Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, anyone who uses taxi drivers as an example of destruction either don't know what they're talking about (because they never experienced it) or they're crying crocodile tears.

I had cab drivers nearly drive off with me hanging off the car in San Francisco, because they were far more concerned with screening my destination than, say, not killing me. If Uber destroyed that industry, it was only a net benefit to society. They created immense value, and the "destruction" was only to eliminate a layer of corrupt parasites who made money by preventing a free market (in this case, the medallion owners, but the entire industry was corrupt from top to bottom).

View on HN

Not all places have corrupt taxi industries. I think they were always more expensive than Uber (but there's a reason for that, Uber's pricing is not sustainable) but in most places a taxi is just a taxi.

Don't entirely agree that a local Taxi service is necessarily costlier than Uber. In my indian city, Uber and Ola cannot compete (and have been nearly wiped out) because a local Taxi service (that now dominates the market) is very competitively priced and professionally run. They charge their drivers a fixed percentage (unlike Uber or Ola, and lower fees than them) and release their payments timely in a transparent manner. The price per km, and all extra charges (late night fees, overtime driver charges etc., permit fees in case of long distance travel, toll fees etc.) are transparently conveyed to the customer too. And there is no bullshit practice of price gauging through "surge pricing" or "convenience fees" or "platform fees" etc.

Reminds me of Empower in the US, it charges drivers a fix fee, not even a percentage, and then the drivers take all the upside from their rides.

I don’t know a single place in Europe where taxis aren’t scamming tourists.

So basically, you’re saying that “most places” had uncorrupt, put-upon taxi industries who simply cannot survive against Uber because Uber is anti-competitive, and it has nothing at all to do with delivering a better product?

Yeah, I don’t believe you. It sounds like you’re making a just-so rationalization for why taxis are good and Uber is bad.

In pretty much any mature taxi market Uber is as expensive (if not more expensive!) than the conventional alternative. And yet Uber survives.

Have you ever met an Uber driver who makes decent money? Honest jobs should be compensated with honest money, not starvation wages.

Black drivers used to make pretty good money many years ago, but Uber + market externalities redesigned their systems to "fix" that (mostly through decreasing payouts and high car rental costs)

Most of the drivers providing that service split their time between Uber, Lyft and traditional corporate black car service.

Lots of posts on this topic in the UberDrivers subreddit.

You see that whenever there is value, above starvation wages, flowing to laborers, capitalists see that as a problem and reduce it. Does this seem sustainable?

It’s really interesting how you’ve couched the concept of price discovery.

Somehow only laborers get price discovered. Amazon hasn't got price discovered, not has Google, in decades. Weird. It's almost like Econ 101 isn't the whole story.

You mean, maybe selling shitty cheap chinese plastic to the lowest bidder has fucked with price discovery? I agree!

Yes, many in fact.

Yes, many, in fact. But more importantly, nobody is making drivers take these jobs.

The restated version of your comment is simply “I think drivers should get paid more,” which is fine, but not an argument. Everyone who has ever had a job thinks the same thing.

it's still evil. The billionaires running this scheme are evil.

Well, at least you’re not trying to pretend you have a well-founded argument.

It's about efficiency not just corruption. When you call taxi dispatch a human answers and coordinates with other humans. Takes longer and they sometimes drop the ball.

The Uber drivers created that value and should get those billions, not Travis Kalanick.

The driver makes more than Uber does on (almost?) every ride. So they did.

Uber doesn't pay the driver for their time, nor wear or insurance on their car. Uber doesn't even consider drivers employees unless legally required to. I should hope Uber's cut is a tiny fraction since all they provide is a bit of software while taking control of markets and pricing for themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com