[imagist]

> Despite horrible service, a forced monopoly, and continual racist crimes, you want to support the incumbent system.

That's half of what I said. I also described why I want to support the current system.

> Taxi drivers pay ~$200 a day to rent their medallion - if they don't make more than that, they've worked all day for a loss.

So is the solution to that reform of the medallion system, or is it switching over to a silicon valley startup which will likely become just as exploitative if it isn't already?

> If you support taxi companies you're abusing the drivers by perpetuating a broken system.

If you support Uber, you're abusing the drivers by replacing a broken system with another broken system.

I don't want to support taxi companies, I want to support taxi drivers.

I'll say it again: if you remove all the nuance from what I'm saying, you can use my words to support anything, but I'm not really interested in engaging in this hamfisted debate.

[EdHominem]

> I also described why I want to support the current system.

Right "Local business owners". But Taxi drivers aren't. They're contractors without any of the benefits of being an employee, or of owning the business. Uber drivers meet all those criteria and more.

Taxi drivers pay to rent their medallion, guaranteeing the rent-seeking owner their profits even on days when the poor driver goes negative. Uber drivers don't even get in their cars until the app lights up. Taxi businesses are clearly predatory and wouldn't be allowed if they were proposed today.

[imagist]

Just like store owners pay rent for their building...

I'm not saying the rent seeking is good--on the contrary, I think it's very bad. But the fact is that your views on which is better for drivers are not shared by drivers. You're also only looking at the current situation--I have a lot more trust that taxi laws can be reformed than that a large amoral corporation whose business is built around loopholes in regulation will self-regulate against their own interests. Even if you think Uber is better for drivers now, I doubt that will be the case for long.

[EdHominem]

> I have a lot more trust that taxi laws can be reformed than that a large amoral corporation [...]

Taxi companies are large amoral corporations too. And if we were going to reform Taxi law (not to build higher walls, but to help drivers) we'd have done it a century ago, so I question that trust.

> the fact is that your views on which is better for drivers are not shared by drivers.

> Even if you think Uber is better for drivers

Which drivers? The Uber drivers I've talked to have liked the easy hours and no-hassle shift selection - including the ability to wait for surge pricing. They love the risk-free factor in that they get a percentage of every dollar earned, without having to hit a minimum like a cabbie. (Not to mention the concept of going in the hole.) None of them considered themselves a career driver, they all have a reason for being between other jobs.

I've spoken to two groups of cabbies, those who rent a medallion, and those who own (a share of) a medallion. The owners dislike Uber in the same way they'd dislike a new competitor coming in and doubling the number of cabs in the city. The renters see Uber/Lyft/etc as just another boss.

I've never talked to an employee driver who was upset by ridesharing companies.