> Whether it's for the better or worse simply doesn't matter.
I guess it matters to those upon which the worse is imposed.
By that, I mean not only the taxi drivers. From an individual standpoint, those who get to drive for Uber are happy to get jobs, but looking at the problem at the scale of the workforce, replacing one jobless man and one well-paid man by one less paid man and a jobless man is a net loss.
Anything's a net loss if you choose the scope arbitrarily. It's not just two guys losing money. It's also the customers saving money and getting better service.
If you see a taxi company as some kind of employer of last resort or an unemployment benefit without the shame, then perhaps it's a net loss, but why not just call a benefit a benefit and hand out cash to un/underemployed people. If you have to take a pound of flesh to prevent abuse, then have them break rocks or something to earn their payments.
I guess it matters to those upon which the worse is imposed.
By that, I mean not only the taxi drivers. From an individual standpoint, those who get to drive for Uber are happy to get jobs, but looking at the problem at the scale of the workforce, replacing one jobless man and one well-paid man by one less paid man and a jobless man is a net loss.