Slashdot Mirror


New York City Just Voted To Cap Uber and Lyft Vehicles and Require Drivers To Be Paid a Minimum Wage (cnbc.com)

New York City Council passed regulations on ride-hail companies on Wednesday, capping the number of vehicles on the road for one year and requiring that drivers to be paid a minimum wage. From a report: Council Speaker Corey Johnson said earlier that the regulations are intended to protect drivers, fairly regulate the industry and reduce congestion. The year-long cap on new licenses for ride-hailing vehicles will take place while the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) studies the effects of ride-hail service in the city. The cap would not apply to new wheelchair-accessible vehicles or new vehicles serving an area demonstrating need in a way that does not increase congestion. App-based ride services account for 80,000 vehicles in New York City, and provide 17 million rides per month, according to a study by The New School for the TLC. The surge in ridership coincided with increased resident frustration with the local subway system. With the move on Wednesday, New York City, the largest American market for Uber, has become the first major American city to restrict the number of ride-hail vehicles and to establish pay rules for drivers. In a statement issued moments ago, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said," Our city is directly confronting a crisis that is driving working New Yorkers into poverty and our streets into gridlock. The unchecked growth of app-based for-hire vehicle companies has demanded action -- and now we have it."

158 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds fair by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to statistics, a reasonable minimum wage adjusted from 1971 for NYC would be $40 an hour.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Sounds fair by originalGMC · · Score: 1

      According to statistics, a reasonable minimum wage adjusted from 1971 for NYC would be $40 an hour.

      This makes sense. This is also very near the Seattle, Austin, and Mountain View poverty lines. Anyone making less than this should also qualify for medicaid since about 75% of an income like that goes to shelter/food/water/heat in these places.

      Wouldn't mind taking a look at those statistics though.

    2. Re:Sounds fair by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you heard that. Manhattan is full of ubers and lyfts.I wouldn't be shocked if most of the cars were one or the other.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Sounds fair by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      December 31, 2018 $13.50 to $15.00
      December 31, 2019 $15.00

    4. Re:Sounds fair by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      $40/hr ~= $75-80 grand a year at reasonable working hours. This actually is more than the bare mnimum to live, especially if you're living outside of "trendy" areas like Manhattan below 100th St or close-in parts of Brooklyn and Queens. I'd say minimum of $15/hr is about right.

    5. Re:Sounds fair by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Manhattan is full of Ubers and Lyfts and taxis.

      However in a lot of neighborhoods in other boroughs, not that many taxis, so people may choose uber/lyft instead of a taxi there.

    6. Re:Sounds fair by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you heard that. Manhattan is full of ubers and lyfts.I wouldn't be shocked if most of the cars were one or the other.

      It was on CNBC this morning, I heard it first time on Squawkbox I think.....got busy after that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Sounds fair by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Let's compromise on $45/hour min wage then.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    8. Re:Sounds fair by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why pick 1971? Why not pick 1938 when Min wage was first enacted into national law. That wage was $.25 / hr. Adjusted for Inflation that is just under $5 / hr. Thus proving that cherry picking is fun.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Sounds fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whatever way you look at it - wage has not kept pace over the years with how much more productive we've become.

      https://media.newyorker.com/photos/590952681c7a8e33fb38a80d/master/w_774,c_limit/minimum-wage-chart-i.jpg

    10. Re:Sounds fair by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Let's just make it a $100,000/hour minimum wage, then people wouldn't have to work more than a few hours a year if they don't want, right? If we aren't going to worry about the other economic consequences, we can just set it to as high as we want and legislate everything into magical free wealth world, right?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    11. Re:Sounds fair by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But the number of taxis are regulated by the city to limit congestion.

    12. Re: Sounds fair by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      What did you expect to happen when we run the printing presses as much as we do and the supply of money increases at a disproportionately higher rate?

      Also, greater productivity makes it less expensive to live. Consider how few people work in agriculture compared to 100 years ago, or even further back. We made food so cheap and accessible that obesity is a bigger problem than malnutrition.

      Setting the minimum wage higher will not help anyone. You cannot afford to employ a person for more than their labor can be sold for, so the end result is that people lose those jobs that cannot justify the increase. This tends to be the most low skill labor that will get picked up by illegal immigrants who will work under the table for below minimum wage.

    13. Re:Sounds fair by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Not that simple. Minimum wage and workplace conditions laws exist because when they are lacking you can have very abusive situations - think Victorian factories. Individual jpeople may still prefer those abusive conditions to losing their jobs, but collectively its generally thought to be better to have laws that eliminated that sort of situation.

      There is an argument that Uber and the like were taking advantage of their drivers by providing a workplace that doesn't meet normal workplace standards for minimum wage and benefits.

    14. Re:Sounds fair by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      I have absolutely no idea how this contributed to the thread other than to brag... as an anonymous coward that you live in Beverly Hills.

    15. Re:Sounds fair by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Once Uber/Lyft/Google and others manage to make self-driving taxis, cars, buses, etc... a reality, And once Amazon manages to make shopping from your couch as convenient time-wise thanks to automated same day delivery... what you suggest will become almost critical.

      We hear a lot about self driving and automation of things we encounter in daily life. But consider areas like construction where 3d printed printed foundations and houses that are manufactured to be clicked together with a self-driving truck mounted crane in a few hours. Also consider real and practical agricultural automation projects such as 3d printed meats and farms run in excavated tunnels that can produce crops all year round without the use of pesticides or even humans.

      Consider also that automating these jobs will cause a massive slump as collateral. For example, if your company doesn't need employees, you don't need employee lawyers, HR, etc... You can seriously shrink your needs in the management of payroll and more.

      The fact is, there will still be MANY MANY jobs, but many of them will be dealing with things like sorting trash.

      There will no be enough jobs for the massive number of people we have... well unless we use the American system of imprisoning as many people as possible while hiring as many more as possible to run the prisons. Or alternatively, we can put them into the military and hope they get killed before they fuck up the employment stats. Or we can hire 1.2 million of them to work in the TSA and another 150 thousand to work in the DHS. Of course, if we scare the shit out of everyone enough, we can hire another million as cops... and they'll all need guns, so that's a lot more jobs.

      No... the US government will have to stop hiring everyone themselves for "national security jobs" sooner or later. And I think that 2 million career criminals is about all they can really milk out of the population even with things like persecution of ex-cons no matter what their crimes were. And although the French, Dutch, British and a few others are trying really really hard to make a good industry off of terrorist threats and anti-immigrant propaganda, I don't think there's a future in this.

      We have to reach the point where people can afford to live while working less. Either a 3 or 4 day work week is a good start. It could be one month on, one month off. But we need to adjust to the reality that we can't all live off of fear based economies.

      Let's not forget that the energy market is going to die.... slowly, but it will die. Consider that using a slow trickle down effect, we will see the majority of our energy come from renewables over the next few decades. This isn't a prediction, this is a trend. It's already happening and will continue to happen. We will build massive solar and wind farms. Running solar is very cost effective once it's built. Running wind, we have some stuff to figure out, but it's nothing compared to running coal, oil or nuclear. But just as hydro electricity is well understood now, we'll understand other sources soon.

