Airbnb and Uber have showed us that laws matter only to the extent that the political will to enforce them exists. Throw enough lawyers and lobbying money at the problem and the laws can simply be re-written to be friendlier to your business model.
Or is it just "illegal" for an overseas competitor to a domestic industry, in trade disputes?
What is the fine? How many days in jail does the company spend? What portion is its stock diluted by?
We remember the tale of Jeff Bezouis the Wise, who tragically lost his company when he decided he didn't want to buy diapers.com at the offered price, and instead wanted to dump 200 million dollars into selling diapers well below cost until their site folded.
Medallion systems often prevented any competition, sometimes to absurd effect. The number of licenced taxis often didn't keep pace with population growth, sometimes even staying flat. Many drivers didn't own their own medallians then had to rent from owners, often making little money. In my city (Toronto) cabs were often dirty, broken, refused short distance fares (illegal) and smelled of cigarette smoke that was obviously from the driver.
Examples (paywalls, but you get the idea):
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/26/nyregion/amid-a-heritage-...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/adventure/red-li...
But at least I didn’t give Uber any money…
"I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology"
Sure, taxi services aren't usually known to be paragons of virtue, but then they weren't that bad everywhere; Uber is just another case of an US org trying to address an US-specific problem and then bludgeoning the entire world with their solution, whether the rest of the planet has such problems or not.
Ok, but “everywhere” isn’t my problem. They sucked everywhere I had to use one which is my problem.
> they weren’t that bad everywhere
They were beyond a joke where I am from, which is not the US. Even today, they remain a worse option.
> US specific problem
There was nothing US specific about it.
The driver can't scam the passenger. The driver can't set the meter wrong, drive an unnecessarily long route, or just be an outright unlicensed taxi. Instead, the driver maintains a relationship with Uber, and the passenger can preview the fare before committing.
The passenger can't scam the driver. In a traditional taxi, you could theoretically just walk out ("dine and dash" style). The passenger can also make a call to dispatch and not show up for the ride. Instead, the passenger maintains a relationship with Uber, and the driver doesn't need to handle any payments.
> Medallion systems often prevented any competition, sometimes to absurd effect. The number of licenced taxis often didn't keep pace with population growth, sometimes even staying flat.
And thus medallion owners collect economic rent on their artificially scarce resource, distorting the free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
> The passenger can't scam the driver.
Progress! Uber scams both passenger and driver. Hooray for Free Markets™!
Then why do people keep using it? It seems like a pretty transactional relationship to me. If drivers aren't getting paid as much as they wanted, they should find another job with a higher price. If passengers are paying more than they wanted, then they should find another way to call a taxi with a lower price.
like what? Uber's business plan was always about eliminating competition. The company successfully did so by undercutting prices, only to jack them up when they had the market to themselves. There is no Free Market Fairy way to fix that.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/uber-loses-appeal-a...
in bay area, it absolutely makes sense to invent uber, because the taxis were awful. and in vancouver (canada), they're also awful, and deserve the disruption: they would often tell you it'd be a 40 minute wait, and then just not show up
taxis in new york were and continue to be totally fine. you just stand outside and get in ~20 seconds later, with no hassles or apps. i've been in an uber/lyft a handful of times in nyc, but they're just worse (possibly cheaper, but the subway also gives them stiff competition, and i don't care that much if i'm in enough of a hurry to take a cab)
Unless you weren't white, or you wanted to leave Manhattan (or even go north of 96th street). Otherwise, yeah I guess they were okay.
This is only true in a small subset of New York.
The thing that Uber and Lyft really provided was a surveillance economy to keep both the drivers and riders somewhat in-line. Without it, every ride is an almost anonymous one-shot transaction with almost no recourse on one side, so the game theory suggests that service only has to be good enough that the police aren't called.
VC funding allowed them to move quickly enough that they got to a scale where they could afford legal and lobbying protection when challenges eventually happened.
The feedback system incentivizes drivers and riders to behave.
I know there are reasons for not going with public transport, but preferring to take a taxi/uber when a train line can get you there in time maybe has more to say about public transport than about taxis. Well functioning rail is typically one of the most effective and reliable way of getting to an airport, and often much cheaper than taxis.
Same reason you don't see landscaping crews filled out with stellar employees.
