# Uber vs medallion



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

I've read quite a few people on this site stating that Uber will go out of business due to massive losses. When compared to https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MFIN/
Or medallion taxi, the same was said about medallion when they first started. In the end they did recover, only to later have Stabs taken at them by ride sharing services.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Medallion markets are crashing hard. They will probobly never recover to their pre-uber values.

But not every city even has a medallion system, (most don't)

The crashing medallion market could make it a LOT easier for indy guys like us to purchase a medallion in the future.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Medallion markets are crashing hard. They will probobly never recover to their pre-uber values.
> 
> But not every city even has a medallion system, (most don't)
> 
> The crashing medallion market could make it a LOT easier for indy guys like us to purchase a medallion in the future.


When did you ever think...

THAT would happen...

Prolly not in your fondest dreams...

There has been such a stranglehold...

On those medallions... good luck...!

Rakos


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Rakos said:


> When did you ever think...
> 
> THAT would happen...
> 
> ...


If the medallion now costs a few grand instead of 250,000... (or a cool million in NYC)

It will be easier for us little guys to get them. Orlando doesn't have a medallion system but if i lived in a city that had one i'd be seriously considering buying one now.

If i lived in a medallion city... i would buy one if the cost hit $10,000 or so, NYC i'd sell a home to buy one for 100,000.

What's really a better way to handle it is how they handle it here.

Permit costs here are less per car per year than 1 month of insurance is. It's only $300 ish per year for 1 car with 1 driver.

If I drove more every month i'd seriously consider going independent again.


----------



## Rakos (Sep 2, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> If the medallion now costs a few grand instead of 250,000... (or a cool million in NYC)
> 
> It will be easier for us little guys to get them. Orlando doesn't have a medallion system but if i lived in a city that had one i'd be seriously considering buying one now.
> 
> ...


Yes...I feel that way too...

You can play your own game that way...

Lends to a more free ride...

Good luck...!

Rakos


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> If the medallion now costs a few grand instead of 250,000... (or a cool million in NYC)
> 
> It will be easier for us little guys to get them. Orlando doesn't have a medallion system but if i lived in a city that had one i'd be seriously considering buying one now.
> 
> ...


I made a thread about this in the NYC section.... there's gonna be an auction in NYC for foreclosed medallions and the bidding is starting at $150k... with the right financing it would be MUCH cheaper to finance the medallion that working for Uber and dealing with paying their % cut.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> I made a thread about this in the NYC section.... there's gonna be an auction in NYC for foreclosed medallions and the bidding is starting at $150k... with the right financing it would be MUCH cheaper to finance the medallion that working for Uber and dealing with paying their % cut.


150K for a medallion?

That's closer to the right price.

However you have to keep in mind you don't get any dispatch if you go that route, which in NYC isn't a deal breaker.

on 150,000

A 30 year loan on that is somewhere like $800 a month, which is definitively affordable compared to giving 40% of every fare to uber perpetually. And when your done paying for it you have a NYC taxi medallion. Which hopefully you can sell off for more than you paid.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

My point in this post was that medallion lost money in their starting years, so has Uber.... As much as I hate to say it... It's not necessarily an indication of a failure to come.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Juggalo9er said:


> I've read quite a few people on this site stating that Uber will go out of business due to massive losses. When compared to https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MFIN/
> Or medallion taxi, the same was said about medallion when they first started. In the end they did recover, only to later have Stabs taken at them by ride sharing services.


You do realize Medallion Financial isn't the actual taxi medallion right?

they're a lending firm.. which none the less I believe reading about only 25% or less of their loans are to taxi medallions now.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> You do realize Medallion Financial isn't the actual taxi medallion right?
> 
> they're a lending firm.. which none the less I believe reading about only 25% or less of their loans are to taxi medallions now.


25% of any companies ownings are a significant portion of the company, thus I find it relevant


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> You do realize Medallion Financial isn't the actual taxi medallion right?
> 
> they're a lending firm.. which none the less I believe reading about only 25% or less of their loans are to taxi medallions now.


We are discussing a crash in the medallion market,

which is true.

Unless you think that a 7/8ths loss in value isn't a crash in the market?

(1 mil to 125,000 in nyc)


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Juggalo9er said:


> 25% of any companies ownings are a significant portion of the company, thus I find it relevant


But now if the rest of their portfolio tanked and the medallions didn't going by your view we'd still think medallions are tanking.

I'll give you an example

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/21/l...s-after-changing-its-name-to-long-blockchain/

A company's share skyrocketed after changing their name to incorporate "blockchain" in their name.. why? because speculators began buying it up like crazy... just because a name is incorporated with an assets name doesn't mean it is directly connected to if people are making or aren't making money driving taxis(in NYC).



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> We are discussing a crash in the medallion market,
> 
> which is true.
> 
> ...


The crash in the price is true... but do you know why the price went to record highs though? do you know the history?


----------



## emdeplam (Jan 13, 2017)

Medallion is a political promise. You promise to contribute to the power...and they maintain its value. Don't underestimate the promise when you value the medallion


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> But now if the rest of their portfolio tanked and the medallions didn't going by your view we'd still think medallions are tanking.
> 
> I'll give you an example
> 
> ...


The record prices were just before uber launched.

I know that they started out as like equivalent to a few hundred dollars (adjusted for inflation) and they grew out of control maxing out in the early 2000s.

I think NYCs highest point was just before uber showed up.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> The record prices were just before uber launched.
> 
> I know that they started out as like equivalent to a few hundred dollars (adjusted for inflation) and they grew out of control maxing out in the early 2000s.
> 
> I think NYCs highest point was just before uber showed up.


No.. but do you know WHY?... what happened..


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

emdeplam said:


> Medallion is a political promise. You promise to contribute to the power...and they maintain its value. Don't underestimate the promise when you value the medallion


Uber gives us Badges! The floor is falling out from under taxi medallions, but our Uber Badges hold their value!


----------



## jonhjax (Jun 24, 2016)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Medallion markets are crashing hard. They will probobly never recover to their pre-uber values.
> 
> But not every city even has a medallion system, (most don't)
> 
> The crashing medallion market could make it a LOT easier for indy guys like us to purchase a medallion in the future.


In Jacksonville, Florida a medallion costs about $200 and a driver needs to have commercial ins., city vehicle inspection and pass a background check to get one, that's all.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

jonhjax said:


> In Jacksonville, Florida a medallion costs about $200 and a driver needs to have commercial ins., city vehicle inspection and pass a background check to get one, that's all.


That's how they should be,

I'm talking about the cities where they cost $100,000+


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

My Charlotte medallion costs about $150 per year. Post Uber it's worthless without 
Yellow dispatch which costs me $12,000 per year (flat).


----------



## CarterPeerless (Feb 10, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> My Charlotte medallion costs about $150 per year. Post Uber it's worthless without
> Yellow dispatch which costs me $12,000 per year (flat).


Uber is not the end. Uber will crash or stabilize - no one can know. But the low barrier to entry in modern dispatch means that Uber will eventually have competent competition and/or the existing taxi companies will have to adjust to the modern reality.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

CarterPeerless said:


> Uber is not the end. Uber will crash or stabilize - no one can know. But the low barrier to entry in modern dispatch means that Uber will eventually have competent competition and/or the existing taxi companies will have to adjust to the modern reality.


We already hacked and cracked Ubers back end source code. We are app driven and server dispatched.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> We already hacked and cracked Ubers back end source code. We are app driven and server dispatched.


Mears Taxi had a dispatch app operational before uber came to town.

the company was using taxi magic since i believe 2010 or 2011 before they got their proprietary one on the app stores.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> If the medallion now costs a few grand instead of 250,000... (or a cool million in NYC)
> 
> It will be easier for us little guys to get them. Orlando doesn't have a medallion system but if i lived in a city that had one i'd be seriously considering buying one now.
> 
> ...


You can buy a medallion in San Diego for $3k, city price ( the private market tanked after they removed the cap on the number of cabs allowed on the road, plus Uber taking all the customers ). I would or I might buy one, because I don't think Uber is going to last ( thinking that when they belly up, the medallions will go back up in value, not as high as they used to be ( over $100K) but definitely higher. In the last 30 years every large transportation company I drove for eventually folded and most of them were losing money, but no where near as much as Uber is losing money.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

CarterPeerless said:


> Uber is not the end. Uber will crash or stabilize - no one can know. But the low barrier to entry in modern dispatch means that Uber will eventually have competent competition and/or the existing taxi companies will have to adjust to the modern reality.


We've had modern (app/online order) dispatching before Uber came to town. The difference is the city only allowed ~1500 city permits (plates) for all taxi companies combined. Uber is allowed unlimited numbers (appx 10,000 Uber vs. 1500 cabs). Sort of a David vs. Goliath thing.

