Uber: Thom's support for a race to the bottom

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

47 posts / 0 new

Is Thom a paid shill for Uber? Sounds like it based on the virtual (impromptu?) commercial he just gave. I'll have to check his sponsors. Uber et. al. are parasites on the back of the cab industry. And here, I thought, based on his own words, Thom supported a level playing field. Taxi drivers have to put skin in the game and are subject to city restrictions. Regulated vs non-regulated. You'd think Thom would side with the industry that's regulated. Thom put his intellectual laziness on full display this morning. That's typically what people do when they stick their head in the sand.

I'm typing with one finger on my cell phone at the moment, so I'll provide links later. But Thom has ample time to research the race to the bottom he endorsed. Again, I thought Thom believed in a middle class and being able to support a family. I guess that's true unless it's convenient for Thom not to.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

He probably recognized that the requirement of "putting skin in the game" to drive a f-ing taxi is absurd. People should have every opportunity they can to make a living without having to pay to play.

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 4:26 pm

That's exactly what a scab says, Uber. Scabs don't want to have to put in the time with a union to become an iron or sheet metal worker. Regulated vs Unregulated, Uber Guy. I thought we stood for a level playing field around here. This guy here says unfair competition is good.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Babblelot:

That's exactly what a scab says, Uber. Scabs don't want to have to put in the time with a union to become an iron or sheet metal worker. Regulated vs Unregulated, Uber Guy. I thought we stood for a level playing field around here. This guy here says unfair competition is good.

Regulation is unfair competition.

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 4:26 pm

I wondered if anyone would catch Hartmann's admission with respect to using Uber.

Whichever side you come down on, Uber or union drivers, it is totally hypocritical for a socialist like Hartmann who has been complaining for years about the shrinking union participation in this country to be caught even considering using Uber as a means of transportation. He knows damn well they are non-union drivers and even mentioning the fact he uses Uber is an embarrassment to himself.

Maybe best to chalk it up with his Chinese slave labor manufactured I-Phone, airport put me through the line first perks, and Bank of America corporate credit card, as classic "do as I say, not as I do" rhetoric.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

I happen to use Uber as a driver during the summer, when I'm not teaching. I don't do it just for the money, although the extra $400 or so it brings me per week is nice. I mainly do it because I find it enjoyable.

Yes, that's about $400 AFTER gas, Uber's cut, depreciation, etc. I work about 15 hours per week. I make the most just shuttling people from the airport to downtown and back.

Notice I said "use Uber as a driver" and not "drive for Uber". They are very specific about letting all of the drivers know that you do NOT work for them. The drivers are simply paying a fee (20%) of each ride to Uber for 1. Coordinating the rides, 2. Doing background checks and other administrative things, and 3. Handling the exchange of funds between driver and rider.

I know, it's one of those subtle semantic differences that lawyers love and most people hate. But that's the way it is.

They are very anti-cash. All credit cards from the riders, and direct deposits to the drivers.

I've never met or spoken to a single person from Uber. I followed an online process, which included uploading some documents, and within five days I was using their service to pair me with passengers who needed rides.

In a sense, it's kind of like Angie's List. Or even an internet dating site. They just match drivers with riders.

Traditional taxi companies are like any other business that has to deal with new technology making their services obsolete. (Like print newspapers, for example. Sure, they still exist, but only as a shell of what they once were.)

I predict UHaul and other truck rental companies will fall under the technological axe within five years as well. It's only a matter of time before there's a service that matches people with trucks/pickups/vans to people who need to move something big.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 12:29 pm
Quote Maine:

He probably recognized that the requirement of "putting skin in the game" to drive a f-ing taxi is absurd. People should have every opportunity they can to make a living without having to pay to play.

Your reply brings up a more subtle point, Uber Boy. Maybe your Uber drivers can't get a Taxi license, not because they're hard to get, but because Uber Boy isn't deemed a safe driver for one reason or two or three others.

Seriously, if you're trying to make an honest living, go get a taxi/chauffuer license. The pay is better (read: why are you and Thom endorsing a race to the bottom?).

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ChicagoMatt:

I happen to use Uber as a driver during the summer, when I'm not teaching. I don't do it just for the money, although the extra $400 or so it brings me per week is nice. I mainly do it because I find it enjoyable...

Matt, you might as well start your own thread called, "Hey, I drove FOR Uber!" since your reply missed the mark here by a wide margin. What do you teach, the art of setting a smoke screen?

Let's get back on topic. Courts are ruling against Uber because, and make no mistake, their business model was built on exploiting a legal loophole. Now courts are saying, "No, Uber, you're not what you say you are." And Uber's upset because it's going to affect the value of their stock. Thom gave this fact short shrift this morning following his glowing endorsement. But, as I said above, better not to look while Uber is being sued left and right...and losing, when it's convenient not to.