That, of course, was the plan all along. Such august figures as JP Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller,and Andrew Carnegie all made their fortune by undercutting the competition, putting them out of business through means legal and otherwise, and finally monopolizing the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Sure, agreed.
> And the experience is equally mediocre.
Absolutely not. I regret using a taxi nearly every time I opt for the cheaper option. It's only the "better" choice if you happen to be standing right in front of one. This experience is nearly universal no matter where I travel.
I think people really forget how utterly terrible Taxis were pre-Uber. I have no idea about competing apps these days, maybe they are similar to Uber, but the typical Taxi experience is nearly as awful as it's always been at least in the US.
Uber/Lyft certainly has gotten worse - but at least I can fairly reliably get a car when I need it with reasonable reliability. The rest of the "soft" product or pricing I really care far, far, less about than that simple fact.
It seems impossible/problematic to generalize the taxi experience to “The US”.
If you’re in a city center, cabs can be far easier. The number of times I’ve ordered an Uber or Lyft and regretted it while watching taxi after taxi drive by has been increasing. But I expect the Chicago loop experience to be quite different from say, the suburbs.
My small rural town of 9000 people had multiple taxi services that poorer people relied on to do even their grocery shopping. We didn't need "disruption"
Tech bros generalizing a negative experience from NYC or SV to the entire US has been so stupid.
The fact that disruption occurred doesn’t necessarily mean that the end result is better.
I doubt that.
I double checked, just to be sure since I paid for taxis for years for a specific trip, each way. Uber is still cheaper TODAY than taxis were when I switched 10 years ago. One way 5 minute trip, Friday 6pm in orange county, ca still under 20$ today.
20$ was a good deal (or ripoff, depending on your attitude) for a taxi in 2015, for the same distance and a variable waiting time. Let's just say it's about equal for sake of discussion. There was no app, but there was a dispatcher you could call. There was no incentive to improve, until then.
Companies have had to adapt and prices have come down. It would no doubt be 30$+ today for taxis, if not for rideshare companies.
Instead, laws like that cause Uber to set their hours and then they can't switch on and off whenever they please and have to work miserable graveyard shifts or split shifts if that's what they're assigned.
Meanwhile there is nothing stopping anyone from taking a job with contractually guaranteed hours if that's what they want. There are plenty of jobs like that, you don't have to mandate all jobs be like that and screw over anyone who wants something different.
But the taxi services obviously hated the competition and waged a continuing media campaign to paint the renegades as the villains.
They created a project named Greyball to identify law enforcement and mislead them.
They created a kill switch for the event of a government raid to gather evidence.
They ordered and then canceled rides on competitor apps.
They tracked journalists and politicians...
The list goes on and on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber
It's like saying "well, they weren't only violating the taxi medallion cartel laws, they were also violating laws against evading enforcement of the taxi medallion cartel laws". There is a central cause here.
Now, that might not be the case. Given the existence of bad laws, having someone who is able to break out of the bad cage might be better than if no one can, but let's consider what happens if we assume that it's worse.
Regardless of how they're ranked relative to each other, you would only pick either of the two worse options over the best if it was easier to do it. But getting bad laws enforced against well-heeled players is actually the hardest thing to do because they're doing something sympathetic and have the resources to fight, which is harder to do than repealing the bad laws.
(I also don't agree that the only problem here is bad laws. Yes, some of the laws that big players break are bad; some are fine. I'm not just talking about Uber here.)
Whether something is good independent of what it takes to achieve it is a separate question from whether that's where you should focus your efforts.
> We would have a lot less bad law if laws were enforced more evenly, because people would more quickly see their true effects, rather than having to wait until companies exploited the loopholes in enforcement so egregiously.
Which is exactly why it's so hard to do it. The status quo is: Pass lots of laws that make everything illegal so that anyone without resources can be brought up on charges if they ruffle the wrong feathers. If you wanted to actually enforce all of those laws, they would immediately have to be repealed or everyone would be in jail. Which isn't in the interests of the people who want to keep them on the books to use for selective enforcement, so they don't enforce them that way in order to keep them on the books.