I guess we needed to grease the palms of the city better than Uber did. ;-) Too bad we can't round up a few sucker investors for a few million $$$ to bribe passengers and politicians. You know....like Uber does. 

The best thing is the fact we own our gas station. We get Uber/Lyft drivers all the time. What they don't understand (while trying to mess with us) is that we use the profits from the gas to off-set losses to our drivers. We operate damn near free for half a year just off the gas profits. So you Uber and Lyft guys who think they're funny coming through our station, thank you, and keep on coming.


----------



## Tyuhdriveprius (Dec 31, 2017)

Rakos said:


> Yes...I feel that way too...
> 
> You can play your own game that way...
> 
> ...


That's great


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

phillipzx3 said:


> We've had modern (app/online order) dispatching before Uber came to town. The difference is the city only allowed ~1500 city permits (plates) for all taxi companies combined. Uber is allowed unlimited numbers (appx 10,000 Uber vs. 1500 cabs). Sort of a David vs. Goliath thing.
> 
> I guess we needed to grease the palms of the city better than Uber did. ;-) Too bad we can't round up a few sucker investors for a few million $$$ to bribe passengers and politicians. You know....like Uber does.
> 
> The best thing is the fact we own our gas station. We get Uber/Lyft drivers all the time. What they don't understand (while trying to mess with us) is that we use the profits from the gas to off-set losses to our drivers. We operate damn near free for half a year just off the gas profits. So you Uber and Lyft guys who think they're funny coming through our station, thank you, and keep on coming.


Tight limits on the number of cars is a GOOD THING for the _existing_ companies/drivers.

That's something uber never understood.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Tight limits on the number of cars is a GOOD THING for the _existing_ companies/drivers.
> 
> That's something uber never understood.


A prime example of that is a erstwhile cab company called Checker Cab of Charlotte. The partner died, leaving his wife his share of the company. She perplexed the living partner buy saturating the market with cabs within her company. Within a year of the saturation all the drivers had left because there wasn't enough business to go around. That's not smart business!


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> A prime example of that is a erstwhile cab company called Checker Cab of Charlotte. The partner died, leaving his wife his share of the company. She perplexed the living partner buy saturating the market with cabs within her company. Within a year of the saturation all the drivers had left because there wasn't enough business to go around. That's not smart business!


People just don't get that concept.

A large expansion in most cities is a very bad idea. (baring a competitor going out of business and their medallions going up for auction)

Mears taxi took 80 some years to go from 5 cabs to 800.

And that was with buying out smaller companies as well.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

The medallion system benefits a few at the expense of many. 

In a free and open market, values are determined by buyers and sellers of a product or service. If there is a surplus of supply, values go down. If there is a shortage, values go up. If there is low demand, values go down. If there is high demand, values go up. 

Medallion holders are the winners in a medallion system. One study indicates there are 6,200 cabbies in Boston competing to lease 1,825 medallions. Any cabbie that resists high lease fees can be replaced by a willing cabbie. The surplus of cabbies as compared to medallions will keep the lease fee high. In addition, the fixed number of medallions restricts competition. The existing medallion holders effectively have a state sanctioned cartel.

The artificially set low number of medallions means higher fares to the riders and some areas being under served. In NYC during 2014, 6% of yellow cab pickups started outside of Manhattan or the airports compared to Uber doing 22%. 

Enter rideshare. Rides became cheaper. Rides became available. Rides became easier to hail. Thousands of more drivers have a source of income, though lower than in a restricted market. 

A tightly regulated market is inefficient, creates shortages, high prices, and unemployment. The medallion system benefits the medallion owner at the expense to the drivers, riders, and overall economy.

A free market sees a demand and satisfies the demand with an increased supply. The value of the service is set by buyers and sellers with their pocketbook. A free market has competition. Competition creates lower prices to the end user and spurs innovation. 

Imagine that convenience stores, or gas stations, or anything else were severely limited. Instead of one per block, there could only be 1 per 10 blocks. The effect would be higher prices, less convenience, and fewer clerks being employed. But the owners of existing business would be very happy to eliminate the competition, charge higher prices and pay the clerks less due to the supply of clerks available and the limited number of jobs for them.

The medallion system was in effect in Las Vegas. The half dozen cab companies all had the same (high) fees. If one wanted a ride from off-strip, it often took hours to get a ride and some parts of town were unserviced. 

Free enterprise works. Socialism may work, for a few, for a while.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Lol


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> The medallion system benefits a few at the expense of many.
> 
> In a free and open market, values are determined by buyers and sellers of a product or service. If there is a surplus of supply, values go down. If there is a shortage, values go up. If there is low demand, values go down. If there is high demand, values go up.
> 
> ...


A free market ey? so if all these independent contractors can work freely why can't they choose their own pricing? why is it that an algorithm by a company determines what a free market driver will make and what trip they will get? not very free market like is it? Uber's objective is supposed to be to link drivers and riders together as a free market as you say..... but they're not supposed to determine what drivers are allowed to make, and what customers they can hail.

Also and your corner store argument is invalid... at the end of the day if there's a billion stores or not the land is there... it's not as if the corner store can extend their store onto the roads.. the argument isn't just that the limit is imposed to make medallion owners rich... the argument is that the traffic the cars make... if there was 50 delis on on street or one it won't change... opposed to if there's 50 cars on one block or 1 car on the block that makes a significant difference.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> A free market ey? so if all these independent contractors can work freely why can't they choose their own pricing? why is it that an algorithm by a company determines what a free market driver will make and what trip they will get? not very free market like is it? Uber's objective is supposed to be to link drivers and riders together as a free market as you say..... but they're not supposed to determine what drivers are allowed to make, and what customers they can hail.
> 
> Also and your corner store argument is invalid... at the end of the day if there's a billion stores or not the land is there... it's not as if the corner store can extend their store onto the roads.. the argument isn't just that the limit is imposed to make medallion owners rich... the argument is that the traffic the cars make... if there was 50 delis on on street or one it won't change... opposed to if there's 50 cars on one block or 1 car on the block that makes a significant difference.


There ya go making sense. These AynRandians don't listen to sense.

I should know, I used to be one


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> A free market ey? so if all these independent contractors can work freely why can't they choose their own pricing? why is it that an algorithm by a company determines what a free market driver will make and what trip they will get? not very free market like is it? Uber's objective is supposed to be to link drivers and riders together as a free market as you say..... but they're not supposed to determine what drivers are allowed to make, and what customers they can hail.
> 
> Also and your corner store argument is invalid... at the end of the day if there's a billion stores or not the land is there... it's not as if the corner store can extend their store onto the roads.. the argument isn't just that the limit is imposed to make medallion owners rich... the argument is that the traffic the cars make... if there was 50 delis on on street or one it won't change... opposed to if there's 50 cars on one block or 1 car on the block that makes a significant difference.


I didn't say tnc drivers are operating in a free market. But its more free than having a cap on the number of drivers. Its not Uber that is manipulating the market, its governments. Uber doesn't prevent me from a street hail, my government does. Uber doesn't prevent me from advertising for cash rides, my government does. Uber doesn't prevent me from starting my own transportation company, my government does.

Government should be a referee when it comes to private business, not an active participant that chooses winners and losers.

I'm not sure why one would disagree with my convenience store example. Won't fewer stores allow higher prices for the same product? Won't fewer stores mean a longer walk for consumers? Won't fewer stores hire less clerks? Won't fewer store create a more inefficient economy?

In a free market, if there is a demand, business will attempt to match it with its supply. If rides are in demand, there will be drivers. If there are drivers, there will be cars. Supply restrictions are not the most effective nor the cheapest method to reduce the congestion.



TwoFiddyMile said:


> There ya go making sense. These AynRandians don't listen to sense.
> 
> I should know, I used to be one


From each what they can and to each what they deserve? I'll take Rand over Marx any day. I prefer Hayek and Friedman, tho. I used to think communism would be the savior. Then I realized incentive is what drives both businesses and individuals. Let the public choose with their pocketbook instead of a corrupt politician dictating state dogma.



Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> People just don't get that concept.
> 
> A large expansion in most cities is a very bad idea. (baring a competitor going out of business and their medallions going up for auction)
> 
> ...


A quick and large expansion of a business or industry usually means the death of another business or industry. That is progress. Henry Ford ruined the buggy market. IBM crashed the typewriter market. Apple and other cell manufactures replaced (or will soon replace) land lines. Facebook took out myspace. Walmart will replace Sears. Amazon will replace Wallmart. Each new company quickly dominated their market due to innovations that the public accepted.

Are there examples of a business growing too quickly?



