Is it possible the training is not as necessary as presumed?
Aren't we opening up a can of worms by praising the idea of creating needless regulations to keep the status quo simply because it's perceived to be more local?
They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them.
Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry.
In this context, "countless" was hyperbole. Obviously the Earth has limited places in which they can operate.
> They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them.
And in many of those, the "issues" are based on municipalities applying unreasonable or taxi-specialized regulations onto them. That in no way implies the service doesn't work, isn't safe, or isn't extremely popular and a great improvement over taxis.
It simply means the right people in the right places would rather protect the status quo than rationally assess the situation and revise policy where necessary.
> Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry.
Nobody's arguing against regulation of taxi services.
The question is whether or not 35 hours of training is reasonable for Quebec only when somehow the rest of the world seems to get by without it. It is also not the case that nobody ever gets hurt, kidnapped, or stolen from by even "trained" taxi drivers.
Lawmakers and regulators need to start using common sense and acting in the best interests of consumers instead of the taxi lobby.
Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.
When "existing standards" clearly benefit an entrenched, poorly-performing business model at the expense of an innovative, disruptive, and tech-enabled business model, those standards should be reassessed. Innovation and industry move much faster than lawmakers and regulators.
By comparison, to become a licensed barber (or electrician, etc) typically requires thousands of hours as an apprentice.
Hardly seems like a huge burden by comparison.
Clearly this would affect ride-sharing companies more than taxi companies, and it's likely no coincidence.
This is protectionism under the guise of "fairness." Nothing more.
Yes, and the adverts in most safe developed countries telling you this are overwhelmingly about defending a local cartel. The ubiquity of them tells you that "regulations are mostly about safety" is just not something you can assume. You have to actually check to see if they're justified.
That's like your opinion man. Seriously, if you feel more safe in a regular taxi, just don't use Uber and leave the rest of us poor people alone. Your help is not welcome.
Also, I think you are incredibly naive to think that the training is mainly there to "help" drivers.
I despise Uber for many reasons.
But the main reasons I go on an Uber is because the drivers in any city I’ve been in have been maniacs, while (in my experience) Uber/lyft drivers are the calmest, most restpectful drivers on the road.
The fact that some venture capitalist is bankrupting themselves subsidizing the trip is a gift that keeps on giving.
At best, people get lucky to get assigned to cars whose drivers don't need the money and party do it for fun. As Uber & Lyft take over the traditional taxi indry's market share though, the quality of taxi drivers will revert to the mean, especially if the drivers are in fact the same people only operating under a different brand.
Some of them are. Safety. Insurance. Identity.
But '35 hours of training' I don't think is one of them.
People are getting very excellent service out of Uber and Lyft, there's no pragmatic reason for '35 hours of training'
I would say my worst cab experiences have all been with uber drivers by far, and it’s gotten markedly worse over time.
Fun cab stories:
I had a cab driver on a van do 120 km/h (75mph) on an offramp I do at 60kph in a sedan.
I had to teach a cab driver how to drive on snow/ice once. As we drive on i75 (in fairness this was in Atlanta, and I grew up in Canada)
I had a (private) driver reek of alcohol
A (private) cab driver in BsAs doing long division on a piece of paper on the freeway (we had an argument over some math I did in my head)
A cab driver in the Andes had a wadfull of coca in his mouth.
Of the half dozen Greek cab rides, only one didn’t give me the run around. (I tipped him the full fare, and he refuse it until I told him it was for his honesty)
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-bann...
Also, don't forget London.
And how many of those would be solved by 35 hours of training as is apparently required in Quebec?
Besides, I said "significant issue." By that I mean the world keeps on spinning despite Quebec's training not being applied elsewhere. People aren't getting killed, injured, or swindled at a rate much higher than with taxis. That raises the question as to what this is really about: safety and protecting the public, or protectionism and keeping the status quo?
It is not the case that we should assume that whatever regulation is in place (especially in this case, where it's unique to Quebec) is valid and useful until proven otherwise. Innovation and industry have always moved much faster than lawmakers and regulators, and anything that coincidentally defends the status quo will naturally be clung to by affected parties.
