Interesting: Will Uber Go Galt in California?

[SpeareChucker]

Employees or contractors?

The State wants them classified as the former,
the drive-share companies, the latter.

The former wants them given "benefits" by decree,
the latter points out that only 17% are full-time drivers.

I don't think the latter forces anyone to drive without benefits.
I think their contractors are mainly using this as a second job and prefer
to give rides and earn tips from good service, but that's just me.
The author, Sean Higgens, makes this point which to me
sounds truthful from the very limited experience that
I have had with cabs and ride-shares on vacation:

... [W]e already have an existing model for ridesharing favored by California lawmakers: It’s called the “taxicab system.” The principal reason that ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft took off in the first place is well known to anyone who has tried to hail a taxi in the rain, in a difficult neighborhood, and with an expectation of respect and cleanliness. Taxis didn’t respond very well to the needs of consumers.

The only time I've had luck with taxis was right off the flight at the airport.
For everything else, one call and you had a ride-share in minutes
whereas you had to wait for an airport cab that was only
in the area to drop someone off from the airport.

But, what do you consider to be fair
and proper when it comes
to a rent-a-ride?

 

[bellisarius]

Free enterprise vs nanny state.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Maybe we should consult the Green movement
as to whether or not those should be Hansom cabs...



No harmful greenhouse emissions.

 

[Liar]

I don't care either way. I just weant them to stop pretending they're not taxis.

And I don't mean from a legal/union/whatever perspective. I mean for the consumer. Stop pretending you're something cool and novel. Yer a feckin taxi. Freelancers under a common booking system? Fine. Still taxi.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Interesting,

but taxi, in the cities, has come to imply regulated and controlled,
as in having to purchase a medallion, for example.

So, that would be the difference
in the nomenclature.



Here, I think we have one company with three cabs
and I'm not sure if local government is involved;
with their response time, you might as well
just try to thumb a ride...

 

[Liar]

Interesting,

but taxi, in the cities, has come to imply regulated and controlled,
as in having to purchase a medallion, for example.

So, that would be the difference
in the nomenclature.

That's the political perspective.

A taxi, to the consumer, is a car that takes you places in exchange for money.

 

[surdeep]

That's the political perspective.

A taxi, to the consumer, is a car that takes you places in exchange for money.

That’s the beauty of tech; it finds businesses that are old, fat and greedy and destroys them.

 

[SpeareChucker]

No, the word has a specific denotation:

"a car licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare, usually fitted with a taximeter."

Uber is not licensed which is the point to the question -
Does the government step in and force them to purchase a license?

Not trying to be garrulous, but I think to the "consumer"
there is also a connotation that is built into the
price of their choice between regulation
and free-market competition.

 

[SpeareChucker]

That’s the beauty of tech; it finds businesses that are old, fat and greedy and destroys them.

Not just exclusively tech, but the free market.
In the winter, a kid with a shovel just
might be cheaper than the guy
with a snowblower...

 

[FescueFan]

That's the political perspective.

And what is being discussed here, despite your best efforts to ignore that.

The left in California is trying to kill it.

GOOD, hopefully Lyft and Uber leave California.

More should leave, till California figures it the fuck out.

 

[SpeareChucker]

And what is being discussed here, despite your best efforts to ignore that.

...

 

[surdeep]

No, the word has a specific denotation:

"a car licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare, usually fitted with a taximeter."

Uber is not licensed which is the point to the question -
Does the government step in and force them to purchase a license?

Not trying to be garrulous, but I think to the "consumer"
there is also a connotation that is built into the
price of their choice between regulation
and free-market competition.

Agreed. Uber cheats to beat licensed carriers.

The free market in the USA isnt completely free. Uber is a scofflaw.

 

[SpeareChucker]

*chuckle*



They couldn't compete if it weren't for the positive interference of government...

 

[FescueFan]

Agreed. Uber cheats to beat licensed carriers.

"Cheating" meaning not giving piles of money to politicians for a licence.

That's the big stink.

The free market in the USA isnt completely free. Uber is a scofflaw.

Depending on the state there is no market.....Blue states are especially prone to state controlled markets.

 

[FescueFan]

*chuckle*



They couldn't compete if it weren't for the positive interference of government...

Just like most Democrats.

 

[JohnnySavage]

We have an "Uber" here. Not an official Uber. Just a guy that hung a flier at the two bars I frequent. It says to give him a call if you've had too much to drink. I know him. Chances are, if you call him after 4pm, he's going to be drunker than you are.

 

[Liar]

And what is being discussed here, despite your best efforts to ignore that.

The left in California is trying to kill it.

GOOD, hopefully Lyft and Uber leave California.

More should leave, till California figures it the fuck out.

I adressed the political perspective in my first post:

"I don't care either way".

 

[SpeareChucker]

Just like most Democrats.

They rely on the votes of hands out for handouts.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I adressed the political perspective in my first post:

"I don't care either way".

I think your succinctness lacks clarity of purpose.

 

[Liar]

I think your succinctness lacks clarity of purpose.

My purpose here is to dick around when I'm bored.

 

[SpeareChucker]

My purpose here is to dick around when I'm bored.

The playground does not keep you entertained?



You're no Russell Crowe...

 

[WillJ8787]

I don't think local or state govt has any legit business with Uber or traditional taxis regarding licenses to operate. They want their hand in everything and everyone's pocket and it just isn't what they should be doing. So long as Uber, drivers and taxis pay taxes on what they earn. I understand regulating actions if necessary, for example, if you end up with too many drivers in an area that cause traffic issue, just no license to operate. Buyer beware.

And remember, I'm a progressive saying this, go figure!

Im glad Uber is tanking, they were becoming such a nuisance in the city....lack of following proper driving rules, double parking everywhere, either driving too fast or too slow.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The free market would naturally limit the number of cabbies, whereas
the State would award as many licenses as they could collect fees for.

The consumer would reward clean, prompt and courteous service
whereas, government is too bloated to effectively enforce it.

Imho.

 

[SpeareChucker]

In DC, I had this Russian (Ukrainian?) driver who scared the living daylights out of me,
but I got there quickly and cheaply.



In Philadelphia (some years back) we took a taxi to the movies,
he took us to see Taxi Driver. It was expensive even
splitting it among the five of us.
He really seemed to take either the long way there,
or to the furthest possible theater.

But that's anecdotal, not theory or study...

 

[FescueFan]

I adressed the political perspective in my first post:

"I don't care either way".

If you don't care either way then why the fuck are you posting here??