TwoFiddyMile said:


> A prime example of that is a erstwhile cab company called Checker Cab of Charlotte. The partner died, leaving his wife his share of the company. She perplexed the living partner buy saturating the market with cabs within her company. Within a year of the saturation all the drivers had left because there wasn't enough business to go around. That's not smart business!


I don't accept this example unless all the drivers left at the same time. More naturally, some drivers would leave one week, a few more the next, more the next and so on. Eventually, the number of cabbies would reach the pre-death supply. If the new owner needed more income, would it be better to have more cabs or to raise the lease rate of each existing cab? Not that it matters, but which option would make the most cabbies the happiest?


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

bsliv said:


> If the new owner needed more income, would it be better to have more cabs or to raise the lease rate of each existing cab? Not that it matters, but which option would make the most cabbies the happiest?


If the new owner needs more income...

You lose cause the margins are crap anyway.

These days... no one should be expanding. Absolutely no one...

But A 10% increase is the best way.

That story sounded like lot more than a 10% increase.

Cabs are a long term investment. If we are talking about a medallion city it's a VERY long term investment.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I didn't say tnc drivers are operating in a free market. But its more free than having a cap on the number of drivers. Its not Uber that is manipulating the market, its governments. Uber doesn't prevent me from a street hail, my government does. Uber doesn't prevent me from advertising for cash rides, my government does. Uber doesn't prevent me from starting my own transportation company, my government does.
> 
> Government should be a referee when it comes to private business, not an active participant that chooses winners and losers.
> 
> ...


You're not getting it my friend. The point isn't to limit the amount of hails... it's to limit the amount of traffic.. competition is good... it's great.... but let's use your own example.

You said 6,000 drivers for 1,000 cars am I right?

now... think of the major strip in your town... city... now imagine 6,000 vehicles on that road... all with ambitions to wait in that area to get a fare.

Your "naturally some drivers would leave" etc... idea.. it doesn't always work... we all know Uber's retention rate amongst drivers am I right? so how about this... let's set up a poll on this site and ask drivers on here if more drivers have left than have been added on.

Again.. again with the innovation stuff... man... ok... not even getting back into that one. Look through my old posts and read that.

Just think about how you're comparing a limited supply in real estate compared to a unlimited amount of cars on the road... really.. sit down and think about that.

And another thing to your "fewer stores" example... think about what Uber is in the process of doing... you complain about the taxi industry but Uber is with the idea to eliminate everyone from the market. To leave no one.

"More stores mean better pricing!"

When in reality it's less competition..... yea e-hail has been great for people.... but when it's left in the hands of... let's think how many companies can you name off the top of your head? how's that better?

"but but more jobs!"

When in reality Uber is in the business of building self driving cars and eliminating drivers.

If you want come on over to the NYC forum and ask the drivers on there how more cars on the road has helped them... ask them how well traffic is doing now.

bsliv

Oh also... if you think the traffic isn't affected.. let me leave you with this..

In NYC for example

Bloomberg back in like... 07? 08? 09? whatever it was wanted to create a congestion tax to lower the amount of vehicles in NYC during peak hours... as we all know Bloomberg HATED the taxi industry.. He resented everyone in it.... Bloomberg however is a big lover for Uber.. he is actually an investor I believe Uber and Lyft and has had tons of his former employees work for Uber and Lyft.. but anyway he then sent that law up to Albany and it got nixed by Gov. Cuomo

Now Gov. Cuomo as well is a huge lover for Uber.. they've given tons of generous donations to him.. he as well has a bunch of former employees of his working for Uber...

Uber added 68,000+ extra vehicles onto NYC roads though.. you'd think now that this guy would look to cut costs to bring in more drivers am I right? so why is he NOW looking to add a congestion tax? you think it looks good for a guy who's running for re-election to have all this traffic arguments on his hands? obviously to be able to run for re-election he needs to solve a major problem and that's why Uber is pushing for this congestion tax as well.. why? because they know they need all that money they paid to him to not go to waste... but they also realize that in fact they are causing traffic and this is them meeting each other at an agreement..


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

In 2011, the Charlotte City Council denied access to the airport to 9 of the 12 cab companies. In 2014, the mayor, who was chairman of the council's public safety committee, which oversaw cab related issues in 2011, was arrested on bribery charges. At least 2 of the 9 excluded company's owners report that they were improperly asked for donations prior to the selection process. Checker, which went out of business about a year after their exclusion, is one of the 2 reporting improper activity. Universal Cab's owner reports that he lost his income and home. A government should not be able to break a business like that.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> You're not getting it my friend. The point isn't to limit the amount of hails... it's to limit the amount of traffic.. competition is good... it's great.... but let's use your own example.
> 
> You said 6,000 drivers for 1,000 cars am I right?
> 
> ...


I don't deny their may be an increase in traffic. I live in an area with 2 million residents and up to a half million visitors per day. That's a lot of traffic in a relatively small area. The airport here is walking distance from the strip. We have tens of thousands of tnc drivers here. I know it increases traffic. For my regular job, not rideshare, I may travel 100 city miles. I live in the traffic. One would think being a rideshare driver would be perfect for me but I won't accept the low rates with unruly riders. I would love higher pay for drivers. I would love less traffic. I don't trust my government to give it to me. It shouldn't be their place to give it to me.

The question shouldn't be how to crush tnc's. The question should be how to alleviate congestion. That might be for another thread, though.

I give little credence to anyone who wants to regulate how much Pepsi I drink.

The best market for an economy is a free market. It will be the most efficient and therefore, the most profitable. Winners will be chosen by the users of the product, not a bunch of cronies. Regulated markets have problems. Free markets have problems. With a free market, if there is an economic incentive to solve a problem, it will be solved.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I don't deny their may be an increase in traffic. I live in an area with 2 million residents and up to a half million visitors per day. That's a lot of traffic in a relatively small area. The airport here is walking distance from the strip. We have tens of thousands of tnc drivers here. I know it increases traffic. For my regular job, not rideshare, I may travel 100 city miles. I live in the traffic. One would think being a rideshare driver would be perfect for me but I won't accept the low rates with unruly riders. I would love higher pay for drivers. I would love less traffic. I don't trust my government to give it to me. It shouldn't be their place to give it to me.
> 
> The question shouldn't be how to crush tnc's. The question should be how to alleviate congestion. That might be for another thread, though.
> 
> ...


What can I say.. if your idea of a free market is

A company that loses billions upon billions and still receives billions of dollars in investment to

Crush ALL competition big and small all while subsidizing new drivers pays so they can stay on their platform all while controlling who picks up who and how much they make off each trip at their discretion all while flooding the streets with as many cars as possible all for the sake of "innovation" because they don't have to cover any drivers losses and lobbying all lawmakers to bend to their rules....

then I guess more power to you..

Just next time you wanna tell yourself Uber is FOR free market.... think about how you get your trips funneled to you and if you decide not to take a trip you risk de-activation.

A free market is the right to charge what YOU want... not go by a companies prices that kills any other opportunity for you to work for someone else.

"but but free market! I should be able to do what I want"

Tell Uber that next time you decide to cancel a few fares in a row and they suspend you all while you're still filing your 1099 as an independent contractor.

Oh and before you try to weasel your way out of the traffic issue..
no the congestion issue actually it fits PERFECTLY with this one.... again taxi limits were implemented to make sure there aren't TOO many of them on the road.. you do realize medallions weren't THAT expensive up until about 10 years ago right? Taxi limits were put in place to make sure the streets won't be flooded with cars. Uber says to hell with those limits because it doesn't fit THEIR business model... it has nothing to do with free market. If it was a free market they would find no reason to subsidize new drivers pay.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> What can I say.. if your idea of a free market is
> A company that loses billions upon billions and still receives billions of dollars in investment to
> Crush ALL competition big and small all while subsidizing new drivers pays so they can stay on their platform all while controlling who picks up who and how much they make off each trip at their discretion all while flooding the streets with as many cars as possible all for the sake of "innovation" because they don't have to cover any drivers losses and lobbying all lawmakers to bend to their rules....
> then I guess more power to you..


That's exactly my idea of a free market. As long as you and I can attempt to do the same on a fair playing field.



Brooklyn said:


> Just next time you wanna tell yourself Uber is FOR free market.... think about how you get your trips funneled to you and if you decide not to take a trip you risk de-activation.


I don't think Uber is for a free market any more than any new, young business. They want no regulation to start then they want protectionist regulation once established. Uber is out for Uber. I don't like they way they do business but they have a right to do business as they please, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights.



Brooklyn said:


> A free market is the right to charge what YOU want... not go by a companies prices that kills any other opportunity for you to work for someone else.


I agree. Its not Uber preventing me from charging what I want, its the government. Uber offers a contract to contractors. The contract is vague, no destination, fee unknown, etc. Its still a contract. Take it or leave it. No force. Free will. The rider is Uber's client.



