# Why I won't use Uber (or Lyft)



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-uber-lyft-perspec-0628-20160627-story.html

In part, it's because I can. As a white woman who lives and works north of the Loop, I have far more transportation choices than many other Chicagoans - and I have never felt the sting of being denied a ride because of how I looked or where I needed to go. I appreciate that Uber, Lyft and whatever innovative system comes next are making it easier for people throughout the city to get around - and to earn some quick cash. But I see trouble down the road for any city that falls too quickly for the sharing-economy promise. So until Chicago evens out the playing field for all ride-for-hire businesses, and until Uber and Lyft show a greater investment in their drivers, I'll wait as long as it takes for the next cab.

*I don't buy the "Uber is safer" argument.*Unless someone I know is driving the car, any ride for hire - via taxi, Uber, Lyft or CTA bus - involves getting into a vehicle with a stranger at the wheel. Odds are high that I'll get from Point A to Point B without incident in any of those options.

Could Chicago's laws use some updating? Definitely, but not in the direction the City Council just took. Slapping tight regulations on Uber and Lyft is a backward move. Instead, it's time the city eliminated the medallion system and adopted one simpler set of safety-focused, competition-friendly rules for all ride-for-hire businesses.

*I don't believe Uber and Lyft are creating jobs.* The so-called sharing economy changes the way people work and do business, but don't be fooled into thinking it creates jobs. Uber - now valued at around $60 billion - is a private company that operates in about 450 cities around the world and has just a couple thousand actual employees. In the U.S. alone, Uber has more than 160,000 drivers - literally the engine that drives Uber business - and none are employees with any traditional benefits or job security. Who's going to cash in if Uber goes public? Definitely some of Uber's high-profile investors, like Mayor Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ari, and celeb Ashton Kutcher, and definitely not most of the Uber drivers.

*I don't believe Uber and Lyft are creating jobs.* The so-called sharing economy changes the way people work and do business, but don't be fooled into thinking it creates jobs. Uber - now valued at around $60 billion - is a private company that operates in about 450 cities around the world and has just a couple thousand actual employees. In the U.S. alone, Uber has more than 160,000 drivers - literally the engine that drives Uber business - and none are employees with any traditional benefits or job security. Who's going to cash in if Uber goes public? Definitely some of Uber's high-profile investors, like Mayor Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ari, and celeb Ashton Kutcher, and definitely not most of the Uber drivers.

*Uber and Lyft drivers are on a dead-end road.* I can see the temptation of becoming a driver. Drive around when you want to and make some extra cash with your car. Great! But the hidden costs of becoming a driver should make anyone suspicious. Gas, auto repairs, interior maintenance, insurance, your time. Those are all real costs. Deduct them from the amount you earn after Uber or Lyft takes its cut and see if it's worth it. If it is, go for it. But I've met too many people who say they've tried driving and quit because the math doesn't work in their favor.

The business model behind a company like Uber demands that it recruit as many drivers as possible so that it can provide immediate service to its customers. But that means a saturated market with thousands of drivers scrambling for fares. Add in variable pricing - with fares set by Uber - and drivers are less able to count on earning enough to make the work worth their time. Plus, Uber and Lyft have both confirmed they're in the race to adopt driverless cars. Driverless. That means - even if it's a long way off - no more drivers.

*It can be a risky investment for drivers. *Realizing it needed more and more drivers to build its current business, Uber launched an auto-leasing program a few years ago so that people without cars could still join their ranks. Uber partners with local auto dealerships willing to accept financing through Uber - often to credit-challenged drivers, at not-the-best terms.

Suddenly, people otherwise unable to get a car are lured in by the idea of leasing a brand-new (or almost new) car through Uber. How will they make payments? Easy! Uber deducts the money from the driver's weekly payout.

Trouble comes when a driver hits some snag - an illness or car accident - and can't earn enough from driving to cover the car payments, not to mention all the other costs of having a car. Still on the hook for payments to Uber, a now-former driver can end up deep in debt and carless in a flash.

I do see _some_ good. Uber is making a big deal about how it benefits riders and neighborhoods that have been underserved by taxis. Despite laws against the practice, taxi drivers have notoriously avoided Chicago's South and West sides for decades, creating "transportation deserts" that disproportionately affect the city's minority neighborhoods. A colleague who lives on the Far South Side says that now, because of Uber, she can finally get a ride when she needs one.

Competition might succeed where laws have failed - but only if Uber and Lyft take care of their drivers. If they don't, this bubble of expanded transportation will burst.

For now, I'll stick with taxis.


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-uber-lyft-perspec-0628-20160627-story.html


I still have a presence on the internet,

I still get occasional calls from people looking for a taxi,

I tell them about Uber and Lyft to them they don't want to hear it,

They don't want to sign up online,

They don't want to use credit card,
online,

They don't want to get hit with a mystery Fare, they want to know the exact cost to the penny,

They don't want to an unknown car are an unknown driver picking them up,

I have no intentions of ever booking any of these trips,

I have no desire to get the deactivated or get caught up in some Sting operation,

It's got me seriously thinking about going back to Taxi are getting my TCP..

I got a friend who has one of those beautiful black luxury Suburbans,

he has a TCP, he already driving Uber black but he is an older gentleman and he is getting tired of driving,

He's offered to let me drive it for about $500 a week I am giving some thought to doing it..


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

One thing that the writer of this piece fails to mention is that Uber does offer taxis in Chicago.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
> To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


It's easy for the any city to buy back the medallions, but the Banks (because they make lots of money giving loans to medallion buyers) don't want you to know how easy it is.
The city just issues Revenue Bonds to buy all the medallions, then they lease the Taxis to Fleet operators until the lease revenues pay off the bonds, about 10 years. Then, the city can retire medallions, since the city (taxpayers) now own them. Didn't cost the city anything. THIS IS LOCAL FINANCING AND THE BANKS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. If Trump gets rid of the Federal Reserve as some right and left wingers want, then, most financing will be done locally, saving local taxes, city borrowing costs, and the negative effects of Bankers in general.


----------



## UberReallySucks (Jul 17, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-uber-lyft-perspec-0628-20160627-story.html


Now that's an article worth reading!


----------



## ATX 22 (Jun 17, 2015)

Ca$h4 said:


> It's easy for the any city to buy back the medallions, but the Banks (because they make lots of money giving loans to medallion buyers) don't want you to know how easy it is.
> The city just issues Revenue Bonds to buy all the medallions, then they lease the Taxis to Fleet operators until the lease revenues pay off the bonds, about 10 years. Then, the city can retire medallions, since the city (taxpayers) now own them. Didn't cost the city anything. THIS IS LOCAL FINANCING AND THE BANKS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. If Trump gets rid of the Federal Reserve as some right and left wingers want, then, most financing will be done locally, saving local taxes, city borrowing costs, and the negative effects of Bankers in general.


The last President that wanted to shut down the Federal Reserve was assassinated.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

The medallions are a scam....should be a reasonable fee to purchase (e.g. $100) from city and non-transferable.


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

ATX 22 said:


> The last President that wanted to shut down the Federal Reserve was assassinated.


JFK in 1963 is the one you are thinking about.? Well maybe Trump will be next if that's his policy.

*Photo: You Can Visit Donald Trump's Tombstone In Central Park*

*http://gothamist.com/2016/03/27/photo_you_can_visit_donald_trumps_t.php
*


----------



## Euius (May 19, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
> To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


No it wouldn't. There is no guarantee the medallions would be required forever.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
> To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


I never really understood why medallions were rediculously expensive. Im just glad when I drove in NY, that I only head to lease a car. I would never even think of trying to finance one of them. They sound like a big rippoff.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> The medallions are a scam....should be a reasonable fee to purchase (e.g. $100) from city and non-transferable.


