urbanSTL

urban_dilettante wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:I'm not opposed to Uber, per se, but I am offended by the idea that StL is backwards for not unanimously embracing the push for everyone working as benefit-less independent contractors. I'm not an MTC fan, but without some kind of regulation Uber is another sign of the techno-dystopia waiting to happen.

sure, but Taxi companies don't exactly treat their drivers well either, and Uber is a more efficient model for public transportation. if the argument is that taxi regulations can be reformed to make the service more efficient, then i would argue that P2P regulations can be reformed as well to provide better benefits. is it even true that taxi companies necessarily provide benefits for their drivers?

Limiting the number of drivers to maintain income levels is a benefit.

It's not a benefit to the consumer. Face it, this technology has changed the landscape for the better. Now it's possible to have a highly reliable service so that people may now chose to save money and not have a car. We don't need to protect the cab driving industry as if it was some type of union/ jobs program. Think about St. Louis 100 year ago, thousands were employed to sweep the streets in their white uniforms. Technology, the car, made the use of horses obsolete and therefore the street sweepers. Cab companies can either adopt the same technology and compete or they can go the way of the street sweepers. I find it so fascinating that people like mark on the far left would rather support the taxi cab union while hurting the poor looking for the cheapest transportation options. And let's not pretend like cabs don't go into some areas of the city.

Took Uber this weekend and the cost was 12 bucks. Took Wilson cab home and it was 22 bucks. Same distance same location. Not even close.

Was designated driver last night. Three times while dropping people off/picking up I got asked if I was Uber.

MarkHaversham wrote: Limiting the number of drivers to maintain income levels is a benefit.

so then... no?

urban_dilettante wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote: Limiting the number of drivers to maintain income levels is a benefit.

so then... no?

Well, let's be clear. Even if we all agree taxicab companies are bad, that doesn't mean Uber is good.

Well, what's better than Uber then? I haven't seen another service. Lyft? Uber might not be perfect but it's the closest thing that I have experienced. If the cab companies can't compete for business they don't deserve any.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that Uber is the best option available. I just think it's a bit ridiculous when everyone whines about how backwards StL is for not ripping up their regulations and stomping all over their resident cab drivers to beg Uber to set up shop here, when successful cities are already pushing back against Uber's business practices.

Begging foreign corporations to crowd out our local businesses isn't forward-thinking or progressive. A local Uber alternative that complied with regulations might be, but I don't suppose that's in the cards.

Can't help but think that this is more than just Uber but is a representation of bigger local issues. Mainly people who want things to change vs the powers that be and the provincial mindset that is resistant to changes regardless of anything since its the way its always been done.

imperialmog wrote:Can't help but think that this is more than just Uber but is a representation of bigger local issues. Mainly people who want things to change vs the powers that be and the provincial mindset that is resistant to changes regardless of anything since its the way its always been done.

That's exactly the argument I disagree with. You can argue that St. Louis isn't successful enough to do anything other than beg companies to come here at any price and bend over backwards to destroy itself at the drop of a rich man's hat, but to say St. Louis is "provincial" for not doing so is completely ridiculous. There are a lot of people who aren't even arguing for Uber, they're just arguing that having an argument about Uber is somehow intrinsically backwards.

"The government mandated monopoly must be protected."

So true. That's exactly the mindset here. Almost ALL other cities have allowed Uber to operate without fingerprints. I think Houston is the only city that I know of that requires them. Uber does their own background checks which they argue is better and even the chief of police agrees are good enough. Same with what police in other cities have agreed to. Let's face it, your average Uber driver is a little more "professional" than your average cab driver. I'm willing to take the "risk" of uber with their background checks versus waiting all day for a cab that reeks and doesn't show up. Why don't the cab companies pay for similar technology and just keep clean cabs, then I'd be just as willing to use them. And again, if you don't like Uber or think it's so risky, then take a cab.
And Mark, it does show that STL is a union-strong, reluctant-to-embrace-change city. Yes, this experience completely has proved to EVERYONE that the mindset still exists. Remember when the steamboats were reluctant to allow a new technology here? A railroad-carrying bridge in the 1870's...what happened to all the steamboat workers? They should have been protected!

jcity wrote: And Mark, it does show that STL is a union-strong, reluctant-to-embrace-change city. Yes, this experience completely has proved to EVERYONE that the mindset still exists. Remember when the steamboats were reluctant to allow a new technology here? A railroad-carrying bridge in the 1870's...what happened to all the steamboat workers? They should have been protected!

