[vkou]

> I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How?

Uber and sharecropping firms like it compete with eachother, as well as with traditional taxi firms.

As I understand it, traditional taxi firms are already largely in compliance with the proposed legislature.

The demand for taxis is not going to go away anywhere. You can operate a taxi company (traditional, or sharecropper) with, or without prop 22. The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

[imgabe]

Something can't simultaneously have inelastic demand and also be a luxury good. Those things are kind of opposite.

Demand for taxis has dropped a lot because of Uber. Uber also gets passengers who would have otherwise not made the trip, taken a bus, or driven drunk. If Uber is no longer an option they'll go back to those options,not to taxis.

> The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

The price of rides makes a big difference and hugely effects demand. I don't know why you're treating it like it doesn't matter. Lower prices open the service up to more people. Indoor plumbing was once a luxury good. Generally progress means turning luxuries into commodities, not the opposite.