Comment by meesterdude | Hacker News Reader

Comment by meesterdude | Hacker News Reader

I recently took a cab home in philly, and throughout the ride home the cab driver was telling me about uber and the impact its had on him. He works 2 shifts and makes $70 but the cab itself is $80/day. He used to own a gas station and other real estate but the economy screwed him and he resorted to driving a cab to try and support his kids, which he was barely able to do.

equally, there was a time I had to take my cat to the vet and could not get a cab home. I called every company I could find, tried the apps for the ones that required it, but nothing. One of the people that worked at the clinic drove me about 2 blocks and there was a cab of one of the companies I had tried, sitting in the parking lot of a gas station. That was frustrating.

So I think its unfair what cab drivers are going through. I think Uber and other services bring innovation to the market and consumers have expressed an interest in this. While its true advances in technology often leave a given workforce obsolete, this is more subtle and "technical" in a legal sense; and not nearly as dramatic as self-driving cars will be.

I think philly should give these cab companies a break, or tighten their grip on Uber. Both should be allowed to compete, and do so fairly. Its not in the consumers interests for one or the other to go away.

Also, I think the "uber is just an app" is BS, because they're setting the rates and getting a commission from the ride (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) so in reality they're operating an automated dispatch service. But I think their entire business model revolves around that talking point, and doubt they would be able to compete with taxi's if forced to play by those rules.

The problem is that any real change for cab companies requires the PPA (or your local city's authority) to admit that medallions are incredibly overvalued, artificially inflated, and archaic.

I don't know if you know the Philly PPA, but it's more likely to rain gold nuggets.

The PPA (and other medallion authorities) will never admit they're way is antiquated or wrong (or damn near criminal) and will do whatever they can to sustain authority, the status quo, and monopoly. The only way to shudder "disrupt" old, dirty cabs with poverty-wage drivers is to show complete disregard for bad laws and those desperate to hold on to power no matter how bad it is for the population at large - or even the drivers they say they protect.

First, let me state this clearly and for the record: fuck the PPA with a bag of rusty dicks.

But I think you're right. PPA will need to change and that will not come easily. They will react though - but it will very likely be too little too late.

I think the number of cab companies will go down and medallions will drop in value; if i recall NY has already gone through this. Or there will be pressure from cab companies to change the rules.

I think ultimately Lyft and Uber and such can bring about positive change and disrupt shake things up in an industry that has gotten a little too cozy.

interesting bits from the PPA site:

> Recent legislative changes have altered the composition of the Parking Authority’s Board of Directors, with a majority of Board members now appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania.

and

> In July 2004, the Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation and enforcement of taxi cabs and limousines operating in Philadelphia.

In a market where a taxi medallion costs $520,000, I think concerns that Uber is screwing over cab drivers are a little misplaced.

Indeed, it is the medallion holders -- who miss their extremely safe investment that used to return 7%+ (NYC medallions did significantly better than the 7% average) for years on end... it was a great place to sink a lot of money, very safely, protected by a government monopoly.

For a few decades medallion holders won, taxi drivers and taxi riders lost. Competition in a market that has been free of it for a long time will always be extremely disruptive.

Sounds like that guy might make more money driving with Uber than having to pay $80/day to play.

Uber does not provide vehicles for free either.

But you can use your own vehicle, unlike in the taxi industry.

Not really a good thing, as they depreciate in value

Hence taxi companies charging drivers $80 a day to rent them?

$80/day * 20 days per month = $1600 / month, which is like 10x the cost of a lease for, say, a Prius. Meanwhile, Uber drivers can use their own car for any other purpose. Even factoring in gas and insurance it's hard to believe taxi drivers are getting a better deal.

Lease a mid-size sedan and paint it yellow. Then buy it out because you will be saving tons of cash over the lease period. Depreciate in value for something like this is dumb.

We are not talking about fully loaded S500 MB's here.

He touched on that - about how much it is to get a car and drive it for uber for X years, but i had trouble following what his ultimate point was around that - i think he was inferring it was hard to make money at the end of all that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com