I couldn't possibly come up with numbers showing what could happen if the training weren't required, but we do know that the rest of the world (including other drivers and normal taxi drivers) seem to do fine without it. That's reason enough that the burden of proof should be on the regulation's proponents, not everyone else.
I agree with this sentiment.
> Innovation and industry have always moved much faster than lawmakers and regulators
This is also true in the case where exploitation runs rampant and a company that operates at a loss causes other operations to go out of business. The causal effects of these type of practices are not without malice to the local economy. Does this mean regulations should be so restrictive? Well duh, absolutely not. There are case studies where working together can work and there are cases where significant aggressive operating tactics are detrimental to the local economy. The two have to actually want to work together.
Something tells me you may not fully informed regarding Uber driver incidents that include murder, sexual assaults, kidnapping, fatal crashes, etc...
Also, that site is literally a creation of the taxi lobby [1].
Regulations were implemented and each taxi driver was licensed by the city. They had a picture of the driver in the vehicle. There is an emergency light in the back in case of alarm the driver can pull which allows another person to call 911.
There are many regulations that Uber is bypassing. It's a great idea, except the taxi service should not be based on the lowest cost, it should be based on safety. This is the one place you need regulations or strict standards.
Our taxi's weren't allowed on the road if they were over 5~years old, now that is changing again.
We are going backwards..
This whole idea that Toronto (or London, or Quebec) is the only place in the world with the unique insight to regulate ride sharing services with their own unique snowflake policies needs to be dispelled. Many of these regulations (including the ones you're citing) clearly are relics of the past that don't reasonably apply to these services.
Residents of Toronto won't be able to move forward by clinging to the entrenched status quo out of misplaced beliefs that their regulations are future-proof, infallible, or provide any significant amount of additional safety to riders.
Because there is absolutely no way that calling 911 on the person sitting next to you and in control of a 2 ton vehicle is going to end badly. Nope.
At some point it's more about protectionism than safety. This is yet another example.
Compared to hailing a taxi, police can't necessarily trace a victim back to a specific driver, so that person could theoretically commit repeated crimes.
This personally gives me a lot more confidence when it comes to putting trust in a driver.
Also, from a cursory glance over that link, a few of those appear to be misleading headlines in which the actual story is "a person, who happens to be an Uber driver, committed a crime".
Yes, but if so then that's something for the localities (through their democratic process) to decide. Not you or I. And it's certainly not for Uber to decide, on its own, what's "best" for that given locality - and to continue operating despite local regulations it happens not to like.
As it has unfortunately has not only had a habit of doing in the past - but which it has done as a deep and abiding expression of its core values as an organization.
Yes, potentially. It would be disingenuous to ignore that possibility, but regulation that favors local competitors does seem to have worked out well for China. If they hadn't actively pushed for home grown alternatives to the SV-based behemoths their tech sector might quite conceivably not be where it is today.
I'd be interested in hearing of counter-cases, preferably specific to tech. As it stands, my operating hunch is that some level of protectionism is beneficial - but I'm far from an expert on the subject.
Well, we're on a discussion forum so that would be appropriate.
> Let's not hide it behind other regulations.
In my experience, it's the exception and not the norm for entities (be they governmental or otherwise) to plainly state their motivations. I think it's unrealistic to expect that to change anytime soon.
Sugar is 3x as expensive in the US as it is in latin america. Why? We have restrictions on imports, and thus we have to have american companies growing sugar. We are missing out, and if we could remove those protectionist laws, we wouldn't have all our food companies relying on HFCS. (I'm not saying that HFCS is any more unhealthy than sugar, but it would help give consumers a choice.)
Let's ponder about China. Chinese entrepreneurs already have an at-home advantage of knowing chinese customs and culture and legal frameworks. If they were not protectionist, then they could be benefitting from cheaper products, which would allow them to accumulate capital faster, which allows them to create new businesses faster. Additionally, the level of success required for their business is not at a "playpin" level-- if they can be successful in the hypothetical non-protectionist chinese market, then they can be successful anywhere in the world with an open market. It's also really important for business people to be getting the proper signals from the market-- i.e., what quality of product they need to provide and at what cost. If you're performing protectionism, you're giving people false numbers.
