should probably be a bit more regulated

The reason behind the taxi situation now is _because_ it is regulated. Regulation never helps the end-consumers, it helps the big corporations hold out competition.

View on HN

>Regulation never helps the end-consumers

The FDA, FDIC, and other acronyms would like to have a word with you.

Also, at least in Germany, there's some responsibilities that official taxies have in exchange for their quasi-monopoly - transportation duty for example.

This is a double-edged sword as well when thinking about needing to drive a drunk, mentally ill or homeless person, but this is critical for elderly or disabled people. My wife was once refused transportation by a taxi driver when she had just to go two kilometers from the airport with a broken leg (granted, shitty situation for both sides here) - and she got compensation and another driver from the taxi central immediately.

While I'm with you on better regulation, blind deregulation has too much collateral damage IMHO.

The problem with the U.S. is that there tends not to be a complete absence of regulation, but regulation that is often poorly designed and/or executed. It's sort of why for decades the American government has spent huge amounts on healthcare, despite politicians bashing the notion of universal healthcare at every turn. I definitely agree that the solution should be better regulation.

Plenty of people would debate whether those programs are a net benefit.

Okay, so instead of regulation, let's empower the drivers instead. Create a new employment status in between W-2 and 1099 for ridesharing/gig economy workers who depend upon those jobs as their main source of income. Have Uber and Lyft provide them with social insurance for vehicles and personal health, either directly or through taxes.

I'd rather dismantle the "normal" employee status and give all citizens health insurance, etc. Why should I be treated worse by the government just for being self-employed?

I am fine with that as well. Making health insurance the province of employers as a way to incentivize hires is a relic of the New Deal era. Divorcing health care mandates from employment is a good idea.

>Regulation never helps the end-consumers,

you can't be serious

I am. Regulation forces barrier of entry to the market higher than it would be naturally, and the specifics of the regulation is largely influenced by the current big players already in the market. This means less competition, higher prices and lower quality.

Exactly what the regulated taxi-business has lead to: The current taxi drivers does not have to care about keeping their taxi clean etc.. they don't have any competition anyway who can take their customers away - well until a number of free-market entrepreneurs entered the space and ignored the regulations, and thus the quality, competition and transparency significantly increased while price decreased. And for the big corporations this was bad. But for the end consumer it was good.

ever heard of Ralph Nader?

Theranos.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com