      Companies like Tesla will sell solar roof tiles as well. This is something my entire neighborhood is currently investigating as a communal option. We'll replace all our roof tiles with Tesla or some other brand's solution within 10 years.

      Some places like California if I recall correctly are requiring solar roofs in new construction (under certain circumstances) now.

      Once solar goes it, there will be some maintenance, but it will be minimal. In fact, in 50 years when the market is saturated and the vast majority of energy is produced without the grid and more or less every house has solar tiles, the industry will have shrunken away. Rednecks in Alabama will be plucking tiles out of landfill and selling full sets for pennies on the dollar at pawn shops so they can buy some Busch beer and bullets.

      Data centers will shrink considerably over time... this means that modern data centers which produce 30MW of power themselves to sustain their opera

    16. Re: Sounds fair by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand.

      If a person costs too much, you have to use less people
      If you use less people, there are less jobs
      If there are less jobs, there is less money to be redistributed
      If there is less money to be redistributed, there are fewer people buying your stuff or using your service.
      If you raise your prices to compensate for lower demand, to increase wages, you'll lose more customers

      It's a vicious circle. The answer is... we need something like basic income... but instead of basic income, we need a government run labor bureau that pays all of their employees (the entire nation) a livable salary and everyone has to work at least 1 month of the year. The government will maintain a list of jobs which need to be done for the government and will also provide an agency for companies and people to hire other people from.

      So if it's your month to work, you'll probably end up sorting trash for recycling. But it's one month of the year. As long as you don't have an overactive gag reflex, you'll be fine. You might end up travelling to old-peoples homes to fix their roof... whatever it'll be fine.

      People will be given better jobs to do if they have higher skill sets. But if you have 11 months of the year to sit around and do nothing, watch a youtube video or read a book, get some training... whatever. If you are so useless you can bother with that, then sort trash.

      Then people like me will have a great time. I'll work every single day and night... just as I always have. And 11 months of the year, I'll work on projects I think will actually improve the system. But since I don't really have to work those 11 months, I'll have the option to either do my own thing without starving... or I can work for someone else for more money during that time.

      The point is, if 90% of the worlds population just decided to disappear tomorrow, the 10% who actually really love what they do would keep doing it... I can honestly see myself and my daughter working to develop technology to convert a nearby tunnel in the mountain into a farm which would produce 12 months a year with little or no human intervention. I can easily see my wife working at the hospital as a nurse 4 days a week (intead of 5 or 6 now) to take care of people in need. I can easily see my son sitting in his desk chair growing roots from his ass and developing back and neck problems while watching youtube and playing LoL.

      We simply don't need most of the people working now. Ship them away... we'll be fine. Bring us 1/12th the population each month and let them clean our windows and sort our trash. The rest of the time, send them someplace warm and happy. Let them live the life and we'll do just fine.

      If we force everyone to have goals oriented towards productivity... they'll produce... and if they produce, we'll consume. If we consume, we end up in a Pixar movie on a space ship while a robot left on earth is looking for a single living flower among towers of garbage. If most people are happy living in hotel rooms on beaches with fancy drinks... let them do it 11 months of the year... we don't want them... we don't need them... offer this to 90% of the people and let's be done with it. Let's just give them everything in the tropics... we'll ship them a steady supply of booze and little umbrellas.

    17. Re:Sounds fair by psmoot · · Score: 1

      That assumes the 1971 minimum wage was reasonable. Do you have any reason to believe that?

    18. Re:Sounds fair by Nethead · · Score: 1

      If you think cherry picking is fun, I have some Eastern Washington orchardists that would like to chat with you.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    19. Re:Sounds fair by gravewax · · Score: 1

      probably because around the late 60's/early 70's minimum wage was at its peak and has declined in inflation adjusted figures since then.

    20. Re:Sounds fair by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Allowing desperate people to hurt themselves is poor governance.

      I'm not a fan of the nanny state but I do recognise that many people have poor judgement and need some protection from those that would exploit them.

      Uber exploit people.

    21. Re:Sounds fair by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      And also to limit competition.

    22. Re: Sounds fair by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      And then the world's wealth would very quickly all flow to countries like China that would still have sane economic and labor policies. Then the countries that implemented basic income schemes would have no money to pay out the basic income - either that or their currency would become worthless.

    23. Re:Sounds fair by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

      But the number of taxis are regulated by the city to limit congestion.

      This is the official explanation. However I think it's not the only reason it's done...I'd venture to say that in most places, it's not even the main reason.

      The main reason is to limit competition and basically guarantee a certain income for the taxi drivers / taxi companies.

      Does it really also reduce congestion? I don't know. Let's say the amount of taxis was not regulated, so there would be more of them at a lower price. Would this maybe then get more people to use taxis, instead of their own cars, thereby also having a positive effect on congestion? I don't know, and it probably varies from place to place. I don't really think anyone has checked, but "limiting congestion" is a great excuse for covering up "limiting competition and keeping prices up".

    24. Re:Sounds fair by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      ...Would this maybe then get more people to use taxis, instead of their own cars...

      The majoriy of people in New York City do not own a car.
      As for the ones that do...I doubt it'd make them use taxis more. They are already paying for the cart/insurance/parking(?) so why have an additional cost of taxis instead of using the car you own?
      Carpooling would have an effect on congestion, which is irrelevant to the number of taxis (I can't imaging anyone carpooling in a taxi)

    25. Re:Sounds fair by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      The cap would not apply to new wheelchair-accessible vehicles or new vehicles serving an area demonstrating need in a way that does not increase congestion.

      This part would seem to cover your concerns about less served areas.

    26. Re: Sounds fair by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      If a person costs too much, you have to use less people

      Only if you're willing to give up market share. Your competitors have to deal with the same cost of labor, and one *will* hire enough people to meet demand if you don't.

    27. Re: Sounds fair by kenh · · Score: 1

      Are taxi cab drivers also subject to similar "minimum wage" standards?

      I think not, so why treat UbÃr, Lyft drivers differently?

      --
      Ken
    28. Re:Sounds fair by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I’m not a Trump fan, but I would applaud if he did this.

  2. Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by xack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the number of vehicles will still increase. Plus Uber will add more “administrative” fees to cover the wage increase.

    1. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, what your saying is that Uber riders have to pay more, and my taxes no longer subsidize their drivers (through food stamps, etc.)? The free market gets to work?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by originalGMC · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lol ever seen on your internet bill a "cost recovery fee" .... same shit different capitalist pig fuckers.

    3. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, what your saying is that Uber riders have to pay more, and my taxes no longer subsidize their drivers (through food stamps, etc.)? The free market gets to work?

      My kingdom for a mod point.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, your average Uber driver is going to spend the money on a wheelchair accessible vehicle.

    5. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Informative

      More expenses for Uber and drivers = higher costs. This will push some people to either walk a few blocks (OMG, the HORROR) or back into public transit. Higher costs = lower demand, therefore fewer vehicles.