Brooklyn said:


> "but but free market! I should be able to do what I want"
> Tell Uber that next time you decide to cancel a few fares in a row and they suspend you all while you're still filing your 1099 as an independent contractor.


Uber is a participants in the market. The rules/regulations of the market are set by the controlling authorities. Uber can offer contract of $1 for the driver per ride. If a driver is foolish enough to accept it, that's on them. Uber is free to charge and offer payment at whatever rate they want. Drivers are free to accept it or not. I choose not. Many choose accept. My state has erected barriers to competition. In order to get a tnc license for 7000 vehicles, one must fork over $500,000 to the state. That stops most competition right there. Uber probably cheered for the law, maybe even bribed for the law, but they didn't create the law, government did.

Contractors get suspended or deactivated all the time in various businesses for numerous reasons. If a business perceives one of their contractors are not performing as well as expected, they should be free to not use the contractor. The infraction(s) don't have to rise to a legal level. If they don't like the color of your car they shouldn't have to use your car.



Brooklyn said:


> Oh and before you try to weasel your way out of the traffic issue..
> no the congestion issue actually it fits PERFECTLY with this one.... again taxi limits were implemented to make sure there aren't TOO many of them on the road.. you do realize medallions weren't THAT expensive up until about 10 years ago right? Taxi limits were put in place to make sure the streets won't be flooded with cars. Uber says to hell with those limits because it doesn't fit THEIR business model... it has nothing to do with free market. If it was a free market they would find no reason to subsidize new drivers pay.


I'm not attempting to weasel out of anything. I said traffic may increase. I said traffic is terrible where I live and increased a lot since rideshare. That ain't weaseling. Some jurisdictions perceived a potential traffic issue with no solution they were willing to undertake. That wasn't Las Vegas's excuse to implement the medallion system. We had lots of space at the time. Our esteemed regulators felt there would be physical confrontations between drivers. Uhhh, assault was already a crime. I won't say the mob was involved because they've never existed. I will say local politics has cleaned up a bunch but we've sent a bunch of regulators to the pen too. It takes a federal investigation to get 'em tho.

Any business should be able to offer whatever compensation to complete a contract as they deem fit. Any business should be able to charge a client whatever rate they wish. There will be a time of reckoning where the figures must make financial sense. No one has infinite funds.

A government that governs least governs best.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

bsliv said:


> I didn't say tnc drivers are operating in a free market. But its more free than having a cap on the number of drivers. Its not Uber that is manipulating the market, its governments. Uber doesn't prevent me from a street hail, my government does. Uber doesn't prevent me from advertising for cash rides, my government does. Uber doesn't prevent me from starting my own transportation company, my government does.
> 
> Government should be a referee when it comes to private business, not an active participant that chooses winners and losers.
> 
> ...


All the drivers quit the same month. Checker had no recourse but to turn all their medallions in cause they couldn't pay insurance without drivers paying leases.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> All the drivers quit the same month. Checker had no recourse but to turn all their medallions in cause they couldn't pay insurance without drivers paying leases.


If your drivers can't break even, it's a mass exodus.

The way leases traditionally work,

You pay a flat rate to rent a taxi.

If your paying money to work and not making anything you're gone in a blink of an eye.

Drivers can't afford to have very many if any losing days in a row. A month is all it takes for a mass exodus.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> That's exactly my idea of a free market. As long as you and I can attempt to do the same on a fair playing field.


I'll give you a hint... that's not what a free market is. 


bsliv said:


> I don't think Uber is for a free market any more than any new, young business. They want no regulation to start then they want protectionist regulation once established. Uber is out for Uber. I don't like they way they do business but they have a right to do business as they please, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights.


They infringe on everyone's rights what are you talking about? that's why there's constantly issues of them overstepping the lines of independent contractor and employee.... 


bsliv said:


> I agree. Its not Uber preventing me from charging what I want, its the government. Uber offers a contract to contractors. The contract is vague, no destination, fee unknown, etc. Its still a contract. Take it or leave it. No force. Free will. The rider is Uber's client.


It's literally Uber preventing you from charging what you want. That's why they set the rates.... and it's hard to say "free will" when in the end Uber is trying to form a monopoly/in the process of forming a monopoly and drivers don't have as many options. 


bsliv said:


> Uber is a participants in the market. The rules/regulations of the market are set by the controlling authorities. Uber can offer contract of $1 for the driver per ride. If a driver is foolish enough to accept it, that's on them. Uber is free to charge and offer payment at whatever rate they want. Drivers are free to accept it or not. I choose not. Many choose accept. My state has erected barriers to competition. In order to get a tnc license for 7000 vehicles, one must fork over $500,000 to the state. That stops most competition right there. Uber probably cheered for the law, maybe even bribed for the law, but they didn't create the law, government did.
> 
> Contractors get suspended or deactivated all the time in various businesses for numerous reasons. If a business perceives one of their contractors are not performing as well as expected, they should be free to not use the contractor. The infraction(s) don't have to rise to a legal level. If they don't like the color of your car they shouldn't have to use your car.


You are literally contradicting yourself in your own post. 


bsliv said:


> I'm not attempting to weasel out of anything. I said traffic may increase. I said traffic is terrible where I live and increased a lot since rideshare. That ain't weaseling. Some jurisdictions perceived a potential traffic issue with no solution they were willing to undertake. That wasn't Las Vegas's excuse to implement the medallion system. We had lots of space at the time. Our esteemed regulators felt there would be physical confrontations between drivers. Uhhh, assault was already a crime. I won't say the mob was involved because they've never existed. I will say local politics has cleaned up a bunch but we've sent a bunch of regulators to the pen too. It takes a federal investigation to get 'em tho.
> 
> Any business should be able to offer whatever compensation to complete a contract as they deem fit. Any business should be able to charge a client whatever rate they wish. There will be a time of reckoning where the figures must make financial sense. No one has infinite funds.
> 
> A government that governs least governs best.


You are trying to weasel out of it because in a thread ABOUT medallions and Uber and a discussion about why medallions are limited you said it should be reserved for another thread... why? because you don't really have a legit response... it's a bunch of nonsense.. you dodged talking about traffic and tried directing it towards the government without actually discussing Uber causing traffic... why?

"the government stops me from earning money", "the government stops companies like Uber from charging what they want"...... seems like you have more underlying issues than just a medallion.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Tight limits on the number of cars is a GOOD THING for the _existing_ companies/drivers.
> 
> That's something uber never understood.


What about from a passengers perspective, since taxi's are regulated by a city of elected officials shouldn't the needs of the people that elect those official be able to hold them accountable to meeting their needs?

This is probably not a problem that exists everywhere but a lot of major cities such as San Francisco and DC had huge surge issues in the morning and night that made it very difficult to get cab service. At it's root I think that why the TNCs were able to exist in some cities. TNCs used loop hole rules to exist and then got huge public backing because of failures in availability of service that once resolved there was no going back to "fix" the loop holes.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

123dragon said:


> What about from a passengers perspective, since taxi's are regulated by a city of elected officials shouldn't the needs of the people that elect those official be able to hold them accountable to meeting their needs?
> 
> This is probably not a problem that exists everywhere but a lot of major cities such as San Francisco and DC had huge surge issues in the morning and night that made it very difficult to get cab service. At it's root I think that why the TNCs were able to exist in some cities. TNCs used loop hole rules to exist and then got huge public backing because of failures in availability of service that once resolved there was no going back to "fix" the loop holes.


Don't forget them luring drivers away while giving them huge bonuses and better trips to leave taxi bases to make the taxi industry less stable.... don't forget that.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> I'll give you a hint... that's not what a free market is.


A free market is any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities (government). Do you know what a free market is?



Brooklyn said:


> They infringe on everyone's rights what are you talking about? that's why there's constantly issues of them overstepping the lines of independent contractor and employee....


If they infringe on your rights, sue them. Our governments role should be as a referee, to solve disputes, not to say company A is good and may continue and company B is bad because they didn't bride us properly and must stop.



Brooklyn said:


> It's literally Uber preventing you from charging what you want. That's why they set the rates.... and it's hard to say "free will" when in the end Uber is trying to form a monopoly/in the process of forming a monopoly and drivers don't have as many options.


Uber sets the compensation to complete their contract. Uber does not set the rates for my business. I charge $5 a mile and $2 a minute. I have taken zero rides because its illegal for me to do so. I don't fear Uber arresting me but someone with guns will attempt to stop me. If I don't stop they could kill me and the courts would say, "Oh well, follow orders next time." I would bet most businesses would like to operate a monopoly. That's what business do, expand in order to create more profit. If they crush the competition, they win. Do you know what a monopoly is? What about a cartel? What about collusion? What would you call an industry with 6 companies, all with the same price, all with crappy service, and competition is eliminated?