What a weird argument to make to advocate 16th century economic policies.

There seems to be a pervasive, yet unspoken, assumption that the market for rides is a fixed pie and that an interloper such as Uber just serves to slice it into smaller pieces.

I don't think that's true at all.

Ride sharing services, and the model they bring with them, open up an entirely new market of potential riders. Couples who might be on the fence about getting (or keeping) a second car. Students consider how easy it is to get around town when selecting a college or apartment. Travelers deciding whether to go ahead and eat at Applebee's because it's close to the hotel, or to call up a car and go to the Hill for a reasonable price.

As an example, whenever I traveled anywhere in the country or internationally, I would almost always, 100% choose where to stay and what to visit based on its proximity to mass transit. Eventually I softened up a bit and 'allowed' an occasional taxi ride in the most dire of circumstances (or where, for example, mass transit from an airport didn't exist).

But now, the landscape is totally different. If a city has Uber, I have no reservations at all about calling one up and going to the next site, spending potentially a few more bucks but saving more time.

If the taxis want to improve, join the 21st century, and join in innovating, then they can still have their slice of pie.

Regarding a previous component of our conversation:

MarkHaversham wrote:I'm not opposed to Uber, per se, but I am offended by the idea that StL is backwards for not unanimously embracing the push for everyone working as benefit-less independent contractors.

Laclede Cab has 174 permits for its taxi drivers, who operate as independent contractors...

http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/ar ... touch=true

Just sayin'.

Our limo (Yukon) service driver in Chicago last week told us his taxi medallion was worth about $450k back in 2011. Now he'd be lucky to sell it for $100k.

As an example, whenever I traveled anywhere in the country or internationally, I would almost always, 100% choose where to stay and what to visit based on its proximity to mass transit. Eventually I softened up a bit and 'allowed' an occasional taxi ride in the most dire of circumstances (or where, for example, mass transit from an airport didn't exist).

But now, the landscape is totally different. If a city has Uber, I have no reservations at all about calling one up and going to the next site, spending potentially a few more bucks but saving more time.

Good points. I wonder what Uber will do to the rental car industry. There's really no need when going to major cities.

pat wrote: Good points. I wonder what Uber will do to the rental car industry. There's really no need when going to major cities.

Likely some change but a rental is still worthwhile if you are doing a lot of stops in another city for say business travel. Also if you are going outside of the cities into surrounding small towns and rural areas for business. It also likely depends on how easy it is to get a rental car upon arrival into an area at the airport. Maybe it does better at places where its more of a hassle to get a rental at the airport like it is here with car rental off-site. (that's a whole another topic)

stlhistory wrote:

by moorlander » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:50 am -- Our limo (Yukon) service driver in Chicago last week told us his taxi medallion was worth about $450k back in 2011. Now he'd be lucky to sell it for $100k.

That medallion's worth is technically called quota rent in econspeak. The quota rent is the value given to the supplier of a good who is allowed to sell, and it happens when government regulations limit the quantity of the good in the market. Without the quota, the price of rides falls, the quantity of rides increases, and consumers gain surplus (benefit). Also there's less deadweight loss.

In other words, lots of good economic reasons to eliminate this medallion nonsense.

But broadly speaking, consumers are also suppliers of something. If many goods across the economy see their prices dropping, consumers lose income and wages stagnate. So there are lots of good economic reasons to have systems like medallions that maintain pay levels.