    6. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by bobbied · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So, what your saying is that Uber riders have to pay more, and my taxes no longer subsidize their drivers (through food stamps, etc.)? The free market gets to work?

      How cute, you think that "minimum wage" will get Uber drivers off food stamps and Medicaid... Maybe a few will, but I doubt it will be many.

      Just a guess, but I'm thinking that the bulk of Uber's drivers are just doing side hustles anyway. It's a way to increase cash flow in your spare time using your car. I'm also going to guess that very few of their drivers actually live in NYC, but end up driving there for fares because that's where the demand is and thus where you go to make money fastest. Finally, I'm going to say that owning a car in NYC pretty much assures me that you don't have a chance to collect food stamps or Medicaid.

      But, this is just a guess... I don't live anyplace near NYC and don't plan to ever go there.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by bobbied · · Score: 1

      minimum "wage" also means over time pay... also it would then allow for benefits and holiday pay and such things. Uber Disrupted.

      Uber just says that nobody can work full time, much less overtime. Then, all they need to do is stop sending you fares when your work hours are up for the week. Zero over time, Zero benefits, zero issues with the law.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Or push them to to drive drunk, thus killing people. But hey, why worry about all those other unintended consequences, right?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    9. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by gravewax · · Score: 1

      What it may do is make some of them realise how badly they are being exploited since it seems everyone I talk to claims they are making a fortune due to them not being honest with themselves about the real hours and real costs they have to put in.

    10. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Some fuckwit being too much of a cunt to stay out of the driving seat when drunk is the fault of the fuckwit.

      There are always options. Like not getting drunk. Like not driving. Like walking home, getting a taxi, staying in a hotel or finding a police officer and telling them you want to drive home. They'll look after you.

      Drunk driving is not a consequence of constraining ride sharing businesses.

    11. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Most Uber drivers are not doing it in their spare time. It's not worth it, the set-up costs like maintaining a decent car, keeping it clean, insurance etc. are too high. I don't know about NYC but many places require them to be licenced or get background checks done too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Citation please? Uber markets themselves as a part time side hustle, a way to make quick cash by driving folks around in your free time, at least around here. Are you saying the average Uber driver in NYC is working full time? You got statistics on this?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by bobbied · · Score: 1

      We can only hope.. I don't drive for Uber because I did the math, there is zero chance I'm going to make enough money to cover all my expenses (insurance, gas, maintenance, depreciation on my vehicle) and take home enough money per hour to be worth it.

      What most of these people are really doing is working for cash flow, trading the depreciation of their vehicle due to mileage for some change in their pockets. They really are not making all that much, but they do see a lot of cash flowing through their hands, which for some, is helpful in the short term. Long term, it's not very good.

      My father in law used to drive foster kids around for the state. They paid him per mile. He had just purchased a new car and he was trying to pay it off with the extra income. Problem was, that after he paid for gas and maintenance, nearly every penny went into the car payments. When he finally paid off the car, it was worth about what his down payment had been due to the mileage he put on it. He basically only really got to use the car for personal use for "free" by driving the kids around. Hardly worth it when you calculate out the per/hour returns.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They market themselves as a part time thing so that they can claim that they are a "ride sharing service" rather than a taxi company. That way they can avoid all the costs of being a taxi company, like having to vet drivers, pay them minimum wage and benefits, obtain operating licences etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      A hustle is something illegal or a scam as well. I've thought it was the dumbest way to make a side gig sound cool.

    16. Re:Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicles by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Truly the use of "your" needs to be called out.

  3. Re:Is this what the masses really want? by originalGMC · · Score: 1

    Or, like Rudy, kill/disappear the bums.

  4. A study shows ... by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... that studies cause problems.

    Last week we had the story that said Uber was keeping people off the subways.

    Now a new ordinance that blames people's increasing frustration with subway problems with the rise of Uber.

    So it is imperative to force people back onto the subways they're frustrated with...

    THAT will fix it!

    1. Re:A study shows ... by originalGMC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Subways in Japan are very nearly perfect, for the modern man. For the future man, who knows? Why would any city try to reinvent the wheel when something so near perfection exists? Emulate!

    2. Re:A study shows ... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Unless New York subways have gone downhill substantially in the last three years- you've got a system that people would kill to have in many other cities. I wish my town had a system that worked as well as NY's subways.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:A study shows ... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the system is neglected and needs a lot of repairs, thus reroutings for construction (especially on nights and weekends) and/or making express trains local is quite common. It works well in Manhattan, since there are a few redundant lines in most areas, less well in the outer boroughs.

    4. Re: A study shows ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, you've been watching too much JV. Have you ever actually been to Japan?

    5. Re:A study shows ... by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      Unless New York subways have gone downhill substantially in the last three years- you've got a system that people would kill to have in many other cities. I wish my town had a system that worked as well as NY's subways.

      THEY HAVE!!! The MTA is horrible, unreliable and unapologetic. Just last week N, Q, R customers were stranded without warning for an hour despite the maintenance supposedly being 'planned'. MeanwhileCuomo keeps sucking dollars out of transit coffers to do stupid sh*t like spend $30M to add the state colors to the subway tile lining the battery tunnel. I have to pad my commute by at least 45 mins in order to ensure I'm to work on time, and at least once a month I'm still late!!!!

    6. Re:A study shows ... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      This is one more reason to carve the subways and MTA buses out from state control and put them back under city control. There's no reason why a bunch of upstaters in Albany (including "Upstate Andy" Cuomo) need to be running the MTA.

    7. Re:A study shows ... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Please.

      Next I guess you'll be saying that NYC should be able to deploy as many red-light and speed cameras as required to lower the pedestrian/cyclist death rate.

      Such hubris!

    8. Re:A study shows ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Subways in Japan are very nearly perfect, for the modern man.

      Easy to say until you are pressed against the flesh of your fellow riders on a rush hour train in the middle of a hot humid summer, realizing that the train's air conditioning doesn't really work so great in those conditions. That's if you were lucky enough to get on the train in the first place.

      Japanese trains are great for tourists because tourists have abnormal travel patterns and can avoid rush hour trains.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:A study shows ... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha

      To make things clear, yes, it happens. Women get groped in crowds, it is not specific to Japan, not specific to trains, and not even specific to women, though it is a common combination. It is a result of overcrowded trains in during rush hours. And maybe a cultural issue where women are less likely to report or fight back. I mean, if I did that in New York, I would expect a well deserved kick in the balls. And it is not like Japan does nothing about it, for example, they have women only cars for that reason.

      No really, trains in Japan are extremely safe for both men and women. Though the Japanese, who take that safety for granted, may have a different opinion, and would probably panic just thinking about NY subways.

    10. Re:A study shows ... by originalGMC · · Score: 1

      In some places, it's always crowded. On some message boards, there's always a cynic.

    11. Re:A study shows ... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      How can a camera cause an accident? Perhaps you mean that stop lights "cause" (air quotes) accidents because assholes speed up on yellow instead of slowing down? That's not the light causing the accident, it's the assholes.