Brooklyn said:


> You are literally contradicting yourself in your own post.


I'm not contradicting myself. Businesses should be allowed to use or not use any contractor they wish for any reason they wish. Government should not create barriers to enter the industry. This is not contradictory.



Brooklyn said:


> You are trying to weasel out of it because in a thread ABOUT medallions and Uber and a discussion about why medallions are limited you said it should be reserved for another thread... why? because you don't really have a legit response... it's a bunch of nonsense.. you dodged talking about traffic and tried directing it towards the government without actually discussing Uber causing traffic... why?


This is about medallions. And you want me to discuss ways to relieve traffic congestion? Well, roads could be widened. Roads could be overhead. Roads could be underground. Tolls could be charged. Roads could be privatized. If the Las Vegas Strip was sold to the casinos, it would be a road like no other in the world! These ideas are off the top of my head. I am not a traffic engineer. I am an economist.

Some jurisdictions did not institute the medallion system. Some instituted it out of fear of assaults, so they say. Some instituted it out of traffic concerns, so they say. All who instituted it were misguided or corrupt. I lean toward the latter, particularly in Las Vegas.

Of the 535 members of congress, one has an advanced degree in economics. And they're attempting to manipulate the economy? I say hands off! I'd bet local politicians have less grasp on the economy than congress. I say hands off! Short sighted, feel good laws get votes. Short sighted feel good laws get passed. Short sighted, feel good laws don't necessarily work.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> A free market is any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities (government). Do you know what a free market is?
> 
> If they infringe on your rights, sue them. Our governments role should be as a referee, to solve disputes, not to say company A is good and may continue and company B is bad because they didn't bride us properly and must stop.
> 
> ...


If you were operating in a free market you'd be able to set your own rate... do you not file a 1099?

Oh really? You set your own rates huh? I'd love to see that in action when a customer ehails and gets in your car and you tell them "these are my rates". Listen man.

Do YOU know what a monopoly is? How do you mention 6 companies controlling prices but not acknowledge when I mentioned 5 app companies looking to undercut and price out everyone in the world until they have full control of market share?

Yes.. It is about medallions and one of the original reasons medallions were created were to alleviate traffic. Your answer is to widen roads? Explain to me in cities like SF and NYC how Uber has flooded the streets with vehicles how they would go about widening the roads.

You think if roads were privatized it would be better? do you believe the stuff you spew out your mouth?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> If you were operating in a free market you'd be able to set your own rate... do you not file a 1099?


I don't hire contractors anymore so I don't file 1099's. I receive about 20 a year tho. Not sure what you're getting at here.



Brooklyn said:


> Oh really? You set your own rates huh? I'd love to see that in action when a customer ehails and gets in your car and you tell them "these are my rates". Listen man.


They could see my rates pasted on the side of the door, just like local taxis. They could hail me from an app. They could request me from the doorman. They could look me up on taxilist.org. I don't know the details because I can't practice. I don't practice because its illegal. If it were legal, someone would figure out the details. I'm not that smart, right?



Brooklyn said:


> Do YOU know what a monopoly is? How do you mention 6 companies controlling prices but not acknowledge when I mentioned 5 app companies looking to undercut and price out everyone in the world until they have full control of market share?


The biggest difference between my example of 6 taxi companies controlling the city's personal transportation market and your example of 5 tnc's controlling the city's personal transportation market is the legal barrier to competition in my example. In your example, another company should be able to start and compete with the existing businesses. In my example you get sent to jail if you attempt to compete. Competition is good. Jail is bad.



Brooklyn said:


> Yes.. It is about medallions and one of the original reasons medallions were created were to alleviate traffic. Your answer is to widen roads? Explain to me in cities like SF and NYC how Uber has flooded the streets with vehicles how they would go about widening the roads.


ONE of the reasons the medallion system was created was a perceived traffic issue. It wasn't the only reason. In my view, it was not the main reason. ONE of my suggestions was to widen rides. It wasn't the only solution. Las Vegas had a huge traffic problem on Main St. There solution? Close Main St to all vehicle traffic. That solved the traffic problem cold. Want to solve your traffic issues? Close the road. Too many people using the road? Don't let anyone use the road. In my opinion, that's the ultimate in stupid. Another solution would be to ban private cars, or commercial cars. Again, dumb plans but it will relieve congestion.

Are private roads the answer? I don't know. I do know that the private roads here are the best roads in the area. I do know that if there is economic incentive to reduce congestion, private industry will do it. Currently, there is no incentive. Would Ceasar's Palace improve their road to allow easy access to their casino? Without a doubt.

Governments should encourage business competition, not outlaw it.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> Yes.. It is about medallions and one of the original reasons medallions were created were to alleviate traffic. Your answer is to widen roads? Explain to me in cities like SF and NYC how Uber has flooded the streets with vehicles how they would go about widening the roads.
> 
> You think if roads were privatized it would be better? do you believe the stuff you spew out your mouth?


Do the people in the city dislike having Uber or Lyft flooded. I did a google of San Francisco this was the closest article I could find.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-tackle-uber-lyft-traffic-congestion-pilot-program/



> "I've been in favor of people getting the rides that they need," Lee said. "What I'm not in favor of is the extent to which that compromises safety on the streets."


Laws should be representative of the people that *live in the area.* If the people that live in the city are happy then congestion is not really an issue. Commuters don't pay city taxes and reap the benefits of a city.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I don't hire contractors anymore so I don't file 1099's. I receive about 20 a year tho. Not sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> They could see my rates pasted on the side of the door, just like local taxis. They could hail me from an app. They could request me from the doorman. They could look me up on taxilist.org. I don't know the details because I can't practice. I don't practice because its illegal. If it were legal, someone would figure out the details. I'm not that smart, right?
> 
> ...


Your example with jail makes no sense because before it was you saying Uber most likely championed for the idea of the high insurance and etc... and now saying someone can compete... if/when Uber establishes ground you think they will let anyone price lower than them? do you? how has that worked anywhere up to now? is there a city left where they're the more expensive option?

So your one suggestion to widen roads.... explain how that will happen in NYC... instead of throwing out nonsense.... go... explain... let's hear your idea.

Closing a road in Manhattan? because that will solve an issue?

Oh and yea everything that's been privatized and that's been allowed for big corporations to do without regulation has worked REALLY well for the consumer am I right? please man just stop... you're literally just making things up.



123dragon said:


> Do the people in the city dislike having Uber or Lyft flooded. I did a google of San Francisco this was the closest article I could find.
> http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-tackle-uber-lyft-traffic-congestion-pilot-program/
> 
> Laws should be representative of the people that *live in the area.* If the people that live in the city are happy then congestion is not really an issue. Commuters don't pay city taxes and reap the benefits of a city.


Oh so like Uber who avoids a HUGE portion of taxes by setting up their corporation out of the countries?

Laws should be representative of the people that live in the area? so what about the drivers who travel from one city to the next to operate? so you're telling me people in SF are happy about traffic? please tell me about NYC.... how do you think people feel?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> Your example with jail makes no sense because before it was you saying Uber most likely championed for the idea of the high insurance and etc... and now saying someone can compete... if/when Uber establishes ground you think they will let anyone price lower than them? do you? how has that worked anywhere up to now? is there a city left where they're the more expensive option?


The grammar makes that a bit tough to understand. It may be hard to compete against Uber but its illegal to compete against taxis in a medallion system. Let Uber continue to lower their prices. I'm all for it, cheap rides for everyone. Drive out the competition. Then let them raise their prices. Then let me start my own company.



Brooklyn said:


> So your one suggestion to widen roads.... explain how that will happen in NYC... instead of throwing out nonsense.... go... explain... let's hear your idea.


I mentioned several ways to alleviate traffic. I didn't endorse any method. The best would probably be under ground with elevators at each intersection. That would probably not be cost effective. The cheapest would probably be toll roads. Charge $100 to drive for an hour on the street. For the $100, a cop will ride along with you. Street would be fairly empty. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of ways to reduce traffic. Again, I am not a traffic engineer. I study and report on markets, professionally. I am a business owner. I know the effects of burdensome regulations.



Brooklyn said:


> Closing a road in Manhattan? because that will solve an issue?


You asked how to reduce traffic. How much traffic will there be on a closed road? I believe I said closing a road because there was too much traffic was a dumb idea. Can we agree to agree?



Brooklyn said:


> Oh and yea everything that's been privatized and that's been allowed for big corporations to do without regulation has worked REALLY well for the consumer am I right? please man just stop... you're literally just making things up.