Bought directly from the city they are almost that cheap. Problem as to why they become so high in purchase cost afterwards is because they are transferable.


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

ChortlingCrison said:


> I never really understood why medallions were rediculously expensive. Im just glad when I drove in NY, that I only head to lease a car. I would never even think of trying to finance one of them. They sound like a big rippoff.


Controlled commodity. Big taxi is somewhat like a cartel.


----------



## FAC (Mar 27, 2016)

Admittedly I'm ignorant to what exactly a medallion is. Does the drive buy/lease them? Does the cab company? What are they exactly? Would someone be kind enough to enlighten me?


----------



## LA Cabbie (Nov 4, 2014)

FAC said:


> Admittedly I'm ignorant to what exactly a medallion is. Does the drive buy/lease them? Does the cab company? What are they exactly? Would someone be kind enough to enlighten me?


I know la, taxi medallions are owned by an individual. They are not leased only bought. Most lease drivers don't buy them because they are just too expensive. The very few drivers who wish to purchase a medallion burrow from friends and some from banks. Medallions for the city of Los Angeles are no more than $80 k. But business here is no where as good as in say New York or Chicago. If you want to live comfortably as a medallion owner then you need to buy several of them and get someone like me to rent the cab.


----------



## Fireguy50 (Nov 23, 2015)

ATX 22 said:


> The last ********* that wanted to shut down the Federal Reserve was ************.





Ca$h4 said:


> *** in **** is the one you are thinking about.? Well maybe ***** will be next if that's his policy.


You probably just got noticed by the govt and put on a watch list!


----------



## Fireguy50 (Nov 23, 2015)

FAC said:


> Admittedly I'm ignorant to what exactly a medallion is. Does the drive buy/lease them? Does the cab company? What are they exactly? Would someone be kind enough to enlighten me?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States


----------



## FAC (Mar 27, 2016)

LA Cabbie said:


> I know la, taxi medallions are owned by an individual. They are not leased only bought. Most lease drivers don't buy them because they are just too expensive. The very few drivers who wish to purchase a medallion burrow from friends and some from banks. Medallions for the city of Los Angeles are no more than $80 k. But business here is no where as good as in say New York or Chicago. If you want to live comfortably as a medallion owner then you need to buy several of them and get someone like me to rent the cab.


I'm still confused to what they are. Can just anyone with 80k buy one? Or do you have to be affiliated with a taxi company? Is it the laminated license with driver picture I see when I take a cab? Do municipalities restrict which medallion owners can go where such as an airport pickup? Do cities limit the number of medallions issued? Do they have to be renewed each year?


----------



## painfreepc (Jul 17, 2014)

FAC said:


> I'm still confused to what they are. Can just anyone with 80k buy one? Or do you have to be affiliated with a taxi company? Is it the laminated license with driver picture I see when I take a cab? Do municipalities restrict which medallion owners can go where such as an airport pickup? Do cities limit the number of medallions issued? Do they have to be renewed each year?


Okay where I drove taxi in San Bernardino Riverside it don't really have a medallion system that being said, I will try to explain it to you the way I understand it works, I may not be 100% correct you can take my information I gave you and then go Google the rest and good luck with that because it's not very clear even on the internet what The Medallion is,

first major misconception is that you have and then I hear from a lot of people here is you think is one Medallion per car that is not the case,

The Medallion is like a City license that allows the Medallion owner to operate a certain number of vehicles, how many vehicles I do not know,

For the sake of argument let's say the Medallion is allowed to have 4 or 10 or 20 cars it could be way less than that it could be way more than that I do not know,

The Medallion owners need not be a taxi driver in fact it's possible he may never stepped foot inside of a taxi office,

Medallion system or not taxi companies work under the same model that being the taxi driver is the customer of the taxi company and our taxi Medallion owner,

The Medallion owner and taxi customers need not give a damn about the public, their revenue comes from the taxi drivers,

If a medallion owner and our taxi company is leasing 10 taxis to 10 drivers at $550 per week that's $5,500 per week or $22,000 plus per month,

And it may be way more than that because the car may be running two shifts day and night,

And remember because the taxi driver is the customer of the taxi company or Medallion owner and not the taxi Rider that revenue is consistent The Medallion owner taxi company collects the same amount of money rather a driver does one trip 10 trips or a hundred trips it makes no difference they still collect the same amount of lease,

And many of the taxi companies will take fees for the drivers running credit cards and corporate accounts the taxi companies I work for Riverside and San Bernardino would take 10% of all credit card charges,

A taxi company I drove for in Pomona California for one year,
would charge $100 per day, $80 per night for a 12 hour shift plus $0.10 per mile,

Let's add that up, if the car is running 6 days a week times two shifts that's $1,080 per week plus the $0.10 per mile,

The driver would have no way of knowing how much a corporate account was actually paying, there was a an account I did for years that I know for a fact was paying the taxi company $2.20 a mile but the taxi company was paying us drivers $1.80 per mile,

For a few years I own my own Crown Vic, I will pay the taxi company a lease and then sublease car for a 12 hour shift to another driver so basically I was driving for nearly free, not really free ias all the maintenance was my responsibility..


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Some jurisdictions may allow more than one vehicle under a medallion, but for Boston and New York, it is one vehicle per medallion. The medallion is the licence for the vehicle. It might have different name in some jurisdictions, but, basically, a medallion is a licence to have a taxicab on the street. Some jurisdictions do permit the renting of the medallion, some do not. In some jurisdictions, the medallion is transferable, in some it is not. The rules on ownership and use of medallions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In the District of Columbia, the DCTC licence number is the equivalent of a medallion (DCTC is the D.C. Taxicab Commission, but, that agency recently received a new name). DCTC licences are non-transferable. It is, however, possible to circumvent some of the rules and rent out your DCTC number. What happens is that the vehicle is registered in your name. You let a contract to a driver to provide the vehicle, cover all costs associated with it and the like. Smarter contractees will put "hold harmless" clauses into the agreement and specific language that holds the contractor responsible for nastycam and parking summonses. Smarter contractors will have a Contractor's Lien on the title to the vehicle. The DCTC is aware of this practice, but, for now, if has chosen not to become involved with it. Considering what runs this city, that is surprising. 

For some time, the DCTC was not issuing any new licences for vehicles. It is, now, but only for pure electrics or accessibles.

New York, Chicago and Boston limit the number of available medallions. In theory and on paper, D.C. does not limit the number of DCTC licences (the equivalent of a medallion), but, in practice, there is a moratorium, except for pure electrics and accessibles. 

Some jurisdictions do restrict who or what can pick up there, some do not. Here, as it is a tri-state area, there was an agreement signed in 1947 that covered various types of transportation across state lines. It allows taxis licenced in one jurisdiction to pick up in another under certain conditions. It has come to the point where some cab companies honour that agreement more in its breach than its keeping. 

The airports here do have some restrictions. National Airport is, in theory, open. To work the line, you must secure a licence for the driver, but not the vehicle. There are conditions under which a cab whose driver is not licenced by the Airports Authority can pick up there, but, often, it depends on the mood of the WMAA Police who is watching the whole thing. In theory, Dulles Airport has an oligopoly. The cabs operate under one color scheme, but the company is owned by a consortium. The WMAA picks three companies to make up the consortium. In theory, there is a process, but, in reality, whoever is willing to pay the most to members of the local Virginia Congressional Delegation is picked. Friendship Airport has a monopoly. I know little about it, but it would not surprise me if the franchise operator there must pay large amounts of money to corrupt Maryland politicians.*

Off-airport cabs can pick up at Dulles and Friendship, but under certain conditions.