      As for "getting up to speed" in NYC, here are just a few within the last year or so:

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/times-square-speeding-vehicle-strikes-pedestrians-new-york
      https://abc7ny.com/traffic/19-year-old-dies-after-speeding-mercedes-strikes-her-uber-/3520238/
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/thousands-of-serial-traffic-violators-in-new-york-city-go-unpunished-1521036000

      In my neighborhood in the Bronx there's someone who regularly drives a Porsche at high speed (I estimate about 50 MPH) on the residential streets at night. A speed camera might make him think twice.

      A different Porsche was thankfully eliminated from the "car pool" in that same area:

      http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/drunken-driver-loses-control-porsche-lands-playground-article-1.3727865

    12. Re:A study shows ... by jediborg · · Score: 1

      I've seen video's of subway personnel in japan 'shoving/packing' people into subway cars like cattle, cause the local government would rather pay people to shove others in dozens of stations instead of just increasing the number of cars running on the line so as to reduce congestion. So i don't think i would call that 'nearly perfect'

  5. 54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insurance by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insurance will hurt them big time.

  6. Fix the god damn trains! by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    New York is one of like 2 to 3 US cities with an actual train system and it's falling apart.

    I'm fine with capping Uber and requiring minimum wage, but for god sake fix Penn Station, dump a shit ton of money into the degrading subway system and invest in that critical infrastructure!

    1. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      nyc contributes far more to the state budget than it gets back. the rest of NY state is basically a watershed for NYC and that's the way it should be.

    2. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are roads any different? Texas couldn't find even one road that pays for itself. How can you expect transit to compete with that?

      Yes, roads benefit people who don't use them, but so does transit by making room for more cars on the road. (People say that transit reduces traffic congestion but this is just as false as the idea that road projects reduce traffic congestion.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      You're exaggerating. Housing prices in Jamaica (Queens) are pretty reasonable, and it's a 20-25 minute LIRR ride into the city, 1 hour by subway. There's also upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.

    4. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you that Beltway 8 around Houston was paid off LONG AGO. But, it's still a toll road, and tolls keep going up.

      Toll roads just subsidize the rest of public infrastructure, or so that's what I'm told.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you that Beltway 8 around Houston was paid off LONG AGO.

      Including all future maintenance and lighting costs, lost tax revenue from businesses that can't be built on that land, and lost income from other, more cost-effective uses of your tax money?

      If freeways are such a wise use of money, then why doesn't the free market build more of them?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      People must move. Walking, biking, Trains, airplanes/ports, Cars, boats... all take up space and have varying speeds and utility.

      If people really want to get from A to B, why can't the free market provide that service in exchange for money?

      Or maybe the reason people go from A to B so much is because of the transportation subsidies. Which one's the chicken and which one's the egg?

      If McDonald's gave away 100 free burgers a day and people lined up outside waiting for the store to open, did they line up because they really need those burgers or is it because they are priced below market?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      LIRR costs $226/month from Jamaica to Penn Station, then another $121/month to ride the subway/bus from Penn Station.

      At a $15 per hour minimum wage (when it arrives) that works out to 14 percent of gross wages.

    8. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      NY, DC, Boston, Chicago, SF, maybe Philly and Miami are US cities you can live in without a car. Atlanta -- doubt it. MARTA exists, but it's a bit of a toy.

    9. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There are economic benefits to the public having mobility. People can find work further away, they can travel for entertainment, there are greater shopping options.

      The demand for easy affordable transport exists but its provision is extremely difficult. The free market is excellent at catering to the high revenue demand but fucking terrible at providing for a common good.

      I'll follow the other person's excellent advice and stop now before I get too frustrated with your idiotic argument.

    10. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If you can't find a minimum wage job within 40 minutes walk of Penn Station you've got serious problems.

      So that's a third of the travel cost saved already.

      What, walk? In America? Yes.

    11. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You can't claim that every square inch of land could become productive land.

      For all land that's not owned by the state, there's an owner paying taxes on it. Whether or not the owner deems the land "productive" has no bearing on this fact.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      s/all/most/

      I realise that there are some exceptions to this relating to things like easements that may technically be privately owned, but these are cases wherein the state—not the owner—determines that the land is in some way productive in the public interest, and so I think the point stands.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Don't you think it's ironic that we expect freeways to be free for anyone wealthy enough to afford a car, but we expect transit for the poor to pay for itself with no subsidies?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    14. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Car ownership is fucking expensive because of taxes, duties and other government related costs. The roads are more than adequately funded by the people using them.

      Meanwhile, subsidies for public transport in the UK are substantial. They just happened to be heavily focussed on London, because the Government don't give a fuck about people living in the rest of England.

    15. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      The roads are more than adequately funded by the people using them.

      Nope!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    16. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In the UK vehicle excise duty and fuel duties raise around £38bn. Annual expenditure on the road network is under £10bn.

      Maybe we're both right.

    17. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Here in the USA, I don't know of any road that moves more cars per day than about 1/3rd of its maximum daily capacity. This tells me our road system is massively overbuilt!

      It's the same with parking. Infrastructure for cars have gutted our cities and harmed their economic productivity.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    18. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      ... transit [also benefits people] by making room for more cars on the road.

      Not just that - it also benefits employers by giving them access to more employees, and by giving their existing employees a choice in their commute. And by giving access to jobs to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to reach them, it benefits entire neighborhoods and cities.

      Let us not forget that transportation - in all its forms - is a core function of government.

    19. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any road that moves more cars per day than about 1/3rd of its maximum daily capacity

      What a weird and pointless metric to use. Sure, lets fill all roads all the time.

      "You want to go there? You'll need to travel at 4am, we're busy until then. Don't delay until 5.30am or you'll be caught in tomorrow's work traffic and all the schedules will break."

      Shit, one flat tyre and the whole country would grind to a halt.

    20. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but variable express tolls permanently eliminate traffic congestion on expressways without overcharging anyone. Parking demand management has a similar effect on surface streets. It should be possible to make some of our roads at least 50% efficient without creating gridlock.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    21. Re: Fix the god damn trains! by kenh · · Score: 1

      Let us not forget that transportation - in all its forms - is a core function of government.

      No, it's not a "core function of government", it is something many governments do - there's a difference.

      Is transportation mentioned in the US Constitution, for example?

      --
      Ken
    22. Re:Fix the god damn trains! by jediborg · · Score: 1

      its not that they haven't allocated enough money to the infrastructure, its that all that money is being lost to corruption and fraud. Calcified quasi-governmental corporations that have learned to game the bureaucratic system for maximum financial gain with no real increase in output/productivity. Honestly this is the one example where selling lines off to completely new companies (not the ones that are currently maintaining them with quasi-governmental protection/power) would actually help the entire system. But the city is to liberal/democratic if you just mention the word 'privatization' and you will be tarred and feathered

  7. The tighter your grip... by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the more slip between your fingers.

    The city is fighting services that offer a means for people to get where they want to go at a price that they are willing to pay. So, what exactly is the problem?

    I hate the whole concept of a minimum wage. The minimum wage has been and always will be zero dollars. No law will change that.