If I am writing the same code as someone in the 3rd world, I do not deserve to be paid more simply because I'm American. That is arrogance.
And just to be clear what you're saying is that you're fine with workers in 3rd world countries (who are poor) and workers in 1st world countries (who are rich) meeting in the middle? Do you support unlimited H1B visas?
So, there's this idea of comparative advantage. Two companies are both producing widgets, but for some reason one company can produce goods cheaper than the other. The reasons might be things like technology, company or regional culture, training of employees, cost of resources, or geography. If no trade is allowed, then the company with the comparative example can only operate within it's own region. If trade is allowed, then everyone gets the benefit of the cheaper product. Furthermore, the economy is more efficient now!
An example: If it costs Company A $2 to make a widget, and it costs Company B $3 to make a widget, then trading will lower the price. Company B may still be able to be in business, but consumers will get the benefit of competition between the two and having lower prices. Furthermore, because Company A probably selling more widgets now that we've allow trade, the economy is also more efficient, because we're spending less money just producing widgets.
The idea that trade is beneficial is widely accepted. ( http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade ) Protectionism is just one example of an anti-trade policy, so it follows that protectionism is bad, inefficient, and a tradeoff in which there are a few local winners, but at the cost of global efficiency, and as a direct tax on the people living in the region that's "protected".
Khan Academy on trade & comparative advantage: https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
A longer essay about the topic, which addresses the common arguments for protectionism (i.e. infant industries, spillover effects, national security, unequal exchange): http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/28/the-causes-and-effects-of-ec...
And that's why I say it's a case-by-case scenario. In my example above we've added like two or three real-world factors and ended up so far from the simple world of comparative advantage that we're barely even talking about the same hypothetical anymore. I don't mind protectionism in some instances because I know that we won't implement our economically perfect, kaldor-hicks tax and because of that free-trade has had and will continue to have distinctly negative effects on real people and real families.
EDIT: apologies about the textwall.
I wasn't actually familiar with Kaldor-Hicks improvement by name, but that was definitely the idea I was getting at! Kaldor-Hicks improvement is defined in a funny way (i.e. could taxes be added such that we have no losers), but it seems like a proxy for "there is a net benefit / overall people are getting wealthier".
There is also now excess money in the wallets of the consumers. Consumer savings rates are pretty steady, so they're still going to spend money. The rest of the economy will benefit from that, and should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker. America exports a lot of machines, especially those machines used in developing world factories.
I'm okay with there being losers, as long as the gains are more. Because in every industry this choice between "a sliver more wealth for everyone and a few losers" builds in aggregate. And I'm in favor of global improvement-- I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me.
Your problem is that there are losers at all. Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers? Do you think we should have banned the light bulb, for the sake of candle makers? I know these examples are about technology improvements rather than laws, but it's the same principle-- greater good, with the side benefit of free choice.
>should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker.
This is just a total handwave though. There's nothing in your economic theory that says these people are going to find good employment, it's just wishful thinking. We had jobs, we sent them somewhere else, now there's less jobs. Plenty of people who worked at the car plants will never have another job as good. I don't know the history but I'd say that there probably plenty of cobblers who never found as good of employment again either.
>I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me.
That puts you in a tiny minority though. Most people aren't true globablists.
>Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers?
No, because then most of us lose (we don't get cars), I feel we should have taxed cars and redistributed that money to unemployed stablehands and cobblers though. Then we all win!
Let me pose to you a hypothetical example. ABC Corp sells $20 shirts in America. It moves its shirt factory from America to Cambodia. It still sells its shirts for $20. Its new profits are greater than the lost wages of the americans it laid off. If all that profit were distributed to one person, say the CEO would you still think it morally good?
I think that example might get at the heart of our disagreement.
It sounds like you're reciting from an econ 101 textbook here. Let's speak a little more concretely. Take an Uber competitor - do you really envisage a dramatic price difference, particularly once you take Uber's war-chest gouging out of the equation? They still have to compete with local competitors (i.e. cabs), so there doesn't appear to be tons of wiggle room for this tax on consumers.