The consequence is that it takes even more political capital to have those laws rigorously enforced than to have them repealed, because then you have to fight both the big guys who don't want short-term enforcement against themselves and the autocrats who don't want to long-term have the laws repealed, instead of only the latter.
> I also don't agree that the only problem here is bad laws.
When laws are enforced against the little guys but not the big guys, it's usually because they're bad laws, because letting the rich openly get away with literal murder is highly unpopular.
The most significant category of good laws that big companies regularly violate with impunity is antitrust laws, but those also don't often get enforced against the little guy because the little guy isn't even in a position to violate them.
It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!
Heh, yeah, I was going to post to add this as well. That is the underlying problem. I don't necessarily think it has to mean "workers owning the means of production" per se, more like "the richest person's wealth cannot be more than X times the poorest" and "the largest participant in a market cannot have more than Y% market share", but the idea is similar. :-)
Quite the opposite.
You have a bad law which is only enforced against the little guy. Right now, when it's not enforced against the big guy, stories are written about it to get people riled up, but that's the wrong target.
Right now, when those laws are enforced against the little guy, people say "well they broke the law". Which is true, because everyone is breaking the law all the time, because there are so many bad laws. So what should be happening is, every time they try to enforce a bad law against the little guy, that should be the thing that gets people ruled up -- even if they're guilty. Because everyone is guilty, because the laws are crazy. So get people worked up about that so that the laws can be changed. Don't accept that people guilty of violating bad laws deserve to be punished. Drag the prosecutors through the mud. Flood the legislators with complaints whenever it happens. Use jury nullification and publicize to everyone that it's their right. Get those laws repealed.
> I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the government by those with large resources.
This was supposed to be checks and balances and limited government. As soon as you unchain legislators to micromanage the economy, anyone who captures them can shape the law to their advantage and then become rich and use the money to make sure the government stays captured.
The government needs to be constrained from making laws that inhibit competition.
> It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!
The words you're looking for are "antitrust enforcement".
The other downstream conclusions make sense too, but the linkage is more opaque making it difficult to appreciate.
Also hard to acknowledge is--who decides which laws are "bad"? Generally, societal outcomes should test the efficacy (toward some comparably abstract societal good) of laws, which then prompts the legislature to do something between patting themselves on the back and authoring actually effective law.
It's better to ask the question in a different way. We know what bad laws are. They're laws that benefit some interest group at the expense of the general public, e.g. by constraining competition or diverting tax dollars to cronies.
So the question is, how do you eliminate bad laws? This isn't a question of what a hypothetical legislature should do if it was full of good faith actors, it's a question of how to structurally align the incentives of a real legislature with the interests of the general public so that they're inhibited from passing bad laws.
> how to structurally align the incentives of a real legislature with the interests of the general public
This seems like a critical nuance that, like you said, needs a structural solution. I have no actual idea, but conceptually this seems like it would eliminate a subset of particularly bad laws and actions (e.g. members of the legislature trading on their insider information) which have outsized, negative outcomes for the public. But we also rely on that very rule making body to essentially self-govern. And such a grass-roots movement of reforms to put the public first seem unlikely given the attitudes and sensationalizing behaviors present in the members of that body.
I avoid politics because of just how disaffecting it is to think about most of these details.
We need good journalism courses with heavy emphasis on ethics and the importance of journalism to democracy.
We also need a way to punish entertainment that passes as journalism (maybe fewer legal protections) and to incentive actual journalism (and find a decent way to distinguish between the two).
Sure, Medallion laws had problems, and got Regulatory Captured in some cities to also become terrible Trusts controlling prices that needed busting. But the answer to "fix the Regulation" isn't always "break the Regulation", and the Regulation had a lot of good intent of having public accessible information about drivers and that data not just owned by a single company and locked in their opaque algorithms. It might have been nicer to fix the Regulatory Capture and Bust the Trusts.
You just landed at the airport and need a cab. You fax your FOIA requests for each of the hundred cab companies in the area, which they're required to provide within 20 business days. Your return flight is in 3 days and it would be nice to leave the airport before then.
> Sure Uber/Lyft boil that into a "friendly" 5-star UI, but do you have any idea what data contributed to that star rating? Do you always trust the algorithms that compute them from a bucket of metrics you can't directly request?