    Let's say I start a volunteer ferrying service. I post my phone number and website so people can find it, and I say I'll carry you door to door in the city. I offer to carry people in my car for nothing, but if they offer me a "tip" then I'm not going to refuse. If people ask for what kind of "tip" I expect then I'll give a quick estimate of my time, fuel, wear on the vehicle, and some "buffer" above that to make it worth my time.

    I basically just described how Uber and Lyft got started, as ride share programs to reduce congestion and share on the costs of the ride. Both have evolved into a kind of taxi service once people figured out that they could make a small but not insignificant income by volunteering to take people where they wanted to go. It might be below minimum wage if the hours are calculated but then it's better than making nothing at all.

    Go ahead New York, go and regulate these services. All that means is another one will come in to take their place. They might structure their business plan to avoid the rules, or simply ignore them because enforcement is impossible. You want to tell people that they can't drive a friend to the airport? Good luck with that.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:The tighter your grip... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Informative

      If they're competing with public transit or walking, they're actually CREATING more congestion. The only time they reduce congestion is if they're competing with private cars, assuming they don't ever drive around empty looking for their next fare.

      I suspect at least some Uber/Lyft trips replace walking or the subway, both of which don't congest the roads.

    2. Re:The tighter your grip... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      hahaha, good luck with that. offer to carry for nothing and the lowlifes of society will use you and pay you nothing. maybe shitting and pissing in your vehicle or slitting your throat while they're at it.

    3. Re:The tighter your grip... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Nothing. The city doesn't care about that kind of thing -- it's only regulating public markets.

    4. Re:The tighter your grip... by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go ahead New York, go and regulate these services. All that means is another one will come in to take their place.

      And be identically regulated, because these regulations are not specific to Lyft and Uber.

      They might structure their business plan to avoid the rules, or simply ignore them because enforcement is impossible.

      Enforcement is quite possible. Summon driver through the app. Ticket driver. Enough tickets, impound vehicle. Heck, ticket the service that sent the request to the driver while you're at it. Hard to be anonymous publishing an app. Hard to run a service like this without an app.

      You want to tell people that they can't drive a friend to the airport? Good luck with that.

      Because that is what is happening. I remember just last week when I wrote an app so that my friend could ask me for a ride to the airport... Oh wait... they call or text me, specifically.

      I hate the whole concept of a minimum wage. The minimum wage has been and always will be zero dollars. No law will change that.

      Ah yes, I see. You're a denizen of libertarian fantasyland. I'll be moving on now...

    5. Re:The tighter your grip... by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      Nothing, and I'm sure one could create a 5ver style app where you post a price to take you to the airport and people accept. However, if your flight just arrived or you need to get to the airport "Now" good luck getting a ride in a timely manner / for a fair price.

    6. Re:The tighter your grip... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Technically that's already happened in the UK.

      The road usage charges take the form of fuel duties and taxes, which also mean that people with more expensive cars (which tend to be the ones with the bigger engines) tend to pay the most.

      Unless they own an electric car, in which case the Government takes pity on them.

    7. Re:The tighter your grip... by jediborg · · Score: 1

      There is so much wrong with what you said, but instead of explaining it i guess i'll just go home and program my version of UBER that uses blockchain (and therefore has no 'centralized service' for you to ticket/fine) and then build in features into the app that helps users avoid under-cover cops, or allows drivers to flag riders as undercover cops so they can be identified and avoided by the other drivers. Like the original poster said, the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.

    8. Re:The tighter your grip... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      There is so much wrong with what you said, but instead of explaining it i guess i'll just go home and program my version of UBER that uses blockchain (and therefore has no 'centralized service' for you to ticket/fine) and then build in features into the app that helps users avoid under-cover cops, or allows drivers to flag riders as undercover cops so they can be identified and avoided by the other drivers. Like the original poster said, the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.

      You go do that. Good luck distributing an app through the Apple Store or Google Play that avoids the 'centralized service' issue (if you can list it, they can find you), preemptively blacklisting tens of thousands of police before your service craters from the tickets and impounded cars, and avoiding the obstruction of justice charges.

      No app distribution channel (assuming you don't cave and deanonymize yourself), no drivers, and no cozy nights at home. You'll be #winning.

  8. Re: More rats that rides by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    fuckin NYC, the asshole of America, just gaping wide

    That's not the issue here. The issue seems to be that the taxi lobby finally got politicians to put the smack down on their competition. Are there really cars that are dedicated to uber? Every time I've gotten a ride it's been some guy who was just earning some extra cash while he wasn't working his real job. The issue here seems to be that someone wants to turn an easy way to make a few extra bucks into a full time job.

  9. Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it walks like a taxi, drives like a taxi, and quacks like a taxi, it's basically a taxi and is adding to congestion in the city. Market's saturated -- there's a reason why taxi medallions were limited in quantity by law. NYC streets can't support unlimited traffic. This being said, public transport in the outer boroughs needs to be improved, or some system created to preferentially license rideshares in the outer boroughs (where "real" cabs are hard to get).

    1. Re:Good... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      NYC's street network is narrow by US standards and can't handle unlimited traffic. Rebuilding it would be insanely expensive.

      Of course, the market can fix it -- if traffic slows to a sufficient crawl, people won't want to use Uber/Lyft/cabs and fewer people will be interested in driving. But traffic slowing to a crawl has other negative consequences like fire and ambulances being unable to get through and added pollution (99% of for-hire vehicles aren't electric).

  10. Re: More rats that rides by AuMatar · · Score: 1

    In NYC to drive for uber you must already be a licensed private driver (different from a taxi, you can't pick up a hail as a private driver). So no, nobody driving for uber in nyc is someone getting some extra money in their spare time.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  11. The real minimum wage is zero by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how all of the drivers no longer able to drive because of the car cap will feel about being paid more per hour for driving 0 hours.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The real minimum wage is zero by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      because they can't do something else for a living where they by law must be paid minimum wage or above?

    2. Re:The real minimum wage is zero by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      People argued that in Seattle too, but in the end there were more jobs paying better wages.

      Reality has a bias towards reality, not myth.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:The real minimum wage is zero by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If they had something else to do, they would probably be doing it

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:The real minimum wage is zero by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Which goes to show the capitalist system is completely flawed. It forces people in labouring in jobs they don't want! Much better to introduce socialism

      You can't introduce socialism in America, because all government which does things for people is socialist. You could increase (or decrease) socialism, though. HTH, HAND!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:The real minimum wage is zero by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      false

      you must be a child living off your mother

      most people who have a job have inertial resistance to changing it

    6. Re:The real minimum wage is zero by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      most people who have a job have inertial resistance to changing it

      They didn't have a better/real job, that's why they decided to drive for Uber. By your own argument, in fact.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Minimum Wage is for Teenagers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

    Not fucking adults in New York City.

    Holy fuck.

    1. Re:Minimum Wage is for Teenagers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to employers.

    2. Re:Minimum Wage is for Teenagers by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not according to F.D.R., the president who helped establish a federal minimum wage in the first place:

      “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

      “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  13. The money ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They could but all the money went to tax cuts - especially for the rich.