The laminated thing with the photograph that you see is a Hack Licence. The jurisdictions issue those to the drivers. Few jurisdictions limit those. For a while, there was a moratorium here on the issuance of hack licences, but the DCTC lifted that one some time back. They did tell the new licencees that they could not own, they would have to rent. That has changed somewhat in that the new licencee can own if he can secure financing for an accessible or pure electric. The government does have a grant programme for accessibles, but that covers only part of the cost. The driver must either put up the balance or secure financing for it. The government programme does have an element that assists the driver in securing financing.













*I apologise for being redundant. I posted "corrupt" politicians.


----------



## FAC (Mar 27, 2016)

Wow thank you gentlemen for the information. A few follow up questions: Where does the $80k (or whatever the price) go? Is it basically a tax? So I'm guessing you need a background check to obtain a medallion but do the contractors or leasees require background checks to drive the cars?

This whole system seems to be a corrupt system started long ago but too lucrative to end. 

So the million dollar question, how can Uber/Lyft legal operate without the medallions? Colorado even passed a bill making it legal here. It falls under the PUC code (public utilities code) as do taxis, towing, and utilities. We are contractors offering rides. I really don't see the difference between what TNC drivers do vs Cabs. Except our cars don't have to be Yellow or Orange or black and white (Denver cab colors). 


From what you guys are saying we are just cab drivers driving our own car without a Meddallion. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

FAC said:


> *1. *Where does the $80k (or whatever the price) go?
> 
> *2. *So I'm guessing you need a background check to obtain a medallion but do the contractors or leasees require background checks to drive the cars?
> 
> ...


1. Most of the medallion price goes to its owner as a transfer fee. The jurisdiction takes a piece of the action as well as an annual fee, but the lion's share goes to the owner of the medallion.

2. You do not necessarily need a background check for the vehicle licence, as a corporation can own property, including medallions. The drivers must pass a background check to obtain the hack licence, that is the licence that goes to the driver.

3. There are varying degrees of corruption in each jurisdiction. Here, the DCTC licences are not transferrable and there was a moratorium on new vehicle licences, but some did get out and some new licence plates were issued. "Arrangements" were made with politicians and bureaucrats.

4. They make "arrangements" to operate. Their tactics as they go into a market are to set up business and dare anyone to do anything about it. Once they find out with whom they need to make "arrangements", they make those "arrangements".

5. See what happens when you make "arrangements" with the appropriate politicians and bureaucrats?

6. There is no difference. Your Fearless Leader, T. Kalanick is on record before the D.C. City Council as stating that Uber does the same thing that the cab companies do. (Q: How does a "technology-company-not-a-transportation-company" do the same thing that a transportation company does?)

7. You are; see Number Six.

8. You are not missing anything.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> The medallions are a scam....should be a reasonable fee to purchase (e.g. $100) from city and non-transferable.


I agree, and I would also stipulate that the $100 medallions be non-transferable AND non-lease. In other words, whoever owns the medallion MUST be the driver. The fact that non-drivers were allowed to hold medallions is the fundamental problem in the taxi industry. Medallions created the middleman, and they are unnecessary.

Lastly, I don't think cities should limit the numbers of these medallions. Anyone should be able to get one, so long as they pass the requirements. Just be certain that requirements are strict and enforced. Marketplace realities will balance supply and demand. If there's too many cabs running, the supply will tend to adjust downwards.


----------



## eXperiment (Jun 20, 2016)

NachonCheeze said:


> The medallions are a scam....should be a reasonable fee to purchase (e.g. $100) from city and non-transferable.


so how bout just drive for poober?

or is there a problem with that system too?

in Melbourne Australia where I am from and drove taxi and limo, around 1980 they decided to allow leasing of medallions (called plates in Oz)

of course plate prices went through the roof as operators bid up the lease prices, as now based on cash flow and not available capital or bank loan to buy

you may be too young to remember those days of high interest rates, my first house the interest rate was 17%, was *good* thing cause kept prices cheap

this was I suppose a type of Reagan/Thatcher Ghengis Khan type approach to create a 'hungrier' profit driven operator

who would push out cars and drivers onto the streets taking all sorts of short cuts with both for quality and sustainability

this was what the authorities were sort of happy with because it meant one thing and one thing only

PLENTY OF CARS TO TAKE ALL THE DRUNKS HOME!!!

you see all those owner drivers wouldn't drive Sat night as we all know what they look like; economically, after years of battling they didn't have to

yes buying/owning a medallion (as you guys call 'em) used to be reasonably achievable to any decent person _who was prepared to do this lowly job_

and guess what, it was the southeast European immigrants who did just that

the factories of Australia (until China ruined the world) were full of decent people with aspirations and desperation, to improve their lot

I remember in the early noughties when I last drove, catching part of conversation between driver and taxi base operator

the lady operator's retort to the driver (who you don't hear) was "but you (white) guys don't want to drive on Saturday night"

musta been discussing/complaining about the number of driver's from the third world now behind the wheel

I have briefly, in my other posts, discussed ways of improving this business FOR THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER/PUBLIC so won't repeat myself

one thing for sure is the gooberisation of economy will f'ck up the future for the new kids

let the dystopia begin


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

eXperiment said:


> so how bout just drive for poober?
> 
> or is there a problem with that system too?
> 
> ...


That was torture to read, but I found a true gem in there.
The owner drivers won't do the Saturday night drunk hauling. Thus, it made it desirable for the cities to create medallions that could be leased or rented out. The medallion holder need not be the driver.

I always wondered about that.


----------



## Fireguy50 (Nov 23, 2015)

Taxi & Uber world's are colliding!


----------



## eXperiment (Jun 20, 2016)

stuber said:


> That was torture to read, but I found a true gem in there.
> The owner drivers won't do the Saturday night drunk hauling. Thus, it made it desirable for the cities to create medallions that could be leased or rented out. The medallion holder need not be the driver.
> 
> I always wondered about that.


let's not make it a mutual admiration society, already plenty on this forum set up their own, but love your avatar and your insights

where is it from? movie?

sorry about the uberbomber style, it's like I have a phobia of being misunderstood or something

if it takes the pain away for those who endured that, let me summarise:
maybe compare it to renting v buying. If u rent you will make somebody else rich and never own yourself - just to be clear, low rent with fuber and you will end up on skid row or in a cardboard box not a problem

yeah I do have a lot to say, only just started really; you know 'walking a mile in another man's shoes', a lot if dead time in taxi thinking about _'what if...'_


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Really there should be an entire separate class of for hire vehicles devoted entirely and exclusively for drunk hauling.

These cars could be made completely bulletproof and vomitproof. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with those customers. New Uber category: Uber Barf.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

eXperiment said:


> let's not make it a mutual admiration society, already plenty on this forum set up their own, but love your avatar and your insights
> 
> where is it from? movie?
> 
> ...


Lebowski.


----------



## eXperiment (Jun 20, 2016)

stuber said:


> Really there should be an entire separate class of for hire vehicles devoted entirely and exclusively for drunk hauling.
> 
> These cars could be made completely bulletproof and vomitproof. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with those customers. New Uber category: Uber Barf.


"The Big..." that's right

don't worry, the chiefs have already marked this category with an *X*

why else do you think they have let tncs run rampant?

the cities are only now starting the general musters (license fees and pseudo regs)

bringing the cattle in from the scrub for branding and pound of flesh


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

eXperiment said:


> don't worry, the chiefs have already marked this category with an *X*
> 
> why else do you think they have let tncs run rampant?
> 
> ...


Makes sense.