What business has been privatized and been a failure? I'm sure there must be some but I'm drawing a blank. Package delivery has been privatized and is working well, while the post office makes Uber look like they know what they're doing. Resupply launches to the space station has been privatized and is working well. If a business can launch a rocket full of supplies and dock with a ship in orbit, they can probably build a suitable road. What have I made up?



Brooklyn said:


> Oh so like Uber who avoids a HUGE portion of taxes by setting up their corporation out of the countries?


Apple - Ireland, Budweiser - Belgium, Smithfield Foods - China, Burger King - Brazil, Firestone - Japan, Hancock Financial - Canada, Holiday Inn - Britain, Gerber - Switzerland. General Electric - China, Purina - Switzerland. Changing your address to save millions of dollars makes good business sense. Regulations that make that choice necessary are bad regulations.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> Laws should be representative of the people that live in the area? so what about the drivers who travel from one city to the next to operate? so you're telling me people in SF are happy about traffic? please tell me about NYC.... how do you think people feel?


I just did a little research to point out what you were saying is not factual. I am not going to waste my time, the response you provided demonstrates that you didn't comprehend what I wrote.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> The grammar makes that a bit tough to understand. It may be hard to compete against Uber but its illegal to compete against taxis in a medallion system. Let Uber continue to lower their prices. I'm all for it, cheap rides for everyone. Drive out the competition. Then let them raise their prices. Then let me start my own company.


What are you saying? it's literally illegal to compete against Uber in that case. Your reasoning of "you have to pay for the insurance and you can compete" is the same reason you can say "you can buy a medallion and then compete"


bsliv said:


> I mentioned several ways to alleviate traffic. I didn't endorse any method. The best would probably be under ground with elevators at each intersection. That would probably not be cost effective. The cheapest would probably be toll roads. Charge $100 to drive for an hour on the street. For the $100, a cop will ride along with you. Street would be fairly empty. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of ways to reduce traffic. Again, I am not a traffic engineer. I study and report on markets, professionally. I am a business owner. I know the effects of burdensome regulations.


You literally came up with the worst reasons JUST to say you responded and now you're retracting from those ideas by saying you don't endorse them.... easy right? I wish we could do that with everything........ 
"what's the plan to get rid of traffic?"
Make it go away
"How?"
By making it disappear

So now toll roads? I thought you didn't like the government overstepping their boundary?.. hm.. that's funny.


bsliv said:


> You asked how to reduce traffic. How much traffic will there be on a closed road? I believe I said closing a road because there was too much traffic was a dumb idea. Can we agree to agree?


So you came up with a BS excuse to just dodge the question because you knew you were wrong. Ok.


bsliv said:


> What business has been privatized and been a failure? I'm sure there must be some but I'm drawing a blank. Package delivery has been privatized and is working well, while the post office makes Uber look like they know what they're doing. Resupply launches to the space station has been privatized and is working well. If a business can launch a rocket full of supplies and dock with a ship in orbit, they can probably build a suitable road. What have I made up?


Yes a business with the incentive to not change anything and maximize earnings is the best thing possible. You're right.


bsliv said:


> Apple - Ireland, Budweiser - Belgium, Smithfield Foods - China, Burger King - Brazil, Firestone - Japan, Hancock Financial - Canada, Holiday Inn - Britain, Gerber - Switzerland. General Electric - China, Purina - Switzerland. Changing your address to save millions of dollars makes good business sense. Regulations that make that choice necessary are bad regulations.


Oh so you're cool with companies syphoning millions out? wait... I thought you were happy you could compete with Uber and etc... why don't you try to syphon money out a similar way.. let's see what happens.


123dragon said:


> I just did a little research to point out what you were saying is not factual. I am not going to waste my time, the response you provided demonstrates that you didn't comprehend what I wrote.


You are straight up lying... you're just dodging the actual problem... but here if you want a real problem you could answer

https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/uber-lyft-cars-clogging-manhattan-streets-study-finds

There are also more cars on the road now than four years ago. The number of taxis and ride-hailing vehicles in Manhattan's central business district, or CBD, has grown by 59 percent since 2013, while the number of miles they travel in a given day has increased by 36 percent. A growth in miles driven by ride-hailing cars offset a drop in miles driven by taxis, data show.

If your response is going to be "well if the people like it then it's a non-issue"... who likes traffic ey? who does it help? first responders who need to get places?.. what business does traffic help?

"but but if no one is complaining then it's a non-issue!"

Come to the NYC forum and see how the drivers feel... come to the NYC forum and ask how they feel when they take rides too... if not... don't bother quoting me again because clearly YOU don't understand.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> What are you saying? it's literally illegal to compete against Uber in that case. Your reasoning of "you have to pay for the insurance and you can compete" is the same reason you can say "you can buy a medallion and then compete"


This is the second time you quoted me about Uber and insurance. I said nothing about insurance. Someone is confused and its not me. In the Medallion system, it is illegal to start a new business and compete against the existing businesses. In a free market system, new competition is always a day away.



Brooklyn said:


> You literally came up with the worst reasons JUST to say you responded and now you're retracting from those ideas by saying you don't endorse them.... easy right? I wish we could do that with everything........
> "what's the plan to get rid of traffic?"
> Make it go away
> "How?"
> ...


I said I'm not qualified to redesign the roads in NYC. I suggested if traffic is your concern, a different thread might be applicable. This thread is about the medallion system, not traffic. You insisted I supply a way to ease traffic. I came up with a half dozen. I have a better one, flying cars that are impossible to crash and flown by Martians. I'll endorse that. Happy?



Brooklyn said:


> So you came up with a BS excuse to just dodge the question because you knew you were wrong. Ok.


I'll admit if I'm wrong. I haven't said anything wrong in this thread. I may mention something impractical but only at your request.



Brooklyn said:


> Yes a business with the incentive to not change anything and maximize earnings is the best thing possible. You're right.


Not sure what you're trying to say here. Businesses don't usually have an incentive to not change. Businesses are motivated by economic incentives.



Brooklyn said:


> Oh so you're cool with companies syphoning millions out? wait... I thought you were happy you could compete with Uber and etc... why don't you try to syphon money out a similar way.. let's see what happens.


I'm for businesses trying to maximize their income. I do the same. If a checking account costs me $20/month but a bank in Canada will only charge me $10/month with the same service, I'll switch. That's called making a smart business decision. If I go to my USA bank and explain the situation, they may say it costs them $19/month in costs due to regulations. I'd say the regulations are the problem, not my business decision. If the tax rate in the USA is 40% but only 20% in Mexico, move to Mexico. Don't blame the movers, blame the system that charges 40%.



Brooklyn said:


> There are also more cars on the road now than four years ago. The number of taxis and ride-hailing vehicles in Manhattan's central business district, or CBD, has grown by 59 percent since 2013, while the number of miles they travel in a given day has increased by 36 percent. A growth in miles driven by ride-hailing cars offset a drop in miles driven by taxis, data show.


Read that last sentence again. You supplied numbers. I like numbers. Due to the prevalence of rideshare vehicles, how many personal vehicles are no longer in use? If demand isn't there, rideshare and taxis wouldn't be there. If taxis satisfied the demand, rideshare wouldn't be there. If drivers aren't making a profit, they wouldn't be there. There is a demand for rides. Businesses are satisfying that demand. That is the American way. What happens to the riders if rideshare isn't available?

Rideshare has gotten huge in Las Vegas. Fatal accidents went down last year for the first time in 4 years despite an increase in population. Coincidence?


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> This is the second time you quoted me about Uber and insurance. I said nothing about insurance. Someone is confused and its not me. In the Medallion system, it is illegal to start a new business and compete against the existing businesses. In a free market system, new competition is always a day away.


No it's not illegal to start a business... you can purchase a medallion. 


bsliv said:


> I said I'm not qualified to redesign the roads in NYC. I suggested if traffic is your concern, a different thread might be applicable. This thread is about the medallion system, not traffic. You insisted I supply a way to ease traffic. I came up with a half dozen. I have a better one, flying cars that are impossible to crash and flown by Martians. I'll endorse that. Happy?


No it's not applicable because AGAIN the medallion system was created to stop traffic... Uber which has built it's model on putting as many cars on the road as possible has caused traffic.. so what are you saying?


bsliv said:


> I'll admit if I'm wrong. I haven't said anything wrong in this thread. I may mention something impractical but only at your request.


You mention things that are impractical because you know if you answered with a practical legit answer it would defeat your argument.


bsliv said:


> I'm for businesses trying to maximize their income. I do the same. If a checking account costs me $20/month but a bank in Canada will only charge me $10/month with the same service, I'll switch. That's called making a smart business decision. If I go to my USA bank and explain the situation, they may say it costs them $19/month in costs due to regulations. I'd say the regulations are the problem, not my business decision. If the tax rate in the USA is 40% but only 20% in Mexico, move to Mexico. Don't blame the movers, blame the system that charges 40%.


