This is a really great article digging into the economics of Uber. The unsustainable economics of the industry were a lot more obvious to obvious in markets where Uber had well funded local competitors and ultimate failed like China. When Uber and Didi were competing everyone was using car service to get around. A 45 minute ride could cost 1 us dollar. You had people in jobs making 600 USD a month riding to work in 100k usd Teslas when previously they would take the bus or subway for 15 cents. Everyone was taking advantage of subsidies. When Uber left China, DiDi prices went up a lot of most people stopped using it exclusively and regularly. Taxis in many cities are both faster to hail and cost less money.

The issue I take with the article is that the authors appear to believe in some god-given right to car-based public transit. For example, people what work night shifts at low paying shouldn’t have to pay the surges prices a rich person trying to leave a club would pay. They also believe that adults shouldn’t be able to get themselves into money losing business deals (which is what sounds like is happening for both drivers and Uber equity holders). They also believe that people should not use money raised voluntarily in the market to subsidize services.

It is not clear to me that those beliefs are self evidently true.

As an example: Regulation that subsidies late night taxis for low wage night shift workers economically distorts just like uber drivers that are receiving food stamps. Why is the former okay but the later is not? Both are subsidies to employers who can have a job filled by paying a lower wage than the market would otherwise bear.