I see the appeal these TNCs have for cities. Massive saturation means fewer drunk drivers and better coverage of sketchy neighborhoods. No doubt. Unfortunately, massive saturation also ruins the business for full-time professionals.

Cities don't care about that consequence particularly.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-uber-lyft-perspec-0628-20160627-story.html
> 
> In part, it's because I can. As a white woman who lives and works north of the Loop, I have far more transportation choices than many other Chicagoans - and I have never felt the sting of being denied a ride because of how I looked or where I needed to go. I appreciate that Uber, Lyft and whatever innovative system comes next are making it easier for people throughout the city to get around - and to earn some quick cash. But I see trouble down the road for any city that falls too quickly for the sharing-economy promise. So until Chicago evens out the playing field for all ride-for-hire businesses, and until Uber and Lyft show a greater investment in their drivers, I'll wait as long as it takes for the next cab.
> 
> ...


Pretty odd that she complains about 'tight regulations' on Uber (comedy) and wants to eliminate the Medallion system (limit on numbers), but also states that Uber is a dead end job because massive over saturation is basically Uber's business model.

And those Uber drivers making pickups in the dangerous parts of Chicago are doing it because of the desperation created by Uber. They're putting their lives at risk.


----------



## Skyblue6 (Nov 16, 2015)

Here in Australia we have taxi plates. Literally our number plates such as TX 457. They are bought sold and leased by anyone. They used to be quite expensive. Around 400k but have reduced. Although people think they are a rip off, the individual or business that has bought or leased it now has that earning potential!

They work very well by limiting too many competitors in the market. They cannot flood the market with cars and drivers like uber does simply because there are not enough plates. 

The plates ensure that market isn't flooded, everyone has an equal piece to the pie and it is seen as an investment like real estate. 

Recently our local government has removed the need for training to get your taxi license. I think this has opened a unregulated dangerous can of worms. The taxi dispatchers though will continue to impose training courses at least to earn your right to drive on their system.


----------



## Skyblue6 (Nov 16, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-uber-lyft-perspec-0628-20160627-story.html
> 
> In part, it's because I can. As a white woman who lives and works north of the Loop, I have far more transportation choices than many other Chicagoans - and I have never felt the sting of being denied a ride because of how I looked or where I needed to go. I appreciate that Uber, Lyft and whatever innovative system comes next are making it easier for people throughout the city to get around - and to earn some quick cash. But I see trouble down the road for any city that falls too quickly for the sharing-economy promise. So until Chicago evens out the playing field for all ride-for-hire businesses, and until Uber and Lyft show a greater investment in their drivers, I'll wait as long as it takes for the next cab.
> 
> ...


Although for most uber drivers it may be a dead end but it has opened the door for me for Embassy work.

Picked up a fellow who obviously isn't the ambassador that has their own Mercedes and decided to uber to work. Since I knew the language of his embassy I showed off my bilingual skills and I got a message a few months later stating that they needed me to drive their VIP.


----------



## Euius (May 19, 2016)

stuber said:


> Cities don't care about that consequence particularly.


And they shouldn't. Otherwise you're talking about the gov't picking winners and losers, and that's a centralized state run economy. Like USSR pre breakup, or Venezuela.

Cab driving is a dead end career. Current drivers will either retire soon, or be pushed out of it. Uber didn't create that situation, it just sped it up a couple years.

Cab drivers whining that they're in a dead end career should look into buggy whip manufacturing instead.


----------



## eXperiment (Jun 20, 2016)

Skyblue6 said:


> Although for most uber drivers it may be a dead end but it has opened the door for me for Embassy work.
> 
> Picked up a fellow who obviously isn't the ambassador that has their own Mercedes and decided to uber to work. Since I knew the language of his embassy I showed off my bilingual skills and I got a message a few months later stating that they needed me to drive their VIP.


How often?
Or this that sensitive info?

Just run a tight ship and dont give away too many freebies
Do the odd fave when they truly desperate
Otherwise like most entitled types they will use and abuse if they think you have nothing better going on


----------



## shiftydrake (Dec 12, 2015)

I actually have been a cabbie for 13 years here in st Louis........the people responsible for authorizing cabs (issue medallions or permits) have set max # of permits each CCN holder (company driver contracts with) may have.........then the CCN leases the permits out to the drivers for a flat fee per week........$529 for company owned cars....where company does all maintenance, and provides computer dispatch and $5 million dollar commercial insurance on same vehicle.....or $339 a week for owner/operator payment is for rental of computer dispatch, meter, credit card processor, and my share for the same $5 million dollar commercial insurance....I am responsible for the maintenance cuz I own the car.......we also have personalized taxi plates in St Louis where the plate # is TX (followed by taxi number) that way no 2 taxis will have same #


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
> To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


Market price would be zero. Best one could hope for is whatever the city sold them for


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> I agree, and I would also stipulate that the $100 medallions be non-transferable AND non-lease. In other words, whoever owns the medallion MUST be the driver. The fact that non-drivers were allowed to hold medallions is the fundamental problem in the taxi industry. Medallions created the middleman, and they are unnecessary.
> 
> Lastly, I don't think cities should limit the numbers of these medallions. Anyone should be able to get one, so long as they pass the requirements. Just be certain that requirements are strict and enforced. Marketplace realities will balance supply and demand. If there's too many cabs running, the supply will tend to adjust downwards.


You need a variable supply of cabs because demand varies.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Euius said:


> And they shouldn't. Otherwise you're talking about the gov't picking winners and losers, and that's a centralized state run economy. Like USSR pre breakup, or Venezuela.
> 
> Cab driving is a dead end career. Current drivers will either retire soon, or be pushed out of it. Uber didn't create that situation, it just sped it up a couple years.
> 
> Cab drivers whining that they're in a dead end career should look into buggy whip manufacturing instead.


Absurd. the government limits numbers so it isn't a billion drivers fighting for crumbs. People buy a house and put their kids through school driving a cab. Uber has reduced it to a 6 month disposable 'job.'


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> You need a variable supply of cabs because demand varies.


You don't put an extra 20,000 cars on the street because demand peaks at 'x' hour and there can be a shortage.


----------



## simpsonsverytall (Nov 6, 2015)

i want to date this chick
While I don't agree with her logic, at least she's smarter than my current side-piece,
and I think she has some raw talent to write slanted editorials. 

I could get this chick a good job doing this. 

just look at that letter! There's underlying talent in there.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

stuber said:


> New Uber category: Uber Barf.


........made up of drivers de-activated from Uber and Lyft for customer complaints. They can run Uber Stool, as well.



Euius said:


> Cab drivers whining that they're in a dead end career should look into buggy whip manufacturing instead.


YA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-WWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN; right and complaining Uber and Lyft drivers should look into delivering for 
Demon-0's, employment as a Greeter at Wally World or practicing "Want fries with that?"............been repeated a thousand times on these Boards.......................YAWN.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> You don't put an extra 20,000 cars on the street because demand peaks at 'x' hour and there can be a shortage.


New Years Eve generates at least a tenfold increase in demand. Just let those pax walk? 20,000 cars? Where did come up with that number? And why not put extra cars on the street when demand rises? You have to learn how to think outside your monopoly favored viewpoint.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Absurd. the government limits numbers so it isn't a billion drivers fighting for crumbs. People buy a house and put their kids through school driving a cab. Uber has reduced it to a 6 month disposable 'job.'


So you're supportive of government picking winners and losers as long as you remain one of those picked as a winner?


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> government picking winners and losers as long as you remain one of those picked as a winner?


.................or you can denounce the government's picking winners and losers and make "arrangements" to see that you are picked as a "winner" while your competitors are picked as "losers".............................................