    Trump made a campaign promise to spend a Trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000+) on infrastructure.

    Instead he's talking about more tax cuts that will help almost exclusively the 0.1%ers. Yeah sure, you 1%'ers here would get some crumbs (look at the stats. Many of you are one percenters!) The rest of us? The crumbs of the crumbs - the dust and scent of the slice of the pie.

    Here's what wealth inequality brings! The top gets more and more and we at the bottom get less and less. And for most of you who are in the upper middle, downward mobility is in store for you!

    1. Re:The money ... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if the super-wealthy drive up costs of necessities like food and housing, so even with a somewhat higher income, you're less able to afford them? Money is relative, unfortunately.

  14. Re:uber drivers stop for now reason by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Some reason? Nah. They're fiddling with their phones looking for fares, maybe even on more than one app...

  15. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insurance will hurt them big time.

    Which is why the Taxi Companies pushed so hard for this.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Average traffic speed in NYC is say 15 mph -- I'm being very generous by averaging Manhattan and less-crowded parts of the boroughs here.

    $13/hr / 15 mph = 86 cents/mile
    86 cents + 54 cents = $1.40 per mile.
    Add insurance and you're probably close to $2 per mile.

    Once you add Uber's profit, their charges will need to be pretty close to the $2.50 per mile that "regular" cabs charge.

  17. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by bobbied · · Score: 2

    But, what happens when the major NYC cab companies experience totally coincidental and nearly simultaneous fires that destroy their garages and cars?

    NYC finest are going to come looking for you to charge you with arson. That's what happens.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Wrong as usual by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are a very confused man, because I am talking about the fact that NYC has specifically eliminated driving jobs, not arguing about the minimum wage per se (though actually you are also wrong there).

    Reality has a bias towards reality, not myth.

    It sure does, which is why I post about reality, not the mythical fairyland your mind inhabits. I mean if you can't even distinguish between an abstract concept like minimum wage and a specific cap on a class of jobs - how can you seriously claim to be grounded in reality?

    I'll let you have the last response as I can only do so much to try and introduce the deluded to reality, and I have given you as much help as is warranted. The rest is up to you, good luck!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wrong as usual by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      though actually you are also wrong there

      Maybe not. A Seattle Times Op-ed counterpoint brings up issues with the study that seem worth considering:

      Specifically, let’s look at all the workers who are simply left out of the analysis. By the UW team’s own admission, nearly 40 percent of the city’s low-wage workforce is excluded from the data: workers at multisite employers like Nordstrom, Starbucks, or even restaurants with a few locations like Dick’s. Even worse, any time a worker left a job with a single-site employer for one with a chain, that was treated as a “lost job” that was blamed on the minimum wage — and that likely happened a lot since the minimum wage was higher for those large employers.

      Similarly, every time an employer raised its pay above $19 per hour — like Jimmy John’s did — it was counted not as a better job, but as a low-wage job lost as a result of the minimum wage.

      That's an op-ed, of course, and not a study correcting perceived defects and presented in opposition. But that might not be necessary, per a Fortune Op-ed counterpoint:

      It also stands in contrast to a massive trove of actually credible studies showing that raising the minimum wage is a boon for working class families and the communities they live in.

      For instance, a team led by Michael Reich, an economics professor at University of California-Berkeley, looked at the impact of the Seattle wage increase on the food industry over the same period and found that wages did in fact go up for restaurant workers, and that employment wasn’t affected. These findings were, they claim, “in line with the lion’s share of results in previous credible minimum wage studies.”
      [...]
      Employers see big benefits, too. Workers stay on the job longer, reducing turnover and training costs. They’re also significantly more productive, according to researchers studying wage increases in the United Kingdom.

      The op-ed continues with studies/references for other aspects of the increased min wage.

  19. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    easy to solve, employ all drivers for exactly legal minimal wage and not a cent more,

    don't employ them in Uber directly instead employ them in small companies containing each 9 workers or so that provide "driving service" to Uber itself so that all those overhead laws regarding ADA, healthcare, pension ... do not get fully activated (something similar to "virtual franchise" i guess, i don't know what are laws like in USA but i'm sure good team of lawyers will find holes in letter of law needed, intent of law is not really that important),

      employ each worker for exactly 29 hours so full time and other laws don't get activated ( like target and other big stores do)

    provide each driver with company car and company gas card so that those "54.5 per mile laws" for using personal vehicle don't get activated

    require workers to come and work on EXACT hours/schedule during exact days where "surge service" is most needed so that most value for company is extracted from each employee's 29 hours per week limit instead of letting them decide when to work, remember you can legally require employees to come exactly when you need them instead of when they would like unlike contractors

    if need for workers is reduced just fire few "franchises" by not renewing their contracts, no need to fire each employee separately, also this way no need to pay any severance, franchise that should pay severance will simply go bankrupt and unable to pay for severance, you might not even have to pay last salary this way (remember those cars are rented from "real Uber" not owned by "franchises" so you will not loose them, you can even save by doing self-insurance on them)

    im sure Uber can actually save a lot of money compared to right now, and even increase profits a lot using this simple tricks, they should really hire me to give them ideas, and i will work cheap, salary in my country is $500/month so if they offer $700 per month i will switch immediately ...

    all that is needed is few good lawyers and few good tax specialists to find ways to go around intent of law and stay 100% legal

  20. Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last time I stayed in Manhattan, the Doubletree cost $700/night. The customer paid for that, but it felt wasteful. Since they banned Air B&B and similar, we're not staying in New York city for personal trips. I'd much rather help a local person keep their home than stay in the impersonal people box of some corporation.

    In Manhattan, I'll usually take the subway if it's at all possible. But limiting rideshare in the name of the long-obsolete medallion cab system - which promotes cruising around looking for a customer, using up fuel and making pollution for nothing; that can't be a plus.

    1. Re:Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      You (or your customer) got ripped off. You can get under $200/night if you go for a hotel that's not a major chain (but still safe and clean, if not particularly spacious or modern).

    2. Re:Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Yes, I have done the Pensylvania-6-5000 thing before. But not for business. And aren't they owned by some cult?

    3. Re:Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      That's one example, there are others. Kayak is your friend here. Also, there's always Yotel if you don't mind the odd hipster capsule hotel vibe.

    4. Re:Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Hotel Pennsylvania isn't owned by a cult, BTW -- it's owned by a real-estate conglomerate that can't decide what to do with it. But for $150/night, you can't beat the location -- near basically every subway like in the city and Penn Station as well.

    5. Re:Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by gravewax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Staying there in a few weeks time over the labour day weekend. Have not been to New York in 20 years but even I had no trouble finding 4 star accommodation for under $400 a night and that is during a holiday weekend, let alone something like a doubletree. really sounds like they saw you coming and milked you for all your worth.

    6. Re:Not staying in Manhattan if I can help it by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Prices are all over the map but in general are WAY higher than 20 years ago. Most NYC neighborhoods are also much safer than 20 years ago.

  21. Re:Now organized crime can sell more medallions by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    DeBlasio is a hell of a lot better than Bloomberg, whose stated ambition was to turn NYC into a "premier product" i.e. a playground for the wealthy. It's nice to have a mayor that's for the bottom 95% as well as the top 5%.