P.S. Tell your students to prompt other readers before barfing up a wordy non sequitur, so that the reader knows it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Matt may have been right on with the intent of Uber drivers. Part time, hours they select, self employment in it's finest form with income variable enough so they can make up for all the work hours obamacare has destroyed.

Hartmann's two faced endorsement is really no revelation.

E.g. Cheerleader for Sanders immediately followed by voluminous support for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wife.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Babblelot:
Quote Maine:

He probably recognized that the requirement of "putting skin in the game" to drive a f-ing taxi is absurd. People should have every opportunity they can to make a living without having to pay to play.

Your reply brings up a more subtle point, Uber Boy. Maybe your Uber drivers can't get a Taxi license, not because they're hard to get, but because Uber Boy isn't deemed a safe driver for one reason or two or three others.

Seriously, if you're trying to make an honest living, go get a taxi/chauffuer license. The pay is better (read: why are you and Thom endorsing a race to the bottom?).

$1 Million bucks to drive a taxi? No thanks. I'll mooch off the welfare state instead.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million/

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 4:26 pm

When I travel I rent cars and drive myself. Does that make me bad because I do not use the local taxi's? Am I a scab? Are taxi's unionized? When I get a haircut I do not look for a unionized barber. Does that make me bad? I choose my services by my own methods.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Yes, it makes you a total hypocrite when you run leftie radio show based on the ever shrinking number on union members in the United State.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

So then it should be okay for me to let's say park curb side at the airport, put for hire sign on the dashboard no matter what my driving record is or if I even have a drivers license or what kind of insurance I carry (if any)?

Cool, I could use some pocket change now and then. Screw it, something happens...so sue me. I ain't got nothing anyways.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm

Rather than just popping off. Do a bit of research on driver requirements from the Uber website.

https://www.uber.com/

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Instead of just popping off dex....it's about nonregulation and if uber has the right why don't I? Because I could careless what uber wants, I only care about what I want.

See how that works?

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm

Legend has started an interesting bread trail though.........

You want to finish it Legend? Or should I attempt it?

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm
Quote rs allen:

So then it should be okay for me to let's say park curb side at the airport, put for hire sign on the dashboard no matter what my driving record is or if I even have a drivers license or what kind of insurance I carry (if any)?

Cool, I could use some pocket change now and then. Screw it, something happens...so sue me. I ain't got nothing anyways.

Is it Okay? Yes. Legal? No.

I don't even think a little girl can legally start a lemonade stand on her parents' front sidewalk without paying the piper. Shame really.

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 4:26 pm

Can you think of any reasons it shouldn't be legal? Keep in mind you're just an unknowing consumer wanting a ride home.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm

And if memory serves, the lemonade stand bs you so cavalierly threw in there took place in what is probably your dream land state of good'ol Texas.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm
Quote Dexterous:

Yes, it makes you a total hypocrite when you run leftie radio show based on the ever shrinking number on union members in the United State.

Who is the hypocrite. You call Bernie a socialist every chance you get yet you use socialist highways, Libraries, Fire Departments, Police etc. Almost all of the infrastructure in this country and most countries is socialist. I have no misgivings about renting cars when I travel rather than using taxi's.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Not that anyone really cares, but I want to point out:

- Drivers who use Uber to pair them with passengers aren't allowed to use the Taxi lanes at the airport or big convention centers, in Chicago at least. I have to pick up my passengers in front of the hotel that is on airport grounds. That means the passengers have to walk twice as far as they would for a taxi, yet they still do it.

- Public transportation also takes away business from Taxis, yet Liberals never attack that. It's only $2.50 to take the El from O'Hare to downtown Chicago. How many taxi drivers is that low fair putting out of business?

- Uber does require vehicle inspections and background checks on those who use their service. And if too many passengers give you a low rating, you are locked out of their service.

- Pretty much anything you do for yourself or a friend could be seen as taking money from a union person. Just two weeks ago I lent my drain snake to a friend, who had a clog in his sink. That's technically a union plumber's job, right? Hell, even bagging your own groceries at the supermarket is taking a job from a SEIU employee.

- Ever bought generic drugs because they were cheaper? Do you feel bad about taking money out of the hands of the pharmacuetical industry workers? No? Why not? Because they "have enough money"? That's pretty judgemental of you, determining how much money is enough to warrant allowing a cheaper alternative for consumers.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 12:29 pm

If you want to start a libertarian argument over roads and fire departments, do so.

As for Sanders, he IS a Socialist. Live with it.