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> So you're supportive of government picking winners and losers as long as you remain one of those picked as a winner?


No, that would be the definition of a straw-man argument.

You either have reasonable limits, or you have desperation and massive turnover (Uber).


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> New Years Eve generates at least a tenfold increase in demand. Just let those pax walk? 20,000 cars? Where did come up with that number? And why not put extra cars on the street when demand rises? You have to learn how to think outside your monopoly favored viewpoint.


And it also means drivers do more trips and make more money on that day.

Uber doesn't merely put more cars on the road when there's high demand. It floods markets with cars and creates massive over saturation all day every day, save those few times when demand might peak so high that they all serve a purpose. Destroying a market 364 days a year so it works out one day a year isn't a good plan. And please, for your own sake, retire the absurd 'monopoly' whine.

Btw, from what I've read on here, Uber drivers haven't done that well on NYE. My guess is so many of them come out, the market is hyper-oversaturated.


----------



## simpsonsverytall (Nov 6, 2015)

there's more than 1 issue here

1. the taxi cartel got caught slipping. They let Uber and technology pass them by and they failed to use the tech first, pay off the right people, etc.. in order to defend their turf. 

2. uber isn't very driver friendly and uses sledgehammer tactics. 

because everyone messed up, the market is re-shaping. 

If you don't have it good, you have to adapt. whining and blaming is weak.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> No, that would be the definition of a straw-man argument.
> 
> You either have reasonable limits, or you have desperation and massive turnover (Uber).


You already have a permit and wish to limit competition. You pretend it is about "reasonable limits". Have you ever considered going into politics? You've got the double-speak thing down pat.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

simpsonsverytall said:


> there's more than 1 issue here
> 
> 1. the taxi cartel got caught slipping. They let Uber and technology pass them by and they failed to use the tech first, pay off the right people, etc.. in order to defend their turf.
> 
> ...


Spot the Cartel:

Fleet garage owners who might charge too much and drive Medallion prices beyond where they should be

A 60 Billion buck Silicon Valley Company which ignores laws, treats drivers like disposable rags, and makes it impossible for anyone in the transportation industry to make a decent living. And is bent on replacing them with robots ASAP.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> You already have a permit and wish to limit competition. You pretend it is about "reasonable limits". Have you ever considered going into politics? You've got the double-speak thing done pat.


It is about reasonable limits. We had no limit in NYC before Medallions, it was a disaster for the reasons stated. You clearly know absolutely nothing about this industry.


----------



## simpsonsverytall (Nov 6, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Spot the Cartel:
> 
> Fleet garage owners who might charge too much and drive Medallion prices beyond where they should be
> 
> A 60 Billion buck Silicon Valley Company which ignores laws, treats drivers like disposable rags, and makes it impossible for anyone in the transportation industry to make a decent living. And is bent on replacing them with robots ASAP.


both!

that's my whole point

this is business and billions of dollars are at play. Those are big incentives. If you have a good thing going, you had better put some of that dough into keeping things that way!

There's no good guy and bad guy. It all depends where you are standing. It's just the system.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

simpsonsverytall said:


> both!
> 
> that's my whole point
> 
> ...


It's not both. You can't make money long term as an Uber driver. They'll never stop cutting rates and using drivers as cannon fodder, and they'll never limit numbers.

Traditional Medallion systems can suffer from inflated prices, but you can do it long term and support yourself.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> And it also means drivers do more trips and make more money on that day.
> 
> Uber doesn't merely put more cars on the road when there's high demand. It floods markets with cars and creates massive over saturation all day every day, save those few times when demand might peak so high that they all serve a purpose. Destroying a market 364 days a year so it works out one day a year isn't a good plan. And please, for your own sake, retire the absurd 'monopoly' whine.
> 
> Btw, from what I've read on here, Uber drivers haven't done that well on NYE. My guess is so many of them come out, the market is hyper-oversaturated.


Don't try to pretend your motives are anything other than greed. The "monopoly whine" isn't absurd. It is your entire motive for being here. You're neither a rider or driver for Uber.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> It's not both. You can't make money long term as an Uber driver. They'll never stop cutting rates and using drivers as cannon fodder, and they'll never limit numbers.
> 
> Traditional Medallion systems can suffer from inflated prices, but you can do it long term and support yourself.


Translation: I can over charge and have made a good living doing it because I own a medallion. **** any of you who don't. And **** your better service and lower rates.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> Translation: I can over charge and have made a good living doing it because I own a medallion. &%[email protected]!* any of you who don't. And &%[email protected]!* your better service and lower rates.


I don't over charge. NYC taxi rates are pretty low compared to worldwide rates, actually. Uber's rates are based on an illegal g-psy cab scam which churns through drivers by the thousands, and are not even less than a taxi in many cases. I don't own a Medallion I drive for a fleet. Sorry you want a childish fantasy about how the world works, but limits are necessary.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> I don't over charge. NYC taxi rates are pretty low compared to worldwide rates, actually. Uber's rates are based on an illegal g-psy cab scam which churns through drivers by the thousands, and are not even less than a taxi in many cases. I don't own a Medallion I drive for a fleet. Sorry you want a childish fantasy about how the world works, but limits are necessary.


You previously said you own your own cab. You don't drive for a fleet. You want limits that benefit you. What you want isn't going to matter. That's a childish fantasy.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> You clearly know absolutely nothing about this industry.


Obviously you fail to understand that those of us who have been at this for some time obviously know nothing because we are not part of the _*nouveau elite*_ that suddenly knows everything by the mere downloading of an application and running several trips.



Rat said:


> Translation: I can over charge and have made a good living doing it because I own a medallion. &%[email protected]!* any of you who don't. And &%[email protected]!* your better service and lower rates.


Did you actually take the bother to read what you are posting? You are supporting these low rates that you have criticised in other places on these Boards because for the moment, at least, it is convenient to what passes for whatever point it is that you are trying to make? All that you are doing by posting that is proving Hackenstein's point. If you knew anything about this business, you would know that one dollar the mile is not enough to keep up a motor vehicle and turn a reasonable profit for the operator and the owner (if the two are different). Even if it is only an
owner-operator, one dollar the mile is not enough even for an owner-operator to keep up a motor vehicle and turn a reasonable profit. I will pass over, for now, the costs of being subject to regulation. In addition, I will pass over, for now, Uber's offering some excellent incentives (READ: subsidies) in certain markets and the reasons therefor.

TNC elitists such as the second quoted poster fail to understand that cab rates are what they are for a reason. Uber, at least, does, even if it does not care to admit directly to that.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Euius said:


> And they shouldn't. Otherwise you're talking about the gov't picking winners and losers, and that's a centralized state run economy. Like USSR pre breakup, or Venezuela.
> 
> Cab driving is a dead end career. Current drivers will either retire soon, or be pushed out of it. Uber didn't create that situation, it just sped it up a couple years.
> 
> Cab drivers whining that they're in a dead end career should look into buggy whip manufacturing instead.


Actually I agree. I have a bad opinion of the taxi industry. The middlemen running that have completely failed to deliver quality and reliability. And yes, it's not up to the government to pick winners and losers.

However, that doesn't mean that we should abandon all regulations and standards. Anyone should be able to go out and compete. There shouldn't be caps to limit supply. Sensible standards and market forces will produce the desired balance of supply and demand. Local licensure should be open. Don't tie licenses to cars, tie them to drivers. If you hold the permit, then you own and drive the car. Licenses shouldn't be transferable or be leased to anyone.

Three standards will suffice:
1. Require drivers to maintain commercial livery/taxi insurance for their business.
2. Require a DOT medical exam annually for every driver.
3. Require FBI fingerprint checks for all drivers.

