[RandoHolmes]

> These jobs did not exist pre-ride-sharing companies.

Is it your contention that taxi's didn't exist pre-Uber? Or that Taxi's weren't jobs done by ordinary people?

I can tell you as someone who is over 40, I would regularly form relationships with Taxi drivers so that I could simply call them up and ask them if they'd be available on X day, X time, and if they could use the "special" rate, and the answer was yes. Where special rate meant paying just them and not the taxi company I met them through.

There is nothing special about Uber or Lyft, and if they leave California the existing Taxi company's will fill in the gap.

[aetherson]

My contention is that the number of people driving taxis pre-Uber was vastly less than the number of taxi drivers plus Uber drivers plus Lyft drivers, and the total number of rides-for-hire was vastly lower pre-Uber than post.

[syshum]

>> "special" rate,

Pretty sure that is illegal, if not it is unethical

> if they leave California the existing Taxi company's will fill in the gap.

Clearly there was a demand for something other than taxi's, while you seemed to like it, and did unethical things to get your rate lower. For most people they found the taxi service to be unappealing and over priced, Thus uber and lyft where born

[unishark]

In places like New York, the taxi medallion is only required for picking up people on the street. If the customer calls them up it is a different story, anyone can operate that way (so I don't see why a taxi driver can't do it too on their own time). This is why Uber can exist, regardless whether their drivers are employees or independent.

[syshum]

Does the driver own and maintain the car they are using for this moonlighting?

[RandoHolmes]

No one is saying that current laws aren't bullshit, they obviously are.

The point is that that if Uber goes away, it won't stop people from paying for rides.

It's a bit like claiming if Hershey's claimed that people would stop eating chocolate if they couldn't abuse their relationship with local governments to get water rights they have no business having.

Noooooooo, people will still like Chocolate, it's just that more "moral" companies will replace them.

If anything, the value of chocolate will go up and that's perfectly acceptable.

[syshum]

>>it won't stop people from paying for rides.

It will stop some people, The number of people that use Uber and Lyft massively exceeds the number of people that used Taxis before them

There is a reason for this, and if your solution is well people will just use taxis" clearly that was not the case.

>>If anything, the value of chocolate will go up and that's perfectly acceptable

I see you are speaking from a position of Wealth Privilege..

I wonder if you would feel the same if that price increase was in something less of luxury good like Wheat or corn where a price increase would be counted in lives not dollars

[RandoHolmes]

Why would it be unethical to cut out the middle man??

Oh nooo!?!?! How dare I hire that blogger directly, I'll go to jail/be fined for not going through a hiring agency!?!?!

You realize that stupid opinions exist, right?

[syshum]

Does the driver own and maintain the car they are using for this moonlighting?

Does the blogger have an exclusive agreement with the agency?

Is the blogger using agency resources to complete your work?

[RandoHolmes]

omg, you're so right!

The blogger had to be scouted by the agency, which used agency resources, therefore the blogger is totally liable for that risk!!!!!oneoneoneneoneshiftoneshiftoneshiftoneshiftone.

--

Imagine a world in which the risk is taken on by yourself and not others... but of course that's totes not possibru...