So you're pro businesses syphoning money out of the country is what you're saying?


bsliv said:


> Read that last sentence again. You supplied numbers. I like numbers. Due to the prevalence of rideshare vehicles, how many personal vehicles are no longer in use? If demand isn't there, rideshare and taxis wouldn't be there. If taxis satisfied the demand, rideshare wouldn't be there. If drivers aren't making a profit, they wouldn't be there. There is a demand for rides. Businesses are satisfying that demand. That is the American way. What happens to the riders if rideshare isn't available?
> 
> Rideshare has gotten huge in Las Vegas. Fatal accidents went down last year for the first time in 4 years despite an increase in population. Coincidence?


Due to the prevalence in rideshare... how many vehicles are flooding the streets to earn a buck?... because I supplied the percentage Uber and etc.. of vehicles Uber has flooded into Manhattan.... what exactly have you proved?

And rideshare is around because they have flooded the streets with vehicles while subsidizing a huge portion of the fares in the sake of eliminating any competition.

Dude it seems like you are just talking in a circle at this point and it's getting kind of worn out... you mention how the medallion system stops anyone from entering the business but won't acknowledge someone can buy a medallion

You ask about how many cars are off the road but won't acknowledge the amount of cars they added to the roads.

You think if the government charged less in taxes that more businesses would come back and inject the money which they moved overseas back into the economy? because that's been proven false a few times.

But hey... think what you want... as for me.. I spent enough time debating this and clearly you don't have anything to prove your points. I'm out.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> You are straight up lying... you're just dodging the actual problem... but here if you want a real problem you could answer
> 
> https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/uber-lyft-cars-clogging-manhattan-streets-study-finds
> 
> ...


I think I've been pretty straight forward about this. I am not talking from a driver's view point I am asking you to look at it from a person that lives in the city's viewpoint. The transportation commission for New York City needs to represent the people that live in New York City. No where in your article does it say that New Yorkers are unhappy with Uber and Lyft due to congestion.

If we look at the statistics of how many people in New York City even drive a car... In 2012 44% of people that lived in New York City had a car, that's the best statistic I could find for you. Do you think that the 56% of people that live in New York City that do not drive a car care about congestion? Do you think the 56% of people that live in New York city that do not have cars care about finding a ride when they need one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

123dragon said:


> I think I've been pretty straight forward about this. I am not talking from a driver's view point I am asking you to look at it from a person that lives in the city's viewpoint. The transportation commission for New York City needs to represent the people that live in New York City. No where in your article does it say that New Yorkers are unhappy with Uber and Lyft due to congestion.
> 
> If we look at the statistics of how many people in New York City even drive a car... In 2012 44% of people that lived in New York City had a car, that's the best statistic I could find for you. Do you think that the 56% of people that live in New York City that do not drive a car care about congestion? Do you think the 56% of people that live in New York city that do not have cars care about finding a ride when they need one?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car


No you haven't been straight forward.

You do realize that the drivers in NYC are also for the majority live in NYC as well right?

hey how about this... I live in NYC and don't drive for Uber and don't drive in general anymore for a living and I noticed a significant amount of traffic... does my opinion count?

Also your statistic for NYC... is that NYC as a whole or Manhattan?... because my statistic of Manhattan being more congested because that's where a majority of the Uber vehicles go to seems a bit more legit than you mentioning cars spread out all across NYC... but I guess that's just me thinking like that.

And you mention 2012.... in 2012 Uber was only a year old in NYC.... that number HAS NOTHING to do with today's numbers.

And everyone cares about congestion... what are you smoking?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/uber-car-congestion-pricing-nyc.html

"You'll see an entire row of Lyft, Uber and Juno drivers on the streets waiting to pick people up," said Chanse Gierbolini, 27, a baker in Lower Manhattan. "It seems like everybody's driving the same black sedan - they're everywhere."

About 103,000 for-hire vehicles operate in the city, more than double the roughly 47,000 in 2013, according to the Taxi and Limousine Commission. Of those, 68,000 are affiliated with ride-hailing app companies, including 65,000 with Uber alone, though they may also provide rides for others. In contrast, yellow taxis are capped by city law at just under 13,600.

Add that with the amount of MPH decline due to traffic by 15%...

Now a new report finds that ride-hailing cars are often driving on the city's busiest streets with no passengers - in effect, creating congestion without any benefits. The report by Bruce Schaller, a former city transportation official, found that more than a third of ride-hailing cars and yellow taxis are empty at any given time during weekdays in Manhattan's main business district.

The ride-hailing cars average 11 minutes of unoccupied time - compared with eight minutes for yellow taxis - in between dropping off one passenger and picking up another, according to the report.

"The governor has been clear we need to reduce gridlock, cut emissions and fund mass transit,'' said Peter Ajemian, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, "which is why he empaneled Fix NYC to explore all options."

Oh don't forget in NYC every single taxi has to be approved by an emissions test to see the damage to air pollution.... Uber vehicles? nope.

In the meantime, there is no escape from gridlocked streets. Jennifer Brown, 46, an architect, was recently trapped in a cab on Fifth Avenue near 72nd Street en route to an appointment. After going two blocks in 20 minutes, she finally jumped out to walk to a subway station. "I was late, so it was anxiety inducing," she said.

Alexis Licairac, 47, a law firm clerk in Lower Manhattan, said it takes him about two hours to get to work by bus from his home in the Bronx. "It's absolutely horrible," he said. "When I see how bad the congestion is in the city, I think if there's a disaster, we'd never get out."

Mohammed Zzaman, who drives for Uber, Lyft and Juno, said he made fewer pickups and less money during his "hell month" in December, when holiday crowds descend on the city and it takes twice as long to cross Midtown.

Many riders said something had to be done about congestion, but were wary of another fee. "We already pay taxes - what more do they want from us?" said Evelyn Jimenez, 38, a dental assistant who already spends at least $15 a day on Uber.

Again... I live in NYC.... tons of Uber drivers on this forum live in NYC.... you can ask them about how they feel about traffic when they drive on their personal time... you can ask them how they feel about traffic on their work time.

What's your next response? saying that those specific people interviewed is a small percentage? so what can I say? go prove your point by interviewing everyone in NYC. Then your point will become valid.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> No you haven't been straight forward.
> 
> You do realize that the drivers in NYC are also for the majority live in NYC as well right?
> 
> ...


The study was all of New York City so it include all boroughs. I can't provide a breakdown since I didn't do the study but I would assume that the people with out cars is more prevalent in Manhatten. When I lived in Manhatten I would estimate that 1 out of 20 people I knew had a car because it is just to expensive to keep in the city. That's not a fact just a guess based off of experience.

So what percentage of people that live in New York City currently have cars? I linked you a source, saying I am wrong and not backing it up is not very helpful to me understanding how I am incorrect.

Do you think that Uber driver represent a large enough majority of the population of New York City that it justifies catering policies to them over other groups?

3 riders were quoted in the article quoting one from your example "Many riders said something had to be done about congestion, but were wary of another fee. "We already pay taxes - what more do they want from us?" said Evelyn Jimenez, 38, a dental assistant who already spends at least $15 a day on Uber." Every New Yorker that is carless I would bet would be concerned about reliability which is the challenge of this policy.

Before I lived in DC I lived in Manhattan on East 74th street, I could walk a few blocks to H and H. Congestion was a debate topic back then pre-ride share. Mayor Bloomberg actually proposed putting together a system in 2009 to address it. Before Uber came along there were times I knew there were certain windows where finding a cab was next to impossible, mainly that 4:30 - 6:30 window. Reliability versus speediness is where this debate centers for New Yorkers. My opinion is that given the majority of people don't own cars, when a person that doesn't own a car needs one they would prefer to reliably have access to hail one versus worrying about congestion.

If the 11 minutes between unused is due to it being inefficient and creating a policy to reduce cars on the road while maintaining the same level of reliability then sure it was a success. If reliability goes down and people are not able to get rides when they need them then the policy will piss off potentially the majority of the population since they do not have cars.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

123dragon said:


> The study was all of New York City so it include all boroughs. I can't provide a breakdown since I didn't do the study but I would assume that the people with out cars is more prevalent in Manhatten. When I lived in Manhatten I would estimate that 1 out of 20 people I knew had a car because it is just to expensive to keep in the city. That's not a fact just a guess based off of experience.
> 
> So what percentage of people that live in New York City currently have cars? I linked you a source, saying I am wrong and not backing it up is not very helpful to me understanding how I am incorrect.
> 
> ...


So in other words the statistic you provided was useless to your argument?

I don't need to provide a source since my argument was the rise in Uber vehicles flooding the streets causing traffic.