So compete with them instead of banning them. Fund an open source ride hailing app with open data. Don't require anyone to use it. If it's better, they will. If it's not better, why should they be forced to?
If you just landed at the airport, you rely on police enforcement keeping bad actors from having medallions. The medallion itself is the primary "this person is a reputable cab driver". That's also entirely why the Regulatory Capture in some cities was so effective in controlling supply of medallions, because it was city police enforced.
Many cities required taxis to have their medallion number painted on the outside, and there were phone numbers you could quickly call (in the days of payphones even) to get quick information about a medallion or to report a complaint/problem with one.
Today a few cities have updated that external paint requirement (and inside the car medallion papers) to include QR codes for even quicker lookup on modern phones or to even use an app to do nice things like pay for the Taxi without needing to broker/negotiate it. Those kind of technological improvements have kind of gotten lost in the wash of the speed of which Uber/Lyft moved fast and broke things, but were always possible.
> So compete with them instead of banning them. Fund an open source ride hailing app with open data. Don't require anyone to use it. If it's better, they will. If it's not better, why should they be forced to?
The history of taxi companies say that they are only as open as they are forced to be. I never said anything about banning Uber/Lyft. Competition is not the problem; destroying public safety regulations in the name of competition is the problem. I said that Uber/Lyft should have been required to do the same or similar paperwork that medallions represent, that both of their data should be open under the previously existing laws, as a public good. Break the artificial scarcity, sure, give Uber/Lyft a license to "print medallions" if that breaks existing Trusts. But get that data open and available to the public (and enforceable by the public's law enforcement). Neither would want to do that because their rating systems are secret sauce and "competitive advantage", they would need to be coerced by regulations. That's what regulations are for, the public good that competition doesn't care about/can't care about/needs to keep "secret sauce" for advantages.
Well that's not going to work. You now have people from outside the jurisdiction having a government they didn't elect cast in the role of their protectors. Instead what happens is the local government protects the incumbents, which is what we've seen in practice.
> Many cities required taxis to have their medallion number painted on the outside, and there were phone numbers you could quickly call (in the days of payphones even) to get quick information about a medallion or to report a complaint/problem with one.
As opposed to the license plates already on all cars?
> The history of taxi companies say that they are only as open as they are forced to be.
People keep trying to regard Uber as a taxi company. They keep claiming to be an app, because... they are. So replace the app with an open source one. Create an independent non-profit to handle payments and maintain a server to hold the driver ratings and take a small cut of the payments to cover its costs. Operate it as a live auction where drivers list how much they'll charge per mile and riders pick a driver based on their rating and price. Publish all the data.
If you do it well, people will use it voluntarily. If you do it poorly, you haven't demonstrated enough competence to be trusted making regulations that people would have to follow even if they're dumb.
> Competition is not the problem; destroying public safety regulations in the name of competition is the problem.
The problem is that incumbents call the things they use to destroy competition "public safety regulations".
> Neither would want to do that because their rating systems are secret sauce and "competitive advantage", they would need to be coerced by regulations.
Not when you can "coerce" them through competition. If people like the ratings system which is more open or the one that extracts lower margins and the app is otherwise fungible with theirs, they don't even exist unless they can be better than the competing system you created to do better, which implies that you failed to actually do better and then they're supposed to win. Which in turn applies pressure on the public system to do better itself, instead of getting captured, because if it gets captured then it becomes uncompetitive and actually has competition.
I certainly didn't love their ruthless business practices, but let's not delude ourselves and admit that Uber or Lyft wouldn't exist if they didn't break the laws around taxi medallions.
Sometimes laws do more harm than good (by limiting supply and slowing innovation) and it requires creatively skirting regulations.
Things were always possible to improve the taxi industry. Smartphones had been around a few years. But it would've taken the industry 20 years to implement it correctly. In the same way that rampant music and movie piracy in the early 2000s hastened the development of iTunes and Netflix's subscription model way of doing business.
Uber shows the driver's name, their photo, and has a process for flagging drivers. Public safety is important to their business. As someone who's driven an Uber and Lyft and been through their process, I've seen it firsthand.
It's not like "medallions" worked - I remember driving in multiple taxis in pre 2010 days where the photo DID NOT MATCH UP to the driver. My high school physics teacher who grew up in Brooklyn in the late 1970s told stories about how he learned how to drive by illegally working and driving taxis around as a 15 year old.
