Hacker News Reader

Comment by em3rgent0rdr | Hacker News Reader

Taxicabs such as in NYC are (were) monopolies. The price you paid was far above what the market rate should have been, which is why drivers were able to make livings on them. Uber/Lyft are simply forcing prices back down to the market rate which is where the prices should be in a free market. Driving isn't really something that should be a career.

> "Why is it that a company that's supposed to be vastly more efficient due to use of computers can't make a profit?"

Well Uber/Lyft are probably focused on growth now. They will make plenty of profit once they dominante every city with driver-less cars.

View on HN

If the GP is correct and the companies are losing money and subsidized by venture capital... Then no, they aren't fixing the process down to market rate. They are artificially delaying the market rate with venture capital.

Yep, and ruining life of lots of people in the process.

But hey, all for big money!

I do not see how subsidizing work is "ruining life of people".

I, for one, receive competitive salary from market and would love my work be additionally subsidized by VC. Ruin me all you can.

Subsidizing poorly paid work. Work that on the median, if the research is correct, does not even make 50% of minimum wage.

> The price you paid was far above what the market rate should have been, which is why drivers were able to make livings on them.

This sentence makes no sense to me. How can something's "market rate" be non-profitable for the producer? If you have market forces acting on something the balance of forces will necessarily push the price higher than the price of production.

If something doesn't make sense to sell because it's too cheap, the market actors will not produce it, lowering the supply and decreasing the offer, thus increasing the price. eventually, you have to reach a price balance somewhere higher than the initial cost of production, for at least a subset of the producers.

> How can something's "market rate" be non-profitable for the producer?

You are confusing 'making a living' with making something. Even if a driver only nets $3.37/hour, that is still 'profit'. Just not enough to feed/house/etc yourself if it's your primary source of income.

Yeah, but the taxi driver had to finance both his/her medallion and the car, which in most cases would not double as a personal car for everyday errands (as somebody else would drive it during their shift). Those costs have been driven down as well.

> "Driving isn't really something that should be a career."

Why not?

This question would have made sense 10-20 years ago.

No, I'm still confused. What is the problem with being a taxi driver for life and expecting a good wage?

Only middle class professionals have "a career" and therefore deserve to have enough money to live on, don't you know.

It's the primary reason we don't need a minimum wage - working in the service industry or any other relatively unskilled work isn't "a career" so it doesn't matter if it only pays 2 bucks an hour, so goes the reasoning because nobody should be expecting to do it for long or make a life out of it.

It's myopic.

If teachers can’t be expected to support their family off their income, why should someone doing something that can be crowd sourced as a side gig? Just because I can make $15 tying peoples shoes doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to support a family off of it.

Because it is in your(society) interest that people can support themselves and their families with just one job. Otherwise you end up spending more on benefits and support not to mention on all the problems that come with chronic unemployment.

>> If teachers can’t be expected to support their family off their income,

Why the f*ck should teachers not be paid enough to support themselves and have a life? Wow.

Low barrier to entry.

> and expecting a good wage

Wait, you added that part just now.

I don't see why you couldn't drive a taxi for a living (though I don't know if that is all that was meant by "career"), but taking for granted that you will be paid well seems off.

> No, I'm still confused. What is the problem with being a taxi driver for life and expecting a good wage?

No, I'm still confused. What is the problem with being an elevator operator for life and expecting a good wage?

It makes perfect sense now.

In my country (Poland), cabs are not regulated very heavily, which leads to a flood of drivers, and low prices. In result, in many towns even by driving 10 hours a day (most of which is spent waiting for customers) you're making not much above the minimum wage. As a result, driving a cab has become in large part an extra source of income for retired cops or other people who retire early (say in their fourties).

I don't see nothing wrong with that - it's a job that requires no qualifications, has no boss, flexible hours, is not demanding physically or intellectually. In short - a dream job for many people. It only makes sense for it to pay less than say a grueling job at a factory.

> 'Driving isn't really something that should be a career'

I haven't read more ambiguous and ludicrous statement on here ever.

Please evaluate your point, because if you are right then a huge number of workers across the globe should not have a career in driving.

In a way, monopolies are good like elevator limits are good. It's not the support of the elevator that's the problem but the discomfort of people being crammed into the same space.

When the same market can suddenly be open to anyone you get people cramming into elevators and buses so that everyone is uncomfortable.

The entire US revolves around gates and monopoly like jobs. The greatest gate being the immigration gate. Technology empowers everyone and moves everyone towards the mean. Which is bad for groups that are above the mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com