All the other regulations are largely unnecessary. The market will weed out drivers and cars that are substandard.

The good thing about Uber is that they created a way for drivers to run their own independent businesses, instead of being enslaved to taxi and limo companies. But instead of utilizing these existing commercial drivers and converting them into being Uber drivers, Uber chose to pull drivers from the general public.

The result: complete ----show.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> You previously said you own your own cab. You don't drive for a fleet. You want limits that benefit you. What you want isn't going to matter. That's a childish fantasy.


Nope, never said I owned a cab. I drive for a fleet. Not that it ultimately matters. But If you think the individual owner-operaters are 'greedy,' that is truly amazing. Limits are what makes it a viable business. Please just stop posting you merely use up bandwidth.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> If you think the individual owner-operaters are 'greedy,' that is truly amazing


Would you believe that the poster whom you quoted has posted elsewhere on these Boards that he did drive a cab for some time? If that is true, I do wonder how he thinks that there is anything real about what he has posted to this topic.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Obviously you fail to understand that those of us who have been at this for some time obviously know nothing because we are not part of the _*nouveau elite*_ that suddenly knows everything by the mere downloading of an application and running several trips.
> 
> Did you actually take the bother to read what you are posting? You are supporting these low rates that you have criticised in other places on these Boards because for the moment, at least, it is convenient to what passes for whatever point it is that you are trying to make? All that you are doing by posting that is proving Hackenstein's point. If you knew anything about this business, you would know that one dollar the mile is not enough to keep up a motor vehicle and turn a reasonable profit for the operator and the owner (if the two are different). Even if it is only an
> owner-operator, one dollar the mile is not enough even for an owner-operator to keep up a motor vehicle and turn a reasonable profit. I will pass over, for now, the costs of being subject to regulation. In addition, I will pass over, for now, Uber's offering some excellent incentives (READ: subsidies) in certain markets and the reasons therefor.
> ...


I'm not supporting any rates. Don't put words in my mouth


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Nope, never said I owned a cab. I drive for a fleet. Not that it ultimately matters. But If you think the individual owner-operaters are 'greedy,' that is truly amazing. Limits are what makes it a viable business. Please just stop posting you merely use up bandwidth.


You stated you owned your own cab. Limits support the greed of owners and owner-operators. When you scheme to limit the supply to increase the demand for yourself, that's pretty much the definition of "greed"


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Well, then we'll add that to the fairy tales the voices in your head seem to author on a daily basis.
> 
> Limits are what makes it worthwhile to take out a loan for a Medallion and work hard to pay it off then have ownership. Otherwise, you have over saturation and and no one makes money.
> 
> That's the American way, perhaps the voices in your head can fill you in.


No, that's the USSR way.americans believe in free enterprise.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

This thread got a bit off into _medallion land. _Which is understandable and all...but WOW! This article is spot on....FIVE STARS for the author.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Rat said:


> You need a variable supply of cabs because demand varies.


Why exactly? Why is it important that anyone who pushes a button can get a taxi within 3 minutes?

This debate basically boils down to a question of what is the greater public good. Do we want instant results and cheap taxis, or, do we want sustainable full-time employment for drivers?

The gig economy creates creates more efficient industries, but at what cost?

I prefer to keep enough regulation to ensure that people can make a living at the profession they choose to pursue.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> No, that's the USSR way.americans believe in free enterprise.


Free enterprise needs a necessary limit on numbers if you drive a cab in NYC. The limits were put in place by the mess 'free enterprise' with no limit had created.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Free enterprise needs a necessary limit on numbers if you drive a cab in NYC. The limits were put in place by the mess 'free enterprise' with no limit had created.


Free enterprise needs limits? LOL


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> Why exactly? Why is it important that anyone who pushes a button can get a taxi within 3 minutes?
> 
> This debate basically boils down to a question of what is the greater public good. Do we want instant results and cheap taxis, or, do we want sustainable full-time employment for drivers?
> 
> ...


3 minutes? Just making up ridiculous numbers isn't an argument. I seen pax who waited all night for a taxi. I personally had to wait two hours.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> Free enterprise needs limits? LOL


Yes, when a limited market is subject to constant over saturation without it.

You probably also favor an unlimited number of street vendors in every city. Say 20 to a block. Genius.


----------



## simpsonsverytall (Nov 6, 2015)

stuber said:


> Why exactly? Why is it important that anyone who pushes a button can get a taxi within 3 minutes?
> 
> This debate basically boils down to a question of what is the greater public good. Do we want instant results and cheap taxis, or, do we want sustainable full-time employment for drivers?
> 
> ...


Good questions

If you look at our National and Global economy, we are built upon near-free labor.

2 million walmart employees
2 million mcdonalds (not counting taco bell ,wendys etc..)
2 million armed forces
1 million uber
etc.. etc...

these are our largest employers
you pay your employees extremely low salaries (that require 16 hour+ work days to make a living)
you put your money into the media and your own pocket.

You are asking for an abrubt change in the way we do things.

We NEED a large pool of uneducated unskilled laborers. This is why education is dis-incentivized from our economy's perspective.
It's incentivized from a personal perspective - simply do well in high school, go to an expensive college, network with your family's well-connected friends, and voila - you can at least be on the side that is paying these large employers to be served by the laborers.
Everything else is fair game.

If you want to change the laborers plight, then you have to battle the establishment. Not recommended.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> Why exactly? Why is it important that anyone who pushes a button can get a taxi within 3 minutes?
> 
> This debate basically boils down to a question of what is the greater public good. Do we want instant results and cheap taxis, or, do we want sustainable full-time employment for drivers?
> 
> ...


Sadly, the greater public good isn't full-time employment for drivers.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, when a limited market is subject to constant over saturation without it.
> 
> You probably also favor an unlimited number of street vendors in every city. Say 20 to a block. Genius.


Your constant drumbeat for protectionism is tiresome. Your little racket is near it's end. You can join Uber or whoever ends up surviving or find another income. It's not a future that serves drivers, but a future that serves passengers.
Pretending I made a statement on street venders and mocking that is a kind of dishonest.


----------



## ChinatownJake (Jan 3, 2016)

I love the slide UberPeople used today to link to this from the home page. The woman who wrote the article, Lara Weber, is part of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. And she basically says that if-when she needs our type of transportation, she prefers and is sticking with taxis.

Lucky them or for that matter us if-when a passenger is as dainty and elegantly dressed (female or male) as this.

"Where to, miss?"
"Tiffany's... for breakfast."

http://www.uberpeople.net


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Rat said:


> Sadly, the greater public good isn't full-time employment for drivers.


Wrong. Uber's model is unsustainable for any individual driver. The cars wear out and the drivers haven't made enough to replace them. Thus they require new drivers willing to trade out their car equity in exchange for minimum wage cash flow.

That seems like a bigger problem for society than longer wait times to get a taxicab.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Rat said:


> 3 minutes? Just making up ridiculous numbers isn't an argument. I seen pax who waited all night for a taxi. I personally had to wait two hours.


Substitute "taxi" with "Car" or "Uber". Whichever you prefer. The point is, does it need to be available in 3 minutes? That would be nice, but not necessary. Not if delivering that speedy result comes at a cost that outweighs the overall societal benefit.

Economists are predicting the possibility that we could see unemployment in the range of 40% within the next 15 years due to efficiencies that eliminate labor.

That level of unemployment is similar to present day Palestine. I don't want to live in Palestine.

IMO, these gig economy champions are steering us towards anarchy.


