Slashdot Mirror
How Uber Takes Over a City
schwit1 suggests Bloomberg's story on one aspect of Uber's corporate behavior that may leave a sour taste in the mouth of anyone who'd like to believe the Uber-vs.-the-Cartels narrative. The company hired David Plouffe, known for managing Barack Obama's rise to fame, and many others as well, to help them navigate inevitable and ongoing moves for regulation. The scale is impressive; according to the article:
Over the past year, Uber built one of the largest and most successful lobbying forces in the country, with a presence in almost every statehouse. It has 250 lobbyists and 29 lobbying firms registered in capitols around the nation, at least a third more than Wal-Mart Stores. That doesn't count municipal lobbyists. In Portland, the 28th-largest city in the U.S., 10 people would ultimately register to lobby on Uber's behalf.
And while the article focuses mostly on the example of Portland, the effort is ongoing and nationwide.
... just remember: sometimes you need lobbyists to protect yourself from government.
This is an example of it: a social app's userbase is trying to protect themselves from the rent-seeking taxi cartels.
Uber isn't stupid. They know the existing transport monopolies are maintained due to political connections aka lobbying. Uber knows there is no way it will be able to upset this status quo without support from local politicians. That, unfortunately, means lobbying. Love it or hate it, it's how things get done these days.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
In many parts of the world taxis are private vehicles with a sign stuck on top, drivers hold their own licenses and companies act as advertising agencies and dispatchers. A recent trend is for one driver to join a company then keep their car running 24-7 as their buddies illegally act as taxi drivers in shifts, splitting the profits. This is an actual thing. Whether or not it's predominantly immigrants, illegal or otherwise, is another question mind you.
In France, it has been shown that Uber's drivers are mostly children from immigrants (in french, the politically correct term is "enfants issus de l'immigration").
Since most of them are jobless, it's a way for them to make money legally.
The problem is that it destroys the jobs of taxi drivers, but does not create new jobs.
A journalist calls this "the 'sharing of remains' economy", where the real jobs disappear, and only some small cheap tasks remain.
The two providers for this kind of economy are Amazon and Uber
Uber is 1000 times better for transportation than the taxi cartel
Why? Seriously, I haven't used Uber and the last time I rode in a taxi was years ago so I have no dog in this fight. Why did you think Uber is better? Better service? Better value? Or is just that they are sticking it to The Man? I'm legitimately asking because I just don't really see what is so amazing about Uber as a casual observer. Saying they are "1000 times better" is obviously hyperbole but what makes them better if indeed they are better?
If they are actually providing a better value then more power to them. I'm definitely for disrupting industries that need disrupting. If the only advantage is that they aren't the incumbent companies then that isn't an adequate reason to my mind to support them with actual dollars. It just not clear to me which is the case here.
Let's see. A bit of reading shows that the medallion system was implemented because of "public fears" that taxi drivers were driving too much, and therefore not doing proper maintenance on their vehicles.
So, the solution to "public fears" was to limit the number of taxis (which would require the taxi drivers to drive even more, thus further limiting their time spent on maintenance, OR to reduce the general availability of taxis, since they'd have fewer taxis working fewer hours each)....
Yeah, that's a strong argument in favour of the medallion system alright.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It's the laws that are bullshit. Look at what kind of service Uber facilitates. How is it that only now anyone is introducing a reputation system to this industry? How is it that only now the barrier of entry to this industry is coming down? What exactly does a stringently controlled supply of government-licensed "taxi" drivers do for the consumer anyway?
The free market can only produce generally beneficial results when certain conditions are in place, one of the most important of which being the lack of asymmetry of information between customer and supplier. For example, in the restaurant trade customers can judge the service, prices and food quality for themselves and can decide whether the bargain is acceptable. Customers cannot really judge the food safety, due to a lack of opportunity (and prospective customers traipsing through the kitchen might be a hazard in itself), a lack of expertise in microbiology and the "contract-forming cost" of having to do a complete investigation each time before sitting down and eating. Therefore most jurisdictions have laws for government hygiene inspections but not for setting food prices.
With taxi hire, it is difficult for the consumer to learn many key things about the prospective bargain, such as the competence and record of the driver, the maintenance record of the car and the availability of insurance should there be an accident. It is not efficient for each consumer who wants a ride to summon a taxis/Uber and do in-depth checks on the car and driver, even assuming the consumer has suitable skills in car maintenance, insurance underwriting etc. Plus, the consumer would have to be prepared to repeatedly dismiss low-quality ride offers and wait for a new candidate to turn up. It's not plausible. The free market doesn't work when there are persistent information asymmetries that are expensive (relative to the basic cost) or difficult to overcome. The result is that the low quality businesses drive out the high quality business, because the higher quality businesses can't prove themselves as such to justify a higher price. They can't prove they aren't just boasting.
True indeed, but also consider that in many of those parts of the world, the drivers are also stuck with having to grease the palms of some local poobah just to avoid having the wrath of the local constabulary come down on them.
Okay, it ain't that much different from how Portland works, but at least in PDX's case, the money is (well, mostly) passed along above-board, and it goes to the local government's coffers instead of some local sleazebag's pocket (well, mostly).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?