BUT if you were curious

https://www.wnyc.org/story/uber-and-lyft-may-make-traffic-worse/

In a new report, "Empty Seats, Full Streets: Fixing Manhattan's Traffic Problem", Schaller figures that even though the number of cabs decreased, the total number of for-hire vehicles has increased by 59 percent over the past four years, and now constitutes between 50 and 75 percent of all vehicles in Manhattan's central business district. He bases his calculations on data from the Taxi and Limousine Commission

But because the city does not have finely detailed data of the movement of other vehicles, such as private cars and delivery trucks, Schaller says it is hard to determine just how much of an impact the app-based services have had, as average driving speeds have continued to decline.

And traffic was a debate topic then... now imagine that you add 68,xxx+ vehicles to the road all double parking and parking waiting and looking for fares.

And yes finding a cab was tough... but the objective of the medallion was to ease traffic. It makes more sense traffic wise to have less cars shuffling people around although wait time might be a bit longer.. it still makes traffic easier to get to point A to B.... flooding and allowing everyone to hail a vehicle at the same time onto the same roads from the same points causes traffic. It's REALLY obvious.

I like how you went from how you demanded facts to "well in my opinion".... anyway... clearly this debate as well is falling apart going from demanding statistics and facts to "in my opinion" and "well I estimate" and all of that nonsense... especially from someone who doesn't even live in NYC.

Have a good day.


----------



## 123dragon (Sep 14, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> So in other words the statistic you provided was useless to your argument?
> 
> I don't need to provide a source since my argument was the rise in Uber vehicles flooding the streets causing traffic.
> 
> ...


I still spend about 25% of my time in Manhattan for work, I've seen the city change, I hardly stay in upper east and now usually stay in Chelsea. Since you care about location do you live in Manhattan? Since that is a basis to discredit me and tell me and other people that spend a good portion of our time in Manhattan how we feel. Nothing you have said is factual. I am at least trying to provide some data and use it logically draw a conclusion. Posting anecdotal evidence and deriving fact is what I have taken from the majority of your posts. I am also trying to be polite while you act cantankerous towards my opinion which I am at least trying to base on data that is available.

The title of your last article even states uber-and-lyft-may-make-traffic-worse/

I do think it is ridiculous that you think it is acceptable that if I want a cab in New York City and I am down in the bowery it is reasonable for me to wait an hour in the days when there are only medallions. None of the proposed policies are for getting rid of rideshare, they are about using taxes whether at the tunnel or taxing fares to disincentive people from using rideshare. Rideshare is here to stay because having the ability to deal with surge solves a problem for the majority of people that live in cities where it is to expensive to own a car a problem that has become prevalent with more people wanting to live in cities.

There never really was a debate since you have no data of significant sample to back your claims.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

123dragon said:


> I still spend about 25% of my time in Manhattan for work, I've seen the city change, I hardly stay in upper east and now usually stay in Chelsea. Since you care about location do you live in Manhattan? Since that is a basis to discredit me and tell me and other people that spend a good portion of our time in Manhattan how we feel. Nothing you have said is factual. I am at least trying to provide some data and use it logically draw a conclusion. Posting anecdotal evidence and deriving fact is what I have taken from the majority of your posts. I am also trying to be polite while you act cantankerous towards my opinion which I am at least trying to base on data that is available.
> 
> The title of your last article even states uber-and-lyft-may-make-traffic-worse/
> 
> ...


Lol yea I'm sure.

Just one last thing... where did I say to eliminate Uber?

Also.. telling me I post "anecdotal evidence" but responding with "waiting an hour for a cab" and "I estimate..."

I post real numbers of the amount of FHV vehicles on the road... not facts

You estimate all of Manhattan according to your friends..

Lol. Ok bruh. Now I'm done.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> No it's not illegal to start a business... you can purchase a medallion.


Sure, spend a million bucks to compete with large, established cab companies. I'm for spending zero bucks to compete with large companies. Which has a better chance of real competition?



Brooklyn said:


> No it's not applicable because AGAIN the medallion system was created to stop traffic... Uber which has built it's model on putting as many cars on the road as possible has caused traffic.. so what are you saying?


You keep repeating that the medallion system was created to stop excess traffic. This is only partly true. In NYC, during the depression, taxi numbers doubled as compared to the pre-depression era. While total revenue increased, revenue for individual drivers decreased. The drivers were unhappy and went on strike. Riders were upset because there rides were no longer there. Under pressure from all sides, city governments responded with a typical New Deal-era economic intervention. Taxis, it was concluded, were incapable of operating in a free market and needed public utility-like entry and price controls to remain viable in the face of "ruinous competition."

However, this commonly accepted history ignores several critical details. A decade before New York adopted its medallion system and years before the 1929 crash triggered the circumstances of the 1930s taxi glut, pressures were already building in many cities to regulate taxi markets for nakedly protectionist, anti-competitive purposes. Low-priced automobiles were emerging in the American market for the first time in the 1920's, enabling not only personal vehicle ownership, but also the emergence of a new wave of low-price taxicab companies. The lower fares made taxi services affordable for a larger percentage of the population, but the fresh competition also threatened to undermine the business interests of established firms. The entire situation sounds eerily similar to today's fight between ridesharing and taxi companies.

The response from the established cab companies, then as now, was an appeal to government to keep the new entrants out of existing markets. While forming a private cartel to manipulate prices or eliminate competition may be illegal under our antitrust laws using governmental authority to establish the same barriers to entry is not, since government-created cartels are immune from antitrust liability under the so-called state-action doctrine. Backed by the legal and police power of the state, entrenched interests are able to achieve the same ends as an otherwise illegal cartel-shutting out competitors and sticking consumers with above-market prices-with the obvious advantage that there is no reason to fear antitrust action.

Medallion systems have always been about protectionism.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Sure, spend a million bucks to compete with large, established cab companies. I'm for spending zero bucks to compete with large companies. Which has a better chance of real competition?
> 
> You keep repeating that the medallion system was created to stop excess traffic. This is only partly true. In NYC, during the depression, taxi numbers doubled as compared to the pre-depression era. While total revenue increased, revenue for individual drivers decreased. The drivers were unhappy and went on strike. Riders were upset because there rides were no longer there. Under pressure from all sides, city governments responded with a typical New Deal-era economic intervention. Taxis, it was concluded, were incapable of operating in a free market and needed public utility-like entry and price controls to remain viable in the face of "ruinous competition."
> 
> ...


Pay for a medallion for guaranteed rates or set up a company, setup your your corporation and etc... to battle a company who is willing to lose $5 billion a year to put you out of business......... oh..... oh ok.

Lol now it's "oh little was known that...." oh ok...

Don't cover up your nonsense with trying to flip the script. The medallion was being discussed because of no oversight and thousands upon thousands of cars flooding the streets giving different prices. Oversight was needed..... with your thinking we should do away with minimum wage because it would encourage competition for jobs which would then allow the companies to charge less for their products and services....

Hm..... I wonder if that would happen.

Manipulate price..... the TLC mandates the price

You wanna talk about price manipulation? why is it that Uber and Lyft's prices always move together? why is that Uber charges the customer X price and pays the driver with Y? listen until you come into the NYC subsection and really wanna discuss this stuff about how great Uber is I'm off this... but you won't because you know it'd expose all your BS.

NOW I'm really done responding to your BS... can't believe I spent this much time giving you and the other dude this much attention... but I guess some people need help.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> NOW I'm really done responding to your BS... can't believe I spent this much time giving you and the other dude this much attention... but I guess some people need help.


Thanks you. I won't even ask for an apology.

Forking money over for a guaranteed return sounds like a savings account. Business has risks and rewards.

Maybe some perspective is needed. Add 68,000 cars to Pioche, NV (pop. < 1000) and they would have some issues. Las Vegas (pop. ~600,000) added about 40,000 drivers. Las Vegans are happy to rid themselves of the corrupt taxis at the cost of slightly more traffic. I think NYC is bigger than Vegas by about 2000%. They added about 60% more drivers than Vegas. Which city is more effected by rideshare?

How much traffic was in NYC in the 1930's? How much in the 2000's? What did the city do to allow, maybe even encourage, such a large amount of traffic?

If people find the traffic is too severe, they will move, just like the weather. Others would rather complain about a natural event.

Lyft is not the only company that Uber competes with for riders. Taxi companies compete for the same clients. Why does Lyft follow Uber's lead in pricing? Competition. Good for the riders. I don't think any Las Vegas taxi company has ever lowered its prices. Why? No competition, its a 'fixed' system. Its a cartel in collusion and operating like a monopoly with protection provided by the state. If the Vegas taxi companies operated the way they do without state blessing they'd be in prison on various anti-trust violations.


----------

