[AnimalMuppet]

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Uber takes 25% of the fare. But let's say that the alternative is old-style taxi companies, and they were protected from competition by the medallion system. They were not exactly lean-and-mean companies. What percent did they lose by inefficiency? Less than 25%, or more? And is losing it to inefficiency better than losing it to Uber, or worse?

Note well: I do not have answers for these questions. But I think the questions are interesting.

[piva00]

Define inefficiency, I'd much rather pay for local inefficiency which is still money changing hands in my local economy rather than paying a bit less for my money to be siphoned out of my local economy with increased efficiency.

Losing to Uber means my money is not being used in my economy, it goes away, it pays a few devs/local staff while it's stashed away in other financialised assets that do not help my neighbours (well, perhaps it helps the richest ones).

[spdionis]

What if you get a much better service from Uber?

Most local produce initatives fail because they're not actually better than the global/international variants, especially considered from a price/quality pov.

[JohnTHaller]

Uber is generally more expensive than yellow cabs in NYC these days.