Isn't the MTC's stated problem with Uber in St. Louis their refusal to submit to fingerprint background checks and cheekswab drug tests? Are those not examples of "reasonable regulations"? I actually agree with your line of thinking more than anyone else in this thread, but couldn't we flip it around? St. Louis area taxi companies are not without their warts and they need to address those... it's Uber whose entire business model is potentially quite damaging to St. Louis's working class.roger wyoming II wrote:the world has changed and using uber or lyft is just a natural part of what urban people do now.... a friend of mine organized a moderate-sized convention here and there were numerous comments from guests about where was uber. the guy who moved his start-up from San Fran to here and encouraged others to do the same says his peers are completely baffled by out lack of uber.
Using your smartphone to arrange a ride from a trusted party is a convenient, efficient and logical way to do things in the modern world.... uber has warts and it needs to address those, but as long as there are reasonable regulations in place you have to allow it to operate. Not doing so is damaging. And there is absolutely no excuse for MTC not allowing electronic public comments... that is the epitome of the petrification of Saint Louis.
So why will the sky fall here when other cities aren't destroyed by rideshares like Uber and Lyft? What's different about St. Louis?Mound City wrote:Isn't the MTC's stated problem with Uber in St. Louis their refusal to submit to fingerprint background checks and cheekswab drug tests? Are those not examples of "reasonable regulations"? I actually agree with your line of thinking more than anyone else in this thread, but couldn't we flip it around? St. Louis area taxi companies are not without their warts and they need to address those... it's Uber whose entire business model is potentially quite damaging to St. Louis's working class.roger wyoming II wrote:the world has changed and using uber or lyft is just a natural part of what urban people do now.... a friend of mine organized a moderate-sized convention here and there were numerous comments from guests about where was uber. the guy who moved his start-up from San Fran to here and encouraged others to do the same says his peers are completely baffled by out lack of uber.
Using your smartphone to arrange a ride from a trusted party is a convenient, efficient and logical way to do things in the modern world.... uber has warts and it needs to address those, but as long as there are reasonable regulations in place you have to allow it to operate. Not doing so is damaging. And there is absolutely no excuse for MTC not allowing electronic public comments... that is the epitome of the petrification of Saint Louis.
And when a shrinking working class is at or near the top of the list of the City of St. Louis's problems, that's a serious consideration.
I don't think "the sky" will "fall here," I just think it will make things worse. Although I admittedly have no proof, I suspect it has made things worse for the economies of similar midsized, slow-growth markets.dweebe wrote:
So why will the sky fall here when other cities aren't destroyed by rideshares like Uber and Lyft? What's different about St. Louis?
Uber provides reasonable background checks. If it works for Kansas City, it should work for here. Lyft chose not to operate under KC's conditions but Uber has; it has demonstrated in is willing to work within a reasonable regulatory environment. We're the largest Metro that doesn't alow uber; that should tell us something.Mound City wrote: Isn't the MTC's stated problem with Uber in St. Louis their refusal to submit to fingerprint background checks and cheekswab drug tests? Are those not examples of "reasonable regulations"?
Isn't that sort of like saying "the same people who used to fit pipes in the Union can continue doing so as independent contractors (for 70% of their former wage)"? I mean, taxicab medallions aren't exactly like a union, but they serve some of the same function. Working-class cities didn't suddenly stop existing or collapse into anarchy when unions were busted, they just began a slow steady slide into lower purchasing power and higher income inequality.pat wrote:The same people that drive cabs can work for uber.
Given that Uber's business model is built on flooding a market with cheaper labor forcing the workers to compete against themselves on a "make-your-own-hours" basis, and the rides themselves are significantly cheaper than traditional taxis, the economics would suggest so generally. I would imagine in fast-growing markets and "hot cities" like New York, L.A., Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and Denver, Uber drivers probably do okay, but I'm not convinced drivers here would be met with their level of success.pat wrote:^No, my point is that letting in Uber does not eliminate them from jobs. Would they automatically make less working for Uber?
With that logic, St. Louis should be being flooded with disgruntled cab drivers from every other major metropolitan area that already has Uber.Now that I think about it, putting Uber here would probably create a significant incentive for St. Louis area cab drivers to leave St. Louis for greener pastures.
Equating "white privilege" to wanting competition for an incompetent service is quite a stretch.Mound City wrote:This is a lot more along the lines of what Lou Hamilton meant when he said b*tching about Uber in St. Louis is the epitome of white privilege, and he's absolutely right, even if he comes across as a hotheaded dweeb.moorlander wrote:How is it embarrassing? Sure it would be nice to have ride sharing but is it really that big a deal? Do people not have anything else to b**** about?
It's more like if people started hosting diners in their houses, and Applebee's complained that those freelancer hosts were undercutting them by using their children as free labor, dodging health and safety codes, etc.robertn42 wrote: So I guess if the only restaurant in my neighborhood is an Applebee's and Dave Bailey wants to open a joint, Applebee's should be able to block him. And god forbid I form a group to question that, we would be exercising "white privilege".
My brain hurts.
Because Uber would crowd out taxi service the way Wal-Mart crowded out small-town economies across the country and put Mom and Pop to work as minimum wage door greeters instead of entreprenuers.leeharveyawesome wrote:What's wrong with having Uber for the Yuckies (Young Urban Creatives) and taxi service for the regular non-creative people?
Excuse me while Iroger wyoming II wrote: Again, companies like uber aren't virtuous and hopefully society forces them to pursue better social responsibility
Looks like you are I are wrong. St. Louis can't handle ridesharing unlike most other cities. Full steam ahead on our current course with no changes at all.pat wrote:With that logic, St. Louis should be being flooded with disgruntled cab drivers from every other major metropolitan area that already has Uber.Now that I think about it, putting Uber here would probably create a significant incentive for St. Louis area cab drivers to leave St. Louis for greener pastures.
A lot of other cities have Uber. Like evvery single major one besides us. Are you reading about a mass of taxi drivers making less pay or losing out in each of those cities? Uber and the like have been around for 4 years. I haven't heard of an epidemic of taxi drivers being pushed out of the market.
You may think that is funny but I can guarantee you society has a better chance of improving the social responsibility of a company like Uber than a taxi cab company. If you think they treat their folks great you're living in another world.Mound City wrote:Excuse me while Iroger wyoming II wrote: Again, companies like uber aren't virtuous and hopefully society forces them to pursue better social responsibility