Whether you rent, buy, taxi, or Uber I don't care. We are discussing Hartmann's hypocrisy with respect to union labor vs. the right to work for less, to couch it in terms you pinheads can understand.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am

Much of WHAT we have left to enjoy today is what is the remains of socialist ideas dex. Live with it.

As to the point of the thread. It's rather up to Thom to address, I won't speak for him. For myself I won't use Uber or any of it's off shoots even if it costs me.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm
Quote Legend:

When I travel I rent cars and drive myself. Does that make me bad because I do not use the local taxi's? Am I a scab? Are taxi's unionized? When I get a haircut I do not look for a unionized barber. Does that make me bad? I choose my services by my own methods.

Like Thom's, yours and other's cognitive dissonance makes it hard to address the matter. You want to drive? Rent a car allows you to drive. That's a pro-Uber argument? Thom always says he has the smartest listeners in the world. I guess it doesn't transfer to the message board.

Part-time lark vs Profession. Doesn't that sound familiar? That's the Walmart business model; using part-time employees to undermine full-time wages, not just at Walmart, but throughout the industry.

This is like the, "We need products made in America vs I want to pay made in China prices" dichodomy.

Finally, cab drivers raise revenue for the city's infrastructure through various fees.

Maine, you not a serious person. You don't need to buy a medallion to drive a cab.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yeah I remember trying to make that connection with workers that just lost their jobs at the local shoe plant some years ago now (ahem, early 90's). They really liked buying shoes at Walmart for x amount of money but still wanted their high paying jobs at home making shoes.

Eh, maybe it was just because we were at the VFW hall where the beer was cheap.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm
Quote Babblelot:
Quote Legend:

When I travel I rent cars and drive myself. Does that make me bad because I do not use the local taxi's? Am I a scab? Are taxi's unionized? When I get a haircut I do not look for a unionized barber. Does that make me bad? I choose my services by my own methods.

Like Thom's, yours and other's cognitive dissonance makes it hard to address the matter. You want to drive? Rent a car allows you to drive. That's a pro-Uber argument? Thom always says he has the smartest listeners in the world. I guess it doesn't transfer to the message board.

Part-time lark vs Profession. Doesn't that sound familiar? That's the Walmart business model; using part-time employees to undermine full-time wages, not just at Walmart, but throughout the industry.

This is like the, "We need products made in America vs I want to pay made in China prices" dichodomy.

Finally, cab drivers raise revenue for the city's infrastructure through various fees.

Maine, you not a serious person. You don't need to buy a medallion to drive a cab.

I do not understand your babble. But to clarify, when I go to the local airport I rent a car and drive. Costs about $40 plus $5 in gas and I can use the car for up to 24 hours. If I take taxi it is about $150 for the 60 mile drive. Return is about $5 more for airport fees. So If Thom rents a car to go from his boat to the Dulles Airport instead of a taxi is he being hypocritical because he is not using a Union taxi? To me it is a no brainer. Also I could not tell you if my local taxi's are union or not. Or which of the different taxi companies are union or not. I do not remember seeing a union label. People make different choices for different reasons. I personally avoid Walmart because of its business ethics. Does that mean I am screwing the Walmart workers who I would support in a strike?

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

As far as renting a car as opposed to renting both a driver and a car, they are really two differing options dependent upon different needs and wants at the time. And not necessarily strictly based on economic reasons. There are any number of reasons one may choose one over the other.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm

A few months ago I read a long article about uber. While I can't recall much in the way of details, it left a strong impression on me that uber isn't doing the taxi business any favors, or its drivers either; and I'm talking about uber's drivers. Any business model that does not serve the interests of its workers is something I'm against. I certainly wouldn't want to support it with my patronage.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 10:42 am

Middle class.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Norman Goldman just dismantled the Right-Wing Dream come true economy: The Gig Economy, in which there are no employers and people work several part-time gigs. No employees means no cumbersome employer health insurance. And since technology always leads law, the techies make billions until the law catches up.

Anyway, it's nice to hear someone out there gets it!

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rs allen:

Much of WHAT we have left to enjoy today is what is the remains of socialist ideas dex. Live with it.

As to the point of the thread. It's rather up to Thom to address, I won't speak for him. For myself I won't use Uber or any of it's off shoots even if it costs me.

Now I know why Thom's always reading DU. I think I'll just go repost this over there.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Another example is many cities (especially at the airports) it is just as cheap to rent a limo (nice car with a driver) as it is to take a taxi. Especially if you are in a group. Does this make Thom a hypocrite if he chooses to take a limo from Dulles Airport to his boat?

