[bsder]

> I want to push back on calling Uber's methods to avoiding regulations to be unethical, separately from discussing the wages.

Nope. Uber doesn't get a pass.

Uber could have confined themselves to the secondary cities with terrible cab service. Basically that's any city in the US other than New York and Chicago. People would (and some did!) have greeted them like liberators. For example, taxi service in Las Vegas was horrible until ridesharing showed up. San Diego taxis to the airport never showed up on time before ridesharing. etc.

Had Uber built up a commanding service in these secondary cities, they would have had all the momentum they needed to run over the incumbents in New York legally.

But, no, Uber decided they couldn't simply be a profitable business. Oh, no, they have to be unicorn-level and that wouldn't happen unless they were in the biggest cities right off. And then, when they showed up, they didn't even try to follow regulations with a fig leaf and were operating blatantly illegally.

And this is all on top of the fact that Uber and Lyft are skirting minimum wage laws.

[bubblethink]

But why ? You start with the place with the most impact and deal with the long tail later. So NYC should be the first. Several states don't allow direct sales of electric vehicles despite how well it works in other states. It's a pointless legal issue that will drag on for years/decades. If Tesla et al. had the same impunity and legal cover as Uber, they would be selling everywhere, and we would all be better off.

[bsder]

> But why ? You start with the place with the most impact and deal with the long tail later. So NYC should be the first.

Because your "long tail" of poorly functional taxi systems consisted of cities like Los Angeles, Houston, and San Diego. These aren't tiny even when compared to New York. "Most impact" should be the largest city without a functional taxi system. THOSE should have been the focus and then you would have had demand pull into New York and Chicago.

But, no, Uber wanted the "growth hack" of burning VC cash to transfer a bunch of people from the already functional taxi system into the ridesharing system.

> If Tesla et al. had the same impunity and legal cover as Uber, they would be selling everywhere, and we would all be better off.

Laws exist for a reason. Sometimes, such as the case of Tesla, those laws go out of date and should be changed. The medallion system, however, came into existence to avoid malfeasance by drivers. And, as we have seen, as Uber has reduced pay to the drivers, we are getting the exact problems medallions were put in place to solve.

[U6XWpjvdqi4xTPJ]

Don't allow direct sales of vehicles*

Let's not pretend that it's limited to EVs. EV makers are just the only ones who think they're special and shouldn't need to follow the law. shrug

[U6XWpjvdqi4xTPJ]

> Uber could have confined themselves to the secondary cities with terrible cab service.

They've improved certain qualities of cab service here in Austin (like availability) but they've also severely diminished other qualities (like knowing that your driver won't drive straight past the exit because they don't speak English and don't know the roads and don't look at their GPS; or like demand-based pricing).

> People would (and some did!) have greeted them like liberators.

Yeah, because they were running a huge loss-leader to make themselves seem better than the competition until the competition was gone.

I agree that they don't get a pass but... ugh. Their practices, ignoring all law and regulation which apply to them, were not/are not okay no matter where they took place.