----------



## SomeDrivingGuy (May 10, 2016)

"As a white woman" Lol surprised that was in the first three lines


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Rat said:


> Free enterprise needs limits? LOL


Of course free enterprise needs limits. Most people want controls to protect our environment, for instance. Do you want to wear a gas mask just so you can have unfettered free enterprise? There's regulation in every industry, and some of it is overbearing. But some rules are necessary in order to protect us from ourselves and our stupidity. There's more to consider than profit and efficiency.


----------



## Bolympia (Jan 8, 2015)

Ca$h4 said:


> It's easy for the any city to buy back the medallions, but the Banks (because they make lots of money giving loans to medallion buyers) don't want you to know how easy it is.
> The city just issues Revenue Bonds to buy all the medallions, then they lease the Taxis to Fleet operators until the lease revenues pay off the bonds, about 10 years. Then, the city can retire medallions, since the city (taxpayers) now own them. Didn't cost the city anything. THIS IS LOCAL FINANCING AND THE BANKS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. If Trump gets rid of the Federal Reserve as some right and left wingers want, then, most financing will be done locally, saving local taxes, city borrowing costs, and the negative effects of Bankers in general.


.....And our countries entire financial system goes back to the 19th century and becomes exponentially less stable and our economy with it. STUPID.


----------



## Bolympia (Jan 8, 2015)

Rat said:


> Your constant drumbeat for protectionism is tiresome. Your little racket is near it's end. You can join Uber or whoever ends up surviving or find another income. It's not a future that serves drivers, but a future that serves passengers.
> Pretending I made a statement on street venders and mocking that is a kind of dishonest.





FAC said:


> Wow thank you gentlemen for the information. A few follow up questions: Where does the $80k (or whatever the price) go? Is it basically a tax? So I'm guessing you need a background check to obtain a medallion but do the contractors or leasees require background checks to drive the cars?
> 
> This whole system seems to be a corrupt system started long ago but too lucrative to end.
> 
> ...


It's not lucrative! Before Uber a full time taxi driver in most markets could expect about 45K a year with absolutely no benefits. If he buys a medallion he can lease it to another driver through a taxi company and part of what said driver pays to the company to lease the medallion holders cab goes to the medallion holder. Hence 45K a year turns into about 60-65K per year for working half the number of hours. However there are easier and less stressful ways to earn 65k per year.


----------



## Bolympia (Jan 8, 2015)

Euius said:


> And they shouldn't. Otherwise you're talking about the gov't picking winners and losers, and that's a centralized state run economy. Like USSR pre breakup, or Venezuela.
> 
> Cab driving is a dead end career. Current drivers will either retire soon, or be pushed out of it. Uber didn't create that situation, it just sped it up a couple years.
> 
> Cab drivers whining that they're in a dead end career should look into buggy whip manufacturing instead.


Paid Uber troll alert! I can't believe those bastards at Uber made you go into the office at 11th and Market st on the holiday weekend! Maybe you should look into starting your own buggy wip manufacturing plant; at least then you could pick your own hours.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> Translation: I can over charge and have made a good living doing it because I own a medallion. &%[email protected]!* any of you who don't. And &%[email protected]!* your better service and lower rates.





Rat said:


> I'm not supporting any rates. Don't put words in my mouth


Explain, then, please, the first quote and how it relates to the second. Thank you.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> Wrong. Uber's model is unsustainable for any individual driver. The cars wear out and the drivers haven't made enough to replace them. Thus they require new drivers willing to trade out their car equity in exchange for minimum wage cash flow.
> 
> That seems like a bigger problem for society than longer wait times to get a taxicab.


That is your viewpoint. The public has no qualms with exploiting drivers if they can get dirt cheap transportation that is safe, fast and reliable.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Explain, then, please, the first quote and how it relates to the second. Thank you.


Er, what? Not repeating myself.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> Er, what?


My statement that you favour low rates comes from the first quote. Your second statement contradicts the first. Please explain.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Rat said:


> Er, what?





stuber said:


> Of course free enterprise needs limits. Most people want controls to protect our environment, for instance. Do you want to wear a gas mask just so you can have unfettered free enterprise? There's regulation in every industry, and some of it is overbearing. But some rules are necessary in order to protect us from ourselves and our stupidity. There's more to consider than profit and efficiency.


but this is a subject about profit and efficiency, is it not?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> My statement that you favour low rates comes from the first quote. Your second statement contradicts the first. Please explain.


Your statement and my statement contradict? That means you are wrong.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> Your statement and my statement contradict? That means you are wrong.


Incorrect twice.

Your statements contradict. By your "logic", that means that you are "wrong".


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Rat said:


> That is your viewpoint. The public has no qualms with exploiting drivers if they can get dirt cheap transportation that is safe, fast and reliable.


Yes, my viewpoint. Based on the facts I have seen. Lots of companies are popular with public, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is good, or desirable, or should be supported. Wal-Mart, for instance, is hugely successful. Yet there's ample evidence that our economy would be better off without them. Plenty of manufacturers want nothing to do with them. Some shoppers won't patronize Wal-Mart, strictly out of principle.

Defending Uber because it's popular with public is a weak argument; especially since you're likely very aware of their devious and exploitative practices.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

stuber said:


> you're likely very aware of their devious and exploitative practices.


He has posted as much on other topics on other Boards, here.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Incorrect twice.
> 
> Your statements contradict. By your "logic", that means that you are "wrong".


You are projecting something in to my statements I never said.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> You are projecting something in to my statements I never said.


I "project" nothing. I ask for an explanation. Please provide one, if you are able to do so.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Rat said:


> but this is a subject about profit and efficiency, is it not?


I give up. There's no hope. Drive people around for minimum wage. Who cares how they make that happen?


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> Yes, my viewpoint. Based on the facts I have seen. Lots of companies are popular with public, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is good, or desirable, or should be supported. Wal-Mart, for instance, is hugely successful. Yet there's ample evidence that our economy would be better off without them. Plenty of manufacturers want nothing to do with them. Some shoppers won't patronize Wal-Mart, strictly out of principle.
> 
> Defending Uber because it's popular with public is a weak argument; especially since you're likely very aware of their devious and exploitative practices.


I'm not defending Uber. I'm stating what I think the outcome will be. Public popularity is a very strong force. Drivers have no power because they are so easily replaced.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> I give up. There's no hope. Drive people around for minimum wage. Who cares how they make that happen?


The public, and therefore the polititions, don't.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I "project" nothing. I ask for an explanation. Please provide one, if you are able to do so.


I explained the "contradiction" is in your own mind, not in my statements. You are unable to comprehend that. There isn't anything else to say.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Explain, then, please, the first quote and how it relates to the second. Thank you.


Tiresome. I am not responsible for your projections,


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Rat said:


> I explained the "contradiction" is in your own mind, not in my statements. You are unable to comprehend that. There isn't anything else to say.


You have explained no such thing. In fact, you have not explained anything.



Rat said:


> Tiresome. I am not responsible for your projections,


Your "response" has nothing to do with my request.


----------



## PoorBasterd (Mar 6, 2015)

She sounds like the kind of entitled princess I would loath to have in my car. The cabbies are more than welcomed to have her.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
> To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


Medallions went for big bucks here in San Diego, I think it was up to $180K at one point ( on the private market ), but now, because of uber, the City is GIVING THEM AWAY ( or at least not more than $2k ) this is what a yellow driver told me, the other day. Heck, I'm temped to get me one ( in case uber folds, those medallions will go back up right quick ).