Right now, we're just going through the same thing with AI again, and Silicon Valley is applying it's ethos of the past few decades.
There are reasons why in various industries, China is "winning the race", so to speak.
Regulations exist, but sometimes people who creatively ignore the "regulations" can win the tide of the public. It's one of America's best (and incredibly divisive) cultural capabilities.
My experience was very different and "almost all" doesn't feel correct. It's certainly fun hyperbole. NYC the systems worked more than they didn't. In part because of spot lights from famous TV shows and 70s corruption documentaries/news exposes. Most smaller cities the taxis quietly worked with little corruption and a lot of trustworthiness. In the early oughts I had good experiences hailing cabs in cities a lot smaller than NYC that people didn't believe you could even hail cabs in.
Because Taxi regulations were so wildly different from cities, it's hard to generalize what the experience used to be. It varied a lot from city to city and was a massive spectrum, with a few national certainties like some of the big Franchises to help smooth things a bit.
> I certainly didn't love their ruthless business practices, but let's not delude ourselves and admit that Uber or Lyft wouldn't exist if they didn't break the laws around taxi medallions.
In the early oughts, a few cities like Seattle were pressuring the big national Franchise companies like Yellow Cab through a mixture of regulatory body pressure (but not actual laws) and bottom up consumer messaging/volume customer requirements to move to "Computer Dispatch". There was a growing competition in that space, and a bunch of innovation happening between the competitors, including some of the things Uber and Lyft take credit for today because Yellow Cab mostly broke apart in the onslaught of VC subsidization and rule breaking.
I don't think it would have taken "20 years" to implement it "correctly". We don't know because the whole thing got disrupted so sideways by the gig economy. (Which also really didn't care about making the taxi business better, but about making the labor market worse. We should also not forget that breaking the worst parts of taxi medallion laws also broke the good ones that helped build useful labor-side things like taxi driver unions and paid for things like healthcare.)
All I'm saying is that there was a path that this could have all been done under the old regulations, legally. It's a path not taken here, and probably to our detriment. Though I can't prove that just as much as you can't prove that innovations like smarter apps would have taken "20 years" in that other timeline.
Yes, and they owe their current existence to Uber paving the way for them.
It drives me up the goddamn wall how people will say shit like "the Taxi industry needed to be upended" when like... I mean, maybe? But on balance, given all the negative externalities associated with these companies, are they really a gain? Or are they just a different set of overlords, equally disinterested in providing a good service once they reach the scale where they no longer are required to give a shit?
Just... regulate the fuckers. Are you sick of filthy Taxis that break down? Put a regulation down that says if a cab breaks down during a trip, they owe the customer a free ride and five thousand dollars. You bet your ASS those cabs will be serviced as soon as humanly possible. This isn't rocket science y'all. Make whatever consequence the government is going to dispense immeasurably, clearly worse than whatever the business is trying to weasel out of doing, and boom. Solved.
That's true, however we must also keep in mind that Uber (and alikes) happened because regular institutions failed to do this for some reason or another. I won't try to speculate why, because I have no idea (and of course it looks obvious in the hindsight).
There was a demand for safer and more reliable taxis. There was not enough supply for that. Government haven't paid enough attention to the sector. So, naturally, someone came and used that whole situation to provide supply for this demand.
Of course it's not this simple, and there were a lot of other things going on. But if we narrow the scope down to just this, then we can see that the core problem here wasn't Uber, it was that that governments were too slow to react in time.
That was frequently already the case. They were required to accept credit cards but then the card reader would be "broken" and it wasn't worth anybody's time to dispute it instead of just paying in cash.
You also... don't really want laws like that. They're required to accept "all payment methods", which ones? Do they have to take American Express, even though the fees are much higher? Do they have to take PayPal if the customer has funds in a PayPal account? What about niche card networks like store cards accepted at more than one merchant? If not those and just Visa and Mastercard, you now have a law entrenching that duopoly in the law.
> Are you sick of filthy Taxis that break down? Put a regulation down that says if a cab breaks down during a trip, they owe the customer a free ride and five thousand dollars. You bet your ASS those cabs will be serviced as soon as humanly possible. This isn't rocket science y'all.
