[eviltandem]

The market has spoken. Uber as a service has shown itself to be wildly better and more loved than traditional cab services in every city where it's gone head to head in open competition with traditional taxi services.

Unfortunately people are morons that don't know how to make the "right" choice. We will be conveniently layering bureaucracy and laws on top of all of this to make sure the clearly inferior product wins by fiat of the government.

You would all thank us but you're obviously too stupid to know what's best for you.

[Quarrelsome]

You don't think its worth protecting the trade of taxi-driving? Used to be the case you could make good tradesman money to be able to afford a house and a family on a taxi salary. Post-Uber that wont be so.

Is it "stupid" to want jobs that arguably require "less-skill" to not pay out a decent wage? Are we going to try to force more and more into university and leave those that don't fit in that box to work towards minimum wage? Taxi driving in London has long been a way of making a working class individual's life much better in exchange for the investment of the cost of the cab and licence.

[eviltandem]

I think fundamentally you have 2 arguments here.

First your argument is does one have a right to make money doing something the same way it was done yesterday? Or 10 or 20 years ago?

At one time you could make good money operating an elevator. Do we ban buttons in elevators to protect these jobs?

So no. No I don't think it's on societies best interest to outlaw buttons in elevators. New technology is happening that fundamentally de-values what a driver now does. It's unfair but it's maybe time for new jobs. That's simply best for society as a whole. The amount we all collectively save will vastly dwarf anything these few get by holding back the tide.

Two - the old system sucked. It was terrible. It still is. Taxis in NYC were already a cesspool of con-men and corruption. Lives were ruined in the buying and selling of medallions. The cars sucked, the drivers refused to go places, the ONLY reason it survived at all was the government forced it down our throats.

Uber won because people like it better. No matter what you say about any of it - people decided they VASTLY prefer pressing their own button in the elevator. It's sad but it's life.

So yes, it is "stupid" to fight this when everyone using these services has so clearly said the new way is better.

[Quarrelsome]

I agree but we do pay subsidies to industries we wish to protect. Why not protect this way of life?

The EU's CAP is huge protection and in the US I'm sure there are all sorts of subsidises industries that "don't deserve it".

From the perspective of the working man this argument just seems to push down their wages but not allow other industries to pop.

[kofejnik]

> You don't think its worth protecting the trade of taxi-driving? Used to be the case you could make good tradesman money to be able to afford a house and a family on a taxi salary.

No. Regulated taxis used to be a racket; of course they provided (somewhat) decent living for those who participated, although most money went to the medallion ownert.

I don't see why the needs of a few thousand cabbies (per city) should trump the needs of the millions who clearly prefer Uber.

[Quarrelsome]

So why do farmers in the EU deserve protection or coal in the US? We do subsidise some things. What makes that choice happen?

[karakot]

lobbying

[Quarrelsome]

^^ which is kinda my point and also arguably reasons for shit like Brexit. If we, the intelligentsia make "no subsidies" arguments for taking away well paying jobs for the working classes while allowing other (lobbied) industries to accept subsidies then we're making ourselves complicit in the hypocrisy.

[kofejnik]

you can subsidise the poor cabbies all you want, as long as you don't take Uber away from me

also, don't call me 'intelligetsia', it is insulting