----------



## eXperiment (Jun 20, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Medallions went for big bucks here in San Diego, I think it was up to $180K at one point ( on the private market ), but now, because of uber, the City is GIVING THEM AWAY ( or at least not more than $2k ) this is what a yellow driver told me, the other day. Heck, I'm temped to get me one ( in case uber folds, those medallions will go back up right quick ).


why is city adding to taxi fleet if uber come to rescue? isn't this making more miserable for all?

how many drunk and drugged still need to be taken off the street? is there still such unmet demand? obviously even most desperate drivers have a limit

why they even keep dropping price? some kind of dutch auction? with uber/lyft there is less requirement to put taxis on than ever in history

why would because of uber do they feel compelled to give them away? that makes NO sense!

and where is the 'good faith' in business relationship, for the 'shitty' to be undermining the 'agreements' they have made up to this point?


----------



## Skyblue6 (Nov 16, 2015)

eXperiment said:


> why is city adding to taxi fleet if uber come to rescue? isn't this making more miserable for all?
> 
> how many drunk and drugged still need to be taken off the street? is there still such unmet demand? obviously even most desperate drivers have a limit
> 
> ...


Idiot. Taxi drivers left to be uber drivers so there's extra medallions around.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

stuber said:


> Yes, my viewpoint. Based on the facts I have seen. Lots of companies are popular with public, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is good, or desirable, or should be supported. Wal-Mart, for instance, is hugely successful. Yet there's ample evidence that our economy would be better off without them. Plenty of manufacturers want nothing to do with them. Some shoppers won't patronize Wal-Mart, strictly out of principle.
> 
> Defending Uber because it's popular with public is a weak argument; especially since you're likely very aware of their devious and exploitative practices.


I'm not defending Uber. I'm just stating both facts and what I foresee in the future. If I stated that ISIS will murder a sizable number of people in the US a some point in the near future, does that mean I support ISIS?


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The author lost me when she advocated abolition of medallions.
> To do that, Chitown would have to buy back every medallion at market price.


Hasn't happened here in Sydney Australia. First offer to Taxi Plate (Medallion) owners is a paltry $20,000 for something that sold for $480,000 in 2013.

Governments around the world, who are totally bereft of ideas on how to develop a multi-platform point to point transport system have sold out to Uber and its clever technology.

The promise of unfettered information that driverless cars will generate for Big Brother government is the dealmaker. Through facial recognition, 360 degree digital recording the ability for vehicles to be tasked to locate, observe and report on an individual's location by law enforcement agencies will mean EVERYONE will be under constant surveillance when outside on the streets.

Uber is clever, and will make their money once driverless cars are deployed. 2020 will be the year most driving jobs will begin to disappear


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

painfreepc said:


> Okay where I drove taxi in San Bernardino Riverside it don't really have a medallion system that being said, I will try to explain it to you the way I understand it works, I may not be 100% correct you can take my information I gave you and then go Google the rest and good luck with that because it's not very clear even on the internet what The Medallion is,
> 
> first major misconception is that you have and then I hear from a lot of people here is you think is one Medallion per car that is not the case,
> 
> ...


This is the perfect reason for not allowing others to control you.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> Your constant drumbeat for protectionism is tiresome. Your little racket is near it's end. You can join Uber or whoever ends up surviving or find another income. It's not a future that serves drivers, but a future that serves passengers.
> Pretending I made a statement on street venders and mocking that is a kind of dishonest.


Looks like I was banned

You're advocating for the destruction of the rule of law, and a race to the bottom of pure exploitation of labor.

No imperfection of the Medallion system (which is based on the very real need for limits on numbers) can ever approach the exploitative Corporatist anarchy of 'Uber.' Drivers are cycled through like irrelevant rags and earn progressively less money. Focusing only on the consumer side is absurd.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Looks like I was banned
> 
> You're advocating for the destruction of the rule of law, and a race to the bottom of pure exploitation of labor.
> 
> No imperfection of the Medallion system (which is based on the very real need for limits on numbers) can ever approach the exploitative Corporatist anarchy of 'Uber.' Drivers are cycled through like irrelevant rags and earn progressively less money. Focusing only on the consumer side is absurd.


I am not advocating for anything of the sort. Because you choose to disbelieve my perception of things to come, you assign motives to me that are untrue.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> I am not advocating for anything of the sort. Because you choose to disbelieve my perception of things to come, you assign motives to me that are untrue.


It had nothing to to do with 'things to come.' I realize that Uber et al are bent on taking Humans out of the equation. I do not claim the Medallion system is perfect. However, it was indeed put in place to create a reasonable floor on cab numbers. Uber doesn't care about any of it, they will toss you out as soon as they possibly can. I dare say you will at some point look back fondly on Medallions.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> It had nothing to to do with 'things to come.' I realize that Uber et al are bent on taking Humans out of the equation. I do not claim the Medallion system is perfect. However, it was indeed put in place to create a reasonable floor on cab numbers. Uber doesn't care about any of it, they will toss you out as soon as they possibly can. I dare say you will at some point look back fondly on Medallions.


It certainly does have to do with things to come. The medallion system places a ceiling on cab numbers. The public doesn't care if their driver is a pauper. They blather about "living wage", but only when someone else is paying it. The average person denounces low wages but happily buys products made by 6 year olds for 20c a day. I think the personal transportation industry is changing dramatically. Worse for drivers, wether better for pax remains to be seen. I don't think Uber's plans for driverless cars will work. A couple million angry former drivers will make those cars unfit for use


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Rat said:


> It certainly does have to do with things to come. The medallion system places a ceiling on cab numbers. The public doesn't care if their driver is a pauper. They blather about "living wage", but only when someone else is paying it. The average person denounces low wages but happily buys products made by 6 year olds for 20c a day. I think the personal transportation industry is changing dramatically. Worse for drivers, wether better for pax remains to be seen. I don't think Uber's plans for driverless cars will work. A couple million angry former drivers will make those cars unfit for use


The ceiling on cab numbers was 1000% necessary. It sounds like you had a bad experience as a legit cab driver. I haven't, and understand that if I were competing with 2x as many yellow cabs I'd make 1/2 as much. Uber isn't 1/2 the price of yellow cabs in NYC, in many cases it's more, so the consumer spiel is nonsense. You don't even want to know the horror stories I've heard from passengers. $20 for 20 blocks etc.

I unfortunately do think driverless cars will work, they've bought off too many people, a lot of high level politicians in that mix.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> The ceiling on cab numbers was 1000% necessary. It sounds like you had a bad experience as a legit cab driver. I haven't, and understand that if I were competing with 2x as many yellow cabs I'd make 1/2 as much. Uber isn't 1/2 the price of yellow cabs in NYC, in many cases it's more, so the consumer spiel is nonsense. You don't even want to know the horror stories I've heard from passengers. $20 for 20 blocks etc.
> 
> I unfortunately do think driverless cars will work, they've bought off too many people, a lot of high level politicians in that mix.


I can't speak for NYC, but the areas I am familiar with, Uber is less than half cab fair. At least during non-surge. They haven't bought off a couple million disgruntled former drivers who will making those cars unusable. Want to know how to destroy any hope of using those cars? Just step out in front of one traveling at a good clip. It will wreck itself, possibly killing its passengers rather than hit a pedestrian. Don't think it won't happen and happen a lot.


----------



## u-Boat (Jan 4, 2016)

ChortlingCrison said:


> I never really understood why medallions were rediculously expensive. Im just glad when I drove in NY, that I only head to lease a car. I would never even think of trying to finance one of them. They sound like a big rippoff.


Medallions were expensive because local Govts only offered a limited number of them to prevent market over-saturation. It was essentially a golden ticket to operate void of competition (at the expense of the consumer of course). It is an outdated, antiquated system.


----------



## Laronda (May 25, 2016)

Would love to get some new bling. Where do you pikc that up???


----------