It's not rocket science, it's trade offs.
Is there a $5000 fine for a breakdown? You just made cab service much more expensive, because they're either going to have to pay the fines as a cost of doing business and then pass them on, or propylactically do excessive maintenance like doing full engine rebuilds every year because it costs less than getting caught out once, and then passing on the cost of that. And even then, there is no such thing as perfect. The cabbie paid to have the whole engine rebuilt by the dealership just yesterday and the dealer under-tightened one of the bolts when putting it back in, so there's a coolant leak? Normally that's just re-tightening the bolt and $20 worth of coolant, but now it's a $5000 fine on top of the $4000 engine rebuild.
The way you actually want to solve this is with competition, not rigid rules and onerous fines. If someone is always having breakdowns then they get bad rating, customers can see that when choosing and then opt for a different driver that costs slightly more -- but only if the cost is worth the difference to them. Maybe it's worth $2 for the difference between two stars and five but it isn't worth $50 for the difference between 4.7 and 4.8. Either way you shouldn't be deciding for people, you should be giving them the choice.
I traveled a lot to a smallish town for work before Uber got there and ran into this several times. After the second or third time, I started just saying "well that sucks for you" and starting to leave. Suddenly it would work.
Yes it sucked, but it didn't really impact much.
The solution to the pre-Uber state of the taxi industry would be to actually have the regulations authorities enforce the regulation. But it seems across the Western world that having regulations authorities do their job and regulate is like the devil and holy water.
Additionally, in some cases the regulations themselves were crap.
In NYC, it was (is?) against the law to hail a black car on the street, even if they were sitting there ready willing and able to drive you, because the taxi cartel got _regulations_ to make it that way.
That's precisely what I meant with "in some cases the regulations themselves were crap". But that doesn't imply the idea of regulation is bad - it is saying that maybe voters should make their voice clear to lawmakers and parties to get stuff changed. Regulation can only be as good or bad as the voters allow it to be.
Then if a little guy comes in and tries to challenge them, they don't have the resources to resist the incumbents' pocket government officials and get destroyed. But if a big fish does it, people actually notice if the government tries to enforce stupid laws against them, and then government officials are afraid to do it because the public would not only not like it but actually notice the unreasonableness of the law.
But the problem here isn't that the law isn't being enforced against a well-heeled challenger, it's that those laws exist to be enforced against the little guy, when they should instead be repealed.
The relevant thing here would be that they pass excessive copyright laws, but then Meta violates them and maybe gets away with it because they're doing it in a sympathetic way and the government doesn't want to hamstring emerging industries in their country, whereas if an individual would be sued into oblivion even if the thing they were doing was equally sympathetic.
Because it's not just about the public noticing it, it's about the public noticing it in time to do something about it. If an individual gets sued or arrested, they're immediately screwed and will be under pressure to settle or plea bargain before they're bankrupted by legal fees. But once they do, the case is over. Whereas large companies can fight, or pay lawyers to stall while they wage a media campaign to counter the usual imperious press releases from the prosecution, or use their money to lobby the government while public opinion is in their favor.
Not just meta, Open AI, spotify, youtube...its become a routine exception and can now be relied upon.
I agree that the legal fees could be a big factor, but it seems cases aren't even filed.
I'm not saying the existing systems were always good (they weren't), but you need to be willing to overlook a lot of real-world suffering to be "rooting for Uber". Phrases like "taxi cartels" sound nice, but they're hardly neutral phrasings that simplify things to the point of being useless phrases.
And "I'm just going to willingly and knowingly ignore laws I don't like for personal profit" is not a great take-away either. This isn't Aaron Swartz breaking a law as a matter of "civil disobedience" – it's just a plain "how can we make money?"
And where does that leave competitors who are NOT willing to break the law? It's an unlevel playing field; there can be no free market if some people don't need to follow the same set of rules. Uber's actions are fundamentally anti-capitalist and anti-free market.
In much of the world the price of food delivery has risen to the level needed to make it profitable, and it's not cheap. I paid around $10 in fees plus Uber's 30-50% markups on the food itself to get a couple of burritos yesterday from a shop a mile down the road.