  22. Why do we need government action? by mi · · Score: 1

    Uber allows tipping — and there is no limit. Whoever feels the drivers are underpaid can pay them extra. No need to compel the rest of us to do the same, whether we agree with it or not. No one goes to work for Uber against their will, and they are all independent contractors — as, by the way, are the small-time taxi-medallion owners and leasers.

    Unless, of course, this telling others what to do is how you get off — and the reason you went to work for the government...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  23. Re:More rats that rides by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    I think you may be a little high.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rats_in_New_York_City

    Rats are elusive by nature, and public health officials have not developed any reliable way to estimate their numbers. However, a 2014 study by Jonathan Auerbach, reported in the Royal Statistical Society's Significance magazine, estimated that there were closer to 2 million rats in the city.[10][11] This deposes the often-repeated statistic that there are more rats than people in the five boroughs of New York City (8.4 million in 2014), with some estimates putting the number of rats far higher at as many as five rats per person (33.6 million).[6]

  24. Vahicle cap implementation by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    How to implement vehicle cap? Will they request drivers to register, and randomly pick who is allowed to drive a given day?

  25. NYC is worth a visit by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    Really. It's a great city - and I say that as a Brit. Don't let your prejudices deter you!

    1. Re:NYC is worth a visit by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Really. It's a great city - and I say that as a Brit. Don't let your prejudices deter you!

      It's not a prejudice in this case but preference. I was raised in the country and don't like cities or suburban spaces much. I'd rather spend my free time away from large groups of people and in the fresh air. So I don't feel the pull to "visit" the big city, or any city, but feel pulled away from the hassles you have to put up with in large groups of people. Give me a secluded beach, a hiking trail, a mountain side, or drive though the country.

      BTW, I visited Manchester once. Found a love for English teas and Curry take away there and cannot find anything like it here in the states. But my favorite part of that trip was a train ride to Chester and walking around that little town. It was an enchanting place and lovely countryside. THAT's the kind of thing I'm going to do with my free time.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  26. The market solution is over priced taxi medalions by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    The rational solution is congestion pricing; you want to drive in Manhattan, you pay the government a lot of money. This means that the government gets the excess revenue, not the vultures who own taxi medallions - perhaps the most iniquitous thing I've ever seen in economics; I really thought it was an April Fools joke when I first heard about them.

  27. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and what about parking, repairs / maintenance, tolls, for the company cars May need some office over head and maybe even staffers to port cars around.

      EXACT hours/schedule for driving jobs? It will happen where some will get an long ride at end of shift + an long return trip to get the car to the drop off point.
    OR even just waiting at airport ques or let's say waiting an spotting event that goes in to overtime after overtime.

  28. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not convinced this is true.

    I travel a lot... in spurts. Like one year on, three years off. I use Uber exclusively because it allows me to handle my expense accounts cleanly. If I use Yellow in NY and Black in London, etc... I'd have to manage a bunch of receipts and scan them and all that shit. On the road, I even try to eat at places that accept either Paypal or Apple Pay so that full receipts are sent to my accounts there. On top of that, I only use airlines and hotels that allow me to pay with Paypal.

    Taxi drivers and Uber drivers certainly make a large part of their income from locals. But locals who can afford taxis are generally people who are better at managing their money. In addition, people using taxis to get around the city in NY for business are expensing it. In either of these cases, the cleanliness of the payment system of Uber or Lyft is worth higher prices.

    I honestly haven't even considered city taxi services in years because I simply don't want the hassle of doing expenses or even the added work itemizing on taxes.

    The bad part for the taxi companies is that unless they were to collaborate on a massive international level to offer the same service that Uber or Lyft offers, they have no defense against this. Let's be honest, in a period of 2 weeks, I used Uber in NYC, Tokyo, Oslo and London... I had absolutely no problems and was happy to do it. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to use a taxi in Japan, taxis in London are REALLY REALLY unreliable outside the two inner zones. And frankly, taxis in NYC are not too bad, but more often than not, my credit card doesn't work in their machines because of the massive amount of anti-fraud tech that is supposed to protect me as opposed to inconvenience me.

    I think this will certainly hit Uber, but as you said, it will simply cause a price adjustment which has been needed anyway.

  29. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    At the same time, if you want privacy, the DIRTINESS of the taxi payment system (i.e. cash) can be a big advantage.

  30. Re:More rats that rides by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Ah, but he didn't mention New York. Rural locations might have more wildlife.
    https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

  31. Re: Drivers will use wheelchair accessible vehicle by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    Unsupported by facts? You mean, facts like those contained in the study being cited?

    Maybe you'd have more credibility if you weren't making a totally unsupported statement in opposition to a reference to actual facts...

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  32. Typical demagoguery solution by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Typical demagoguery solution by a leftist mayor. That's all there is to it. Between libertarian imbeciles on the right and corrupt demagogues on the left there is no one left to actually make thoughtful working government regulation that actually works for the common good, not only for corporations or for politicians elected by degenerate voters.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  33. How is minimum wage paid? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    Would the drivers get min wage for the time they spend driving? Or are they supposed to get paid as long as they are in ready state? Even if they decline ride requests from low rated people?

  34. Corrupt, not retarded. by jcr · · Score: 1

    DeBlasio pushed this because the taxi cartels pay far more in bribes than Uber or Lyft ever will. He couldn't care less about the drivers or the customers.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  35. Cap and minimum wage? One should be enough... by sabbede · · Score: 1

    If there's a cap on the number of drivers, then they're going to be more than busy enough for a minimum wage to be irrelevant. Not that a minimum wage for them makes any sense to begin with. Unless you want to encourage people to defraud Uber.

  36. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by mjwx · · Score: 1

    54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insurance will hurt them big time.

    Which is why the Taxi Companies pushed so hard for this.

    How dare they push for a level playing field... The nerve.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  37. History repeats itself by thomn8r · · Score: 1

    It was the artificial limitation on the number of taxicabs that drove up the price of "medallians" and created the conditions which incubated Lyft and Uber

  38. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

    and eliminate competition

    No, more like levels the playing field and helps to protect drivers and passengers. Uber and Lyft have been avoiding standard transport fees and regulations for years, eliminating the fair playing competition. You may call it "fixing an antiquated business model" like most young people would, but you fail to see the reasoning behind the rules and regulations of transportation. Those rules and regulations are there for the protection of consumers and employees.

    I'm all against Uber and Lyft operating in contravention of laws and regulations, and all for them respecting all the current laws and regulations, whatever those might be.

    However I'm also for new business models being a chance to have a debate about those laws and regulations. How many of them are really protecting consumers and employees, and how many are just protecting someone's monopoly? No one will ever sell you a law or regulation by saying that it's supposed to eliminate someone's competition, but it happens a lot. Also, if a law or regulation made sense in 1935 or 1965, does it still make sense today?

    I'm not saying the conclusion has to be that the laws must change. However, if there is a way of doing things in a different way today, why not talk about if the laws need to change.