Even allowing for a slight consumer advantage from a globally competitive ride sharing service, I don't think you've conclusively demonstrated that those negatives necessarily outweigh the benefits of fostering local business. Put plainly, I perceive more benefit in my neighbor having a job than I do in saving $1 on a 10 minute ride sharing trip across town.
> Additionally, the level of success required for their business is not at a "playpin" level-- if they can be successful in the hypothetical non-protectionist chinese market, then they can be successful anywhere in the world with an open market
Sure, this hypothetical company is hypothetically competitive - but how competitive is it going to be if it doesn't exist in the first place? Seems more than a little unrealistic for any company to tackle Google on an even playing field.
Why wouldn't local markets be able to correct? If Uber collapsed, people would still need to get rides from A to B. If Uber collapsed, couldn't most of us make a rudimentary ride-requesting app in short order?
Uber has to eventually make a choice about whether they need to cut costs, jobs or assets at some point in the future; or just wait it out until all the other competition dies out and they are the monopoly of the area.
But, as a result of pulling out of a city, a location, or a reduction in services, you have twofold problem:
1. Loss of jobs 2. Loss of local companies
(or adding the monopoly scenario) 3. Loss of price gouging prevention
Now what makes this type of market more feasible to resiliency is that the assets are distributed (i.e. owned by actual people). So if Uber did have to bail out, people could feasibly still work anyways. This is different than other models where major assets and investments are required to even operate at all.
That being said I worry about how long this is going to last. Uber is operating with the expectation that there will be fully automated self-driving cars and drivers will be unnecessary. This seems to indicate, at least to me, that the distributed asset model would go away (unless all cars are self-driving).
It's an interesting thing to consider, whether their future depends on continued reliance on VC subsidies (which is going to run out), and whether it relies on significant investment in self-driving assets, or whether it relies on everyone having self-driving vehicles. But perhaps part of the math is to balance the book by pushing more in that direction. (At least that's the pitch to the VCs). Basically, I am skeptical that this is sustainable to operate this way at a loss for so long that eventually they will have to increase prices or cut operations. In the case of the monopoly scenario, you have no way to competitively prevent price gouging (however temporary it might be).
My hope is that some aggregator services come along and turn the model into something more distributed with an open-pricing model based on efficiency metrics like operating cost for a self-employed/freelance driver.
That just makes you sound stupid.
Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are protectionist devices that contribute billions to the economy and keep a ton of people employed.
Yes, they have their problems, but saying that they destroy wealth is idiotic.
You're right that protectionism stops innovation, but innovation is not always directly linked to wealth creation, and protectionism comes in many forms, including corporate protectionism.
Having OpenID doesn't seem like a right you can demand. Idk. If you want to, choose a service that provides that. You're right that there's a network effect, but it's a network effect that's been freely given by consumers.
I'm not a pro-Uber shill. I'm kind of hoping that their self-driving car play fails, and that the market corrects itself. (i.e. Uber bankrupts!)
What do you mean corporate protectionism? Corporations don't have the power to pass laws and force people to do things against their will. Those powers only reside in the government. I'm absolutely anti-cronyism and anti-lobbying. I think the best situation we could be in would be one where the government does not have power to meddle in the market, because we would not even have to worry about special interests getting into politician's pockets, because politicians would have no special favors to give in return.
In the end though car transportation will probably be as profitable of a business as airplane transportation - that is not much. The idea that strapping an app and bending regulations will allow Uber to make more money than its competitors seems like a fantasy to me - the price of entry being low enough and regulations being the same for all, Uber Will be the United Airlines of 2070.
The idea that Uber has any right to the data I've put into it is ludicrous as well to me - if I produce data I should have a right to it, and in a fully interchangable manner. anything else is an engineer's defense to monopoly by database, which I increasingly feel like should be illegal.
not sure this example applies to China blocking FB for example. they are 1 - creating job opportunities for their devs and 2 - taking the piece of the pie straight from FB and putting it into their pockets. (+ probably whatever data they want to collect on their citizens instead of FB doing that).
some protectionism is "good". the problem I have with it is it skews the playing field unless all players do the same thing.
By all means enforce antitrust rules against Uber, but the reality is that taxis are going to go extinct, and Uber will too if they don't get self driving cars sorted out.