[Dirlewanger]

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

[rayiner]

I hope "your generation" at some point realizes that the challenges facing Uber don't stem from "opposition to the new." People aren't shocked and confused by the sheer novelty and innovation of being able to call a cab with a phone. They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for imposing regulation. If they let Uber and Lyft come in and skim the cream off the top of the market, without having to follow those same regulations, they would be failing to hold up their end of the bargain.

This isn't empty scolding. As "software eats the world" and tech companies start trying to compete in "meat space" industries, it will be imperative for them to understand why things are done the way they are, and how fruitful progress can be made without creating unnecessary friction by simply ignoring settled expectations. People won't react well to someone just plucking the onion out of the varnish unless he can demonstrate that he understands why the onion was in there to begin with, and articulate convincingly why it no longer needs to be in there.

I totally agree that the structural compromise that led to taxi monopolies need to be revisited. But not because Uber and Lyft change the market dynamics in any relevant way. These monopolies need to be revisited because highly regulated markets like that have proven to become a liability over time, and the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better.

[eli]

I'm with you on a lot of that, but:

"...the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better"

Uh, I'm really not interested in an economics debate, but I think many people would disagree with that blanket assertion. The deregulated electric market in California springs to mind as one counter-example.

Some of the supposedly evil taxi regulations that Uber has been fighting here in DC actually seem pretty reasonable to me. I'm OK with Uber drivers being required to have extra car insurance and the city making sure that the GPS-based meter system is accurate.

[dbingham]

I was with you right up until the last sentence. I do not think it is fair to say that "the deregulation experiment has shown that lightly regulated markets function better". This is how we wound up with the 2008 crash, the ascendency of finance and the absurd wealth gap we currently have.

[rayiner]

Historically in the U.S., "regulation" implied heavy-handed measures like rate setting, price controls, capacity setting, market segmentation, granting monopolies, etc. Scaling back those measures has been very successful. For example, deregulation of freight and airlines in the 1970's allowed the modern integrated delivery networks that make Amazon possible. The trend since then has been to avoid these particularly heavy-handed and market-distorting sorts of measures. I don't think even proponents of heavier banking regulations espouse regulating banks in the way we say regulated passenger railroads (which killed them).

In the context of cabs, a "lightly regulated" regime might require background checks, minimum insurance, and some sort of mechanism for verifying driver identity and reporting problems. Variables like rates, capacity, coverage area, etc, could be left to the market.

[Shivetya]

Deregulation didn't create the wealth gap. Government regulation favoring aligned interest (read: political donors) created a regulatory environment with sufficient holes and guarantees to allow this accumulation of wealth. Go look at the history of Congress, how many come out richer or become vastly richer afterward?

Deregulation does work in many industries, regulation should never be a barrier to entry into an industry but that is what it has evolved into. It is not there to keep the public safe, to ensure pricing, or even to maintain consistency of service, it is there to protect established interest and their political backers/beneficiaries.

[pmorici]

"They're reacting to companies trampling over settled expectations and compromises. Municipalities created these regulated taxi systems, and used monopoly status as a carrot in return for imposing regulation."

Has anyone looked at if taxi companies actually hold up their end of the bargain? In Baltimore taxis routinely refuse to make pickups in various parts of town either because they are out of the way or because they are perceived to be "bad".

With something like a taxi that you hail from the street and don't know what you are getting into before you get in some light regulation is reasonable for accident and scam reduction But a brand like Uber that achieves those same goals through different means shouldn't be pushed out of existence and of all laws to pass limiting the number of drivers is just a blatant attempt to protect existing taxi's

[hnnewguy]

>In Baltimore taxis routinely refuse to make pickups in various parts of town either because they are out of the way or because they are perceived to be "bad".

And Uber is solving this how? Bad neighbourhoods are bad neighbourhoods.

It sounds like one solution to this problem is to mandate that taxis cannot discriminate. That smells like regulation.

[pmorici]

I think you are missing the point Taxi companies in Baltimore already have a regulation that they can't discriminate. They ignore it, there appear to be no enforcement consequences for doing so so why would they follow it?

Uber has no such regulation yet people who use it report having an easier time getting a cab in parts of town Taxi's discriminate against.

There are several things Uber does that make it less of a problem for them. Drivers feel safer since the interaction is pre-vetted through Uber. It's cashless so not much to rob. You know the person you are going to meet must have it together enough to have a functioning credit card, smartphone, and cell service.

Uber removes drivers that decline too many fares (good drivers accept like 90%). When a fare is offered to a driver they only have 12 seconds to accept it and they only show the driver a very zoomed in map of the location and the estimated drive time to the location. So even if one driver is discriminating the offer will be quickly routed to the next closest driver until one accepts it.

[dubfan]

> You know the person you are going to meet must have it together enough to have a functioning credit card, smartphone, and cell service.

That's a poor heuristic. Ted Bundy had it together enough to get into law school.

[harryh]

Heuristic refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

[djur]

To the vast majority of people outside the venture/startup scene, "disrupt" is a bad word. It means throwing the silverware on the ground and taking a dump in the punch bowl.

The fact that businesses still routinely use that piece of jargon suggests to me that they're completely stuck in the tech bubble.

[BrainInAJar]

> confronted with something they've never seen before

But we have seen it before, these are just illegal unlicensed cabs. There is literally nothing separating Uber from an illegal cab, except that they've got an app for that.

[rmc]

Highly likely. Remember what happened when the 1960s generation of free love and drugs got in power and legalised weed, and promoted sex? Yeah me either

[yardie]

You highly overestimate the influence that hippies had on the day to day of that era. Those guys are still into free love and weed. They just do it from inside the safety of their communes.

[cle]

Maybe our perception of the 1960s generation is a good example of the spotlight fallacy.

[benched]

That's like expecting the goth subculture to result in more eyeliner in congress one day.

[dclowd9901]

I think it's likely that there is a correlation between the longevity of a person, and their level of conservativeness. Wouldn't surprise me if most older people are, by nature, pretty restrictive.

[riggins]

of course existing companies are going to fight back by any means possible. You can't expect them to lay down a carpet for Uber.