  39. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Is there something in the article that makes you assume there's an addition in there? My gut expectation would be that, like several other such laws around the country in various service industries such as table-waiting, that this would protect against being paid less than minimum wage. i.e. if $0.x/mile for a fare works out to less than minimum wage, they still have to pay at least minimum wage, but if it works out to more, then they just pay mileage.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  40. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Once you add Uber's profit, their charges will need to be pretty close to the $2.50 per mile that "regular" cabs charge.

    Uber's what? Half the reason they have been so successful is they sell rides way below cost. It has been said they subsidize $.40 of every dollar charged to riders. It's no wonder taxis can't compete with a company that loses money on every ride.

    I'm really curious to see what happens with Uber over the next 5 to 10 years. They burn through cash at an historic rate. Their CEO recently claimed that is by choice, which may be the case. But considering they already pay their drivers a pittance, and autonomous cars are still many years away, it seems they will have to raise their prices quite a bit in order to turn a profit, as you point out.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  41. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The mileage covers the cost of car and then you have the workers min pay on top of that. When you are table-waiting you are not driving your own car around

  42. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    easy to solve, employ all drivers for exactly legal minimal wage and not a cent more,

    don't employ them in Uber directly instead employ them in small companies containing each 9 workers or so that provide "driving service" to Uber itself so that all those overhead laws regarding ADA, healthcare, pension ... do not get fully activated (something similar to "virtual franchise" i guess, i don't know what are laws like in USA but i'm sure good team of lawyers will find holes in letter of law needed, intent of law is not really that important),

    employ each worker for exactly 29 hours so full time and other laws don't get activated ( like target and other big stores do)

    provide each driver with company car and company gas card so that those "54.5 per mile laws" for using personal vehicle don't get activated

    require workers to come and work on EXACT hours/schedule during exact days where "surge service" is most needed so that most value for company is extracted from each employee's 29 hours per week limit instead of letting them decide when to work, remember you can legally require employees to come exactly when you need them instead of when they would like unlike contractors

    if need for workers is reduced just fire few "franchises" by not renewing their contracts, no need to fire each employee separately, also this way no need to pay any severance, franchise that should pay severance will simply go bankrupt and unable to pay for severance, you might not even have to pay last salary this way (remember those cars are rented from "real Uber" not owned by "franchises" so you will not loose them, you can even save by doing self-insurance on them)

    im sure Uber can actually save a lot of money compared to right now, and even increase profits a lot using this simple tricks, they should really hire me to give them ideas, and i will work cheap, salary in my country is $500/month so if they offer $700 per month i will switch immediately ...

    all that is needed is few good lawyers and few good tax specialists to find ways to go around intent of law and stay 100% legal

    So, if Uber changed everything about the company, then? They can't even make a profit now, but you expect them to with this Rube Goldberg structure you cooked up?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  43. Re: saturation by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    The point where traffic increases sufficiently to reduce incomes enough to limit the number of rideshares may be past the point where increased traffic causes pollution and restricts emergency vehicles from responding. Mr. Market isn't always right.

  44. Tips by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Here's another point for y'all: when I drove for Yellow in the mid-seventies, we got first 46% of the meter, NOT COUNTING the flag throw. Then (don't ask) we got shafted, and it was down to 42% of the meter.

    We *really* depended on tips.

    But I suppose most of you didn't realize that tips made up a good part of driver income. Adding a minimum wage would do a great deal to making sure that the drivers could actually have a reasonable (I didn't say well-off) living.

    But there's too many of you who only think of how cheap you can get away with, and don't give a flyin' fuck about the drivers for whom this is how they pay their bills.

    I won't use the "ride sharing", on the rare occasions I take a cab.

  45. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    well do you want to be the one in the hospital after being hit by uber with bills racking up as there is a big fight over who will pay.

  46. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Uber/Lyft are a tiny fraction of the vehicles on the pavement in NYC. Unlike traditional taxis, however, you can get one to stop for you without having to jump in front of it on the street, the driver doesn't pretend he doesn't know how to get where you need to go, the seats aren't sticky, and the car doesn't smell like vomit.

    This is protectionism for the antiquated taxi industry, nothing more nothing less.

  47. Re: US = pewp hole by kenh · · Score: 1

    The US interstate system was conceived by General Eisenhower as a national defense project after seeing the German Autobahn.

    --
    Ken
  48. Re: minimum wage by kenh · · Score: 1

    What is the basis of requiring ride-share drivers to be paid a minimum wage, but not medallion taxi drivers?

    --
    Ken
  49. Capitalism needs a welfare state to survive by NewYork · · Score: 1

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/12/capitalism-needs-a-welfare-state-to-survive

  50. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by MrPater · · Score: 1

    This is strange to me. I think losing money would be a good place to start in order to get people on board with Uber but they're way past that now.

    If Uber cost the exact same as a normal Taxi in my area I would still go with Uber. The app is 10 times more convenient then phoning a taxi company and waiting 30 minutes for someone to show up but then they don't show up and I have to phone again where someone will assure me that they're coming but then they don't and I've missed my appointment.

    With Uber I usually get a ride at my house in less than 10 minutes and I can see on my phone how far away they are.

    It wont matter if Uber end up costing the same as a normal Taxi, I'll still take the convenience of the service every time.

    --
    Crap, I have a levitation class at 25:131. Better set the alarm to 'cinnamon'.
  51. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

    Do those four words result in the itemized receipt being automatically logged to the same account as the NYC, London and Oslo receipts or were you unable to read the whole post?

    I also travel intermittently on business and agree that having Uber automatically produce a report of all my trips is much more convienent than the mix of:
      - generic paper receipts with no business name
      - blank "receipt" that I'm supposed to fill in myself
      - no receipt at all, just a blatant lie "my credit card reader is broken, you have to pay cash"
    That I've received from taxis in various cities

    With the blank "receipt" I guess the idea is that I'm supposed to lie and pad the amount get my employer to "reimburse" me for more than the ride actually costs, but I'm honest so I don't submit false expense reports.

    I've even had a taxi driver flat out tell me "I really need some cash, if you pay me X in cash I'll give you a receipt for X+Y". Look, I'm honest, I want no part in your scam to defraud either your employer or mine or to cheat on taxes or whatever other reason it is that taxi drivers lie about their credit card readers.

    It's much easier to just use Uber in each city and automatically receive a single list of all trips with start and end locations and times and cost all conveniently read to be added to my itemized expense report.

  52. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    In Japan, you also have to give the cabbie directions on how to get to your destination. For newly arrived business people who do not yet speak the language , this means having your secretary (Japan still has these!) write down the instructions in kanji.

  53. Re:54.5 cents per mile + NY MINWAGE + full insuran by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    taxi drivers don't like the credit cards fees

  54. Medallions? by barrygrommit · · Score: 1

    The taxi business is burdened by regulations requiring purchase of an expensive medallion for their taxi. Medallions run $800,000 to over a million. Uber & Lyft have no such regulation, but they are basically in the same busines. How is that fair? How is requiring a minimum wage hike for Uber/Lyft ever goint to level the playing field?