
Uber Makes Its Pain New Yorkers’ Problem - davidf18
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/nyregion/uber-makes-its-pain-new-yorkers-problem.html
======
discardorama
FTA: "In the late 1930s, there were just under 12,000 medallions in
circulation; more than 75 years later, in a city larger by one million people
and benefiting from far greater prosperity, there are only 13,000."

Population growth alone would require another 600 medallions. But remember: in
the 1930s, we were just coming out (or on the upswing) of the Great Recession;
so affluence would dictate a much larger number. So why is the number so low?

> Instead, arcane aspects of state and local law and, crucially, the power
> wielded by wealthy and politically generous fleet owners — _who don’t want
> to see the creation of more medallions lest the value of theirs decline_ —
> make that [more medallions] virtually impossible.

There you have it. It is, for the lack of a better word, greed. When you have
hedgefunds owning medallions[1], you know it's a bad sign. Essential services
for the general populace should _not_ be a vehicle for hedge funds.

An ideal (or, a better) system would be responsive. It would look at how busy
cabs are, and accordingly change the number of medallions in circulation.
Every year (or every _n_ th year, take your pick), have a Dutch auction[2] of
the desired number of medallions. Disallow renting of medallions (only the
owner gets to drive the cab), which will kill speculation. Put an app around
the whole system, so users can hail cabs from their mobile devices. Pain
eased.

[1]
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023036530045792143...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303653004579214314123978606)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction)

~~~
boona
>An ideal (or, a better) system would be responsive.

Like a situation of economic freedom where millions of individual actors and
entrepreneurs can dynamically change the landscape of city transportation
instead of imposing a one size fits all scheme?

~~~
pkulak
Well, that would work in a perfect system. In our current system, however,
roads are "free". So, if you make driving a cab free and unlimited on those
free roads, you just end up with a tragedy of the commons. Medallions solve
that, but so would an appropriate gas tax (hint, many times higher than it is
now) or some other kind of per-mile payment for road use.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Roads are not free, they are paid for via gas taxes. To support your claim
that an appropriate gas tax would be large, do you have numbers suggesting how
much road spending costs compared to revenue raised from gas taxes?

Medallions don't come close to solving the issue of people free-riding on
roads - most of the cars on NYC roads are neither taxis nor ubers.

~~~
pkulak
> do you have numbers suggesting how much road spending costs compared to
> revenue raised from gas taxes?

[http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-
th...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-
drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/)

------
rahimnathwani
"A cabdriver on average will make about $17 or $18 an hour over shifts that
can last 12 hours. That is little more than the $15 an hour fast-food workers
are scheduled to get"

Minimum wage in NY is currently $8.75 per hour. So, according to the article,
taxi drivers are earning more than twice that. And that's after they've paid
to rent a $1MM medallion.

~~~
JohnTHaller
For context, EMT workers in NYC earn just a bit over $15 an hour when they
start out.

~~~
Trombone12
So fast food workers and EMT workers get the same wages? Wow, I hope the EMTs
at least get significant raises fairly fast.

~~~
JohnTHaller
They don't now. But they would make basically the same thing if the bill to
raise fast food workers' (and no one else's) wages goes through.

------
overpaidgoogler
People support Uber because they support the logic of the free market, which
is that the government should redistribute wealth, but not fix prices,
including wages. Yes it's tough being a taxi driver, but the real problem is
that it's tough being a person who for whatever reason can't get a high paying
job. Fixing high wages for taxi drivers doesn't solve this problem, because it
doesn't provide jobs for those who don't get to be taxi drivers.

~~~
gaius
Society has decided that certain jobs should come with certain minimum
standards attached to them, that's true of caterers, hotels, surgeons, airline
pilots... and taxi drivers.

~~~
overpaidgoogler
"Society has decided" is not a good substitute for an actual reason for a
policy. I'm not arguing against democracy here. I also think you are confusing
minimum pay with minimum qualifications. A medallion is not a qualification,
it is an arbitrary limit (yes there are other reasons for the limit like
congestion, but the article discuses pay)

~~~
jsprogrammer
Not being able to get a "high paying job" is not really the problem.

The problem is that the "market" has so far failed to distribute enough wealth
to satisfy everyone's needs and for most of those that you can argue that
market has been able to satisfy, they are essentially slaves to that market,
with little to no mobility.

------
davidf18
Limiting medallions creates market inefficiencies which is no good to anyone
_except_ the medallion owners. With $1 million medallions drivers have to pay
a significant portion of their gross receipts for renting the artificially
expensive taxi.

One taxi driver claims to gross $250-$300 for a 12 hour shift, but he pays
$150 of that to lease the taxi (with medallion).

[http://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/nyc-taxi/shift-life-cab-
driv...](http://www.yellowcabnyctaxi.com/nyc-taxi/shift-life-cab-driver)

Thus, about half of our fares plus tips go to paying for the taxi with
medallion, before paying for gas.

~~~
Trombone12
The story opens with retelling the reasons the medallion system was created...
it's probably not a good idea to completely ignore the historical events:

"There were too many drivers going after too few passengers — fares were
slashed, tensions between fleets escalated, violence erupted"

~~~
davidf18
Well, a person born on the day in 1937 when the limit was put in effect would
have been retired at age 65 13 years ago (age 78). As the economy improved,
e.g., post WW II in 1945, 70 years ago, this limit should have been revisited.

All this limit has served to do is to make taxis in NYC far more expensive
than they should be (in Manhattan not many own cars) and taxi drivers making
far less money than they should be.

~~~
Trombone12
If you meant to say that the limits should be revised, may I suggest using
wording that actually carries that meaning? I find it hard to see an argument
about revising limits in the statement: "limiting medallions creates market
inefficiencies which is no good to anyone"

------
thatusertwo
I'm very skeptical of Uber, but I don't think limiting the number of cars is
any type of solution.

~~~
_delirium
It's a fairly traditional one, because "too many taxis clogging up the roads"
is a common complaint of residents. The first taxi-regulation law in 17th-
century London was passed to limit the number of hackney carriages (along with
requiring minimum maintenance standards of the vehicles). Of course
preferences vary; people who want to take taxis will tend to prefer there be
more, while drivers of private vehicles will tend to prefer there be fewer.
Residents typically also prefer fewer, unless their own use of taxis overrides
that preference.

------
freewizard
If there's one thing gov need to do against Uber/Lyft, that's set a high bar
for drivers' capability, not limit their numbers.

~~~
bdcravens
In the face of higher requirements, Uber would likely let anyone drive and
then cast the appropriate narrative (in other words, their current gameplan)

~~~
pekk
Since they don't currently respect the law, it doesn't make any difference how
you decide to change the law because they're still not going to respect it.

------
jacknews
Is it just me, or does the photo in this piece quite obviously show protesting
Uber tech/marketing employees, not drivers?

If that's the case, and in fact Uber mainly services the relatively affluent,
and not typical Bronx residents, then this is a pretty disgusting and
disingenuous piece of marketing/lobbying on Uber's part.