The only solution to the riddle I can think of is that (like postal services) they can cleverly combine orders and rarely lose money on delivery. The fast delivery would have to be luck or perhaps the burger preserves poorly?
That the food is absolutely fantastic might also have something to do with it. If they can get food into your mouth repetition is almost guaranteed.
You live in Netherlands according to a recent comment; I can't believe taxis are almost 4x more expensive, unless you're stuck in traffic for a long time, but then your burger can't arrive in 30 mins?
And free delivery on €6 food item is almost certainly netting them a loss.
it was a terrible system that sucked for everyone involved. For all of Uber's flaws, would you rather go back to that today? really??
I absolutely said said no such thing. There are good ways to change things and bad ways to change things. Allowing a private entity reap huge profits by blatantly breaking rules and screwing people is not a good way to change things.
If governments don't like it, well, bummer. They were supposed to serve the people, not the incumbent taxi cartels. They failed, so "we the people" routed around them.
When traveling it’s also so much safer than taxis.
My brother was robbed at gunpoint in a taxi. My wife had to jump from more than one moving taxi to escape. My ex girlfriend too. My Swiss friend had his camera and wallet stolen.
You can have issues with Uber too, but not as frequently because there’s a digital audit trail, you can report them to the platform and the police. The threat of those consequences lead to better behavior.
Customers pay significantly more, drivers make significantly less, and Uber is still running hundreds of millions in the red. Turns out hiring thousands of devs and dumping absurd capital into... driving people around... doesn't really work.
Your comment also points out the power that regulation has to enforce and protect monopolies. I’m not saying all regulation is bad obviously, but I think we can see exactly what effect it had on the taxi industry, and I’m sure glad that Uber managed to disrupt it.
especially with hotels, i would have expected there to be small enough oligopoly to overcome the freerider problem (taxis are more regional, so i don't expect them to be able to fight an (inter)national company very easily)
plus the president owning a hotel chain
Yes there is, I am reminded of this every time I take an uber by the yellow cab medallion buyout fee that I’m charged because of the lobbying power of the TLC lobby in NYC
That's just a trope. They were initially losing money because they had high fixed costs (developing a platform, spending enough on advertising to get a critical mass of people using it), which are long-term investments. If you only spread the cost of the long-term investment over the short-term sales, they were "losing money" in the early years, but that's how all long-term investments work.
Dumping is when you sell below the unit cost, e.g. paying drivers more than you charge customers, which isn't what they were doing in general. And as long as they weren't doing that, the incumbents could have responded by lowering their own prices (and therefore margins) without themselves losing money on each sale, which is competition working as intended. Unless the competition is too hidebound to accept a reduction in profits in order to stay competitive or otherwise insists on using a less efficient method of operating, in which case they go under.
Post-2008, ZIRP and QE pumped trillions into financial markets, making capital nearly free for those who could borrow at scale. That money didn’t go into raising wages; it went into inflating asset prices. If you owned stocks or real estate, you got richer. If you earned a paycheck, you watched housing and living costs go up while your wages stagnated.
VC was one of the biggest beneficiaries. With bonds yielding nothing, institutional investors had to chase returns, flooding venture funds with capital. That’s how we got an era of insane startup valuations, SoftBank-style mega-funds, and entire sectors built on free money. Growth-at-all-costs became the norm because the cost of capital was effectively zero.
Then COVID hit, and the Fed doubled down—more QE, more stimulus, even lower rates. Another massive wealth transfer. Money printer go brrr, asset prices moon, and suddenly we have SPACs, meme stocks, and a startup funding frenzy. Meanwhile, workers got a couple of stimulus checks, and by the time the dust settled, everything from rent to food to cars was way more expensive.
Now AI companies are running the same playbook that cloud megascalers ran before them—monetizing open-source work while locking out the people who actually built it. Cloud providers took open-source databases, infrastructure, and developer tools, turned them into managed services, and extracted billions in profit without meaningfully compensating the people who did the work. AI companies are now doing the same thing—scraping open-source repositories, academic papers, and public datasets, building models upon it then slapping on proprietary fine-tuning and charging for API access all the while blatantly raising capital by promising to make the same workers they stole from obsolte. All of it built on the backs of researchers, engineers, and artists who never see a dime, but also on the backs of everyone else via the cantillon effect.
