I think cities should reimburse cabbies if they aren't going to enforce quota restrictions on Uber, etc.
A refund wouldn't do much and in general if you buy an asset that decreases in value you have only yourself to blame. Medallion owners are no more special than anyone else.
If someone invests in a taxi medallion, why are they more worthy of aid than someone who invests in a restaurant?
I think it might be desirable to take out insurance on the asset though as a buyer. It could be an interesting market too.
Investments often result in money lost, that's life - as someone that's been in the market for decades now, yes, I do think it's on you to be aware that black swan bubbles exist, and you'll get wiped out if you're all-in on one when it pops.
If you can't handle the risk of your investment going to zero, hold low-yield bonds, cash, or gold.
Of course, individuals bear no such power. So please don't use banks as an example.
Bankruptcy exists almost entirely to offer protection against this exact scenario playing out.
Pretty sure this will be a Trump executive order soon.
That's not my understanding. I've read that they earn less, and drivers I talk to say it's hard to make money. Also remember that Uber drivers are contractors and get no benefits or other employee protections. Uber does place plenty of stories and op-eds saying otherwise, but I need to see some actual data.
Many things are 'not ... great', but some of them are much better than others. Homelessness isn't great, neither is a low-wage job and public housing, neither is a decent paying job with an awful boss, neither is being a graduate TA at MIT for an awful professor - but some of those are clearly better than others.
The drivers I've spoken to mostly thought that Uber's entrance into the market had hurt their incomes significantly. Of course, that's hardly a representative sample.