Now rates go up, the bubble deflates, and who gets left holding the bag? Not the VCs who cashed out early. Not the bankers who took their fees. It’s the workers, the middle class, the open-source devs, and the late-stage startup employees who thought they had something real. The cycle repeats.
If you as an individual can prevent the enforcement of a law, or be sure that it will not be enforced against you, then it does not apply to you.
Laws are ment to be broken. Especially in cronist systems where incumbents write the laws.
Taxis were discriminatory and "uncool" to the point were Uber has saved thousands by preventing drunk driving.
Now if you go out with the boys and get drunk, it's a 30 second casual call to get an Uber and get home.
Live in a neighborhood Taxis are afraid to service，you can either make some extra income working for Uber or use it yourself. When Ubers used as its intended purpose, to basically make a quick buck, it's a lifeline to many low income people .
Say your rents it's going to be late, you can pick up 20 or 30 hours of Uber this month to make it happen. It's not really a career though...
that sounds so incredibly dystopian, not sure if that was the intention :(
What's better. Taking out a 300% APR payday loan, getting evicted or working an extra 20, 30 hours of Uber.
I consider it similar to access to unsecured credit that way - it's easy to feel like "wow this industry is scamming these people it should be illegal" but people without any other backstop will probably need access to unsecured credit sometime and it's better than losing their house/car/job/pet/family etc..
Maybe... I really don't get how the economics work out here though. If you look at the numbers, it mostly just seems like you're converting car equity into cash via depreciation.
But also, I'd guess that for a big chunk of people who are going to have trouble paying rent with any regularity, they'd have to overpay for their car in the first place to get something that's Uber-appropriate. My car's a couple years too old for Uber now, but is still perfectly functional, and there's just no way the math would work for me to buy a newer car so that I can convert its capital cost into cash via Uber.
Laws matter to the extent that they don't interfere with actual progress. Laws that would have prevented the LLMs we have today from being developed should be ignored, as should laws requiring us to pay tribute to taxi and hotel cartels.
Respect for the law is going to be an increasingly-hard sell going forward, and that's mostly the lawmakers' own fault. When the law does not respect the people, the people will not respect the law.
There's no purpose of having an executive branch of government separate from the other two branches if not to cushion the inflexible and glacial nature of the other branches of government.
What? No, the purpose of having a separate executive is separation of powers and checks and balances.
Why does the executive branch exist at all if it's simply to enforce written law?
Why do we elect the executive at all if they are merely to enforce written law?
Why do executives have the power to pardon someone when a court of law finds a person guilty of breaking law?
Someone has to be in charge of enforcing things.
> Why do we elect the executive at all if they are merely to enforce written law?
Do you have a suggestion of another way to do it that doesn't put congress in charge?
Also the president has some other very important roles.
> Why do executives have the power to pardon someone when a court of law finds a person guilty of breaking law?
That one is definitely subjective by its nature, but also the average number of pardons is around two thousand, a very small fraction of cases.
You could still have discretion with the legislature in charge of executing on their own laws. I think countries exist like that, but I don't know enough to say which.
A separate executive is not necessary to have discretion or pardons or flexibility in law. A separate executive is necessary if you want physically different human beings controlling the organizations who enforce the law (DOJ, FBI, etc)
Consider that Judges and the judicial branch of the government ALSO gets to use subjectivity and their own opinion in adjudicating cases. Another check.
The entire point of the Constitution was to put the power of a King in a bunch of different hands, and then tie some of those hands with specific constraints, and then give a couple different options on how to change those constraints over time. Leeway and discretion goes both ways, so Congress does have the ability to further constrain such discretion. A previous president tried to argue he could choose to not spend money congress told him to spend, so they wrote up a bill saying very clearly, Uh, no, if we say spend, you spend. They have that power as a check on the power of the executive. All three branches are ostensibly MEANT to be vying for power. It's an antagonistic system, like the court system. The founders loved that shit. In reality, it probably is a dysfunctional system that modern systems engineers would not like, and other countries get that "system fights and moderates itself" effect by encouraging coalitions between parties in a strong parliament. IMO those have demonstrated better stability. I'm not convinced the US would have survived getting it's whole shit blown up like the UK did.
Checks. And. Balances. 5th grade civics class.