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

One of the reasons that I rent a car to go to the airport is from lessons I learned when I lived closer to the airport and did take cabs. Calling for a cab and none showing up thus making you late for a flight. Another is waiting in line at the airport to get a taxi. Cost. One time I had to fly to Tucson on short notice. I left my car at my daughters house. I hate parking at the airport. Took a cab to the airport and back when I returned. MY RT taxi fare was more than my RT airfare.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am
Quote Legend:

But to clarify, when I go to the local airport I rent a car and drive. Costs about $40 plus $5 in gas and I can use the car for up to 24 hours. If I take taxi it is about $150 for the 60 mile drive. Return is about $5 more for airport fees. So If Thom rents a car to go from his boat to the Dulles Airport instead of a taxi is he being hypocritical because he is not using a Union taxi? To me it is a no brainer.

Crystal clear, Legend. People who need to rationalize their behavior will go to great lengths barfing up a wordy (or two) tangential response justifying their behavior.

You are now legendary at this technique.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Matt, let me tell you a thing or two about Chicago. Chicago is Uber's fastest growing markets. Coincidentally (not), the Mayor's brother has a huge stake in Uber and stands to make $1 Billion. Rahm says, "No conflict of interest" and continues to pave the way for more expansion. At this time, Rahm is trying to get the Uber parasites into airports. Currently, drivers wait 90 minutes in the staging area at O'Hare before they can get one fare out. More cars you say? Cab drivers disagree and are fighting the Idiot Mayor.

Babblelot's picture
Babblelot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Regulation often times intentionally creates barriers to entry. Uber offers a way for low skilled workers to earn a living without the incredibly steep up front costs required by Government. An up front cost designed for one thing, to protect entrenched business interests. Crony capitalism at its finest.

It offers flexibly to students making their way through college. It offers night work for those just out of college to pick up some extra dough to pay off their student loans. It offers opportunity to improve their lives.

Why do consumers choose Uber over taxis? From my perspective, most cabs I have been in are smelly, have rude drivers who drive rather crazily. Their business does not require them to be customer freindly as Government mandates made them the only option. With Uber, and its driver rating system, providing a good customer service is required. Otherwise no one will choose the bad drivers.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

I owned a medallion cab in NYC for 20 years. I also was on the board of a guild that represented drivers. Right now, UBER has been in a fight with DeBlasio. While I totally agree with the opening poster, there has been a couple of points that no one seems to bring up which are quite important. In NYC, the mayor MUST be concerned about the environmental impact on the quality of life in the city. Road space is finite..the more cars, the more traffic, the more congestion, the more pollution.

In the 1920s, the cab industry in NYC was unregulated. With the depression of 1929, many people got thrown out of work. Many had the idea, "Oh, let me become a cabdriver." The result, crippling traffic, smog, and the drivers were cutting a pie so much that they each got crumbs. Plus crime increased by the drivers. The city decided to regulate the industry, by limiting the number of cars with medallions on them. Only they could pick up. The enforcement bureau was in the NYC police dept. and it was called the hack bureau. Drivers had to take a test, and were checked.

So, it is very important for environmental reasons and for driver compensation to find the right number of cabs that takes care of community needs, and insures that drivers make a decent living.

I lived the experience. Too many cars on the road leads to less money made for the driver. As I told everyone i knew, you cannot gear a taxi system to the maximum need required at the rush hours. A driver must steadily work for 10-12 hours. There must be business for all drivers in the non rush hours too. If you had enough cabs for everyone who needs them at rush hour...think about it, there would be gridlock.

So, a big city MUST regulate a cab industry. To think otherwise makes it a libertarian nightmare and the UBER dream. Thom, I ask you to stop using UBER!

fudgemeister's picture
fudgemeister
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2015 6:11 pm

It seems to me that many uber drivers are part time and use it to supplement their income. Laws prohibit them from driving around picking up passengers from the streets, only pick up folks who specifically request a ride through the app. It seems to me this creates a flexible supply in a way that traditional taxis do not.

It is the cabbies driving around looking for fares polluting the environment and causing unnecessary traffic, not uber drivers driving to specific fares.

This whole controversy is about one thing, using regulation to shut down competition. Crony capitalism at its finest.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am
Quote Dexterous:

Matt may have been right on with the intent of Uber drivers. Part time, hours they select, self employment in it's finest form with income variable enough so they can make up for all the work hours obamacare has destroyed.

Gee Dexie... heaven forbid you ever stop being a right wing partisan hack. Even though you're on record being against free trade you're ignoring the millions of jobs lost to outsourcing and the millions of more jobs destroyed by neoliberal ideas on deregulation that destroyed our economy. I think it's clear that right wing ideas have destroyed millions of more jobs than Obamacare may have. That being said... the problem here is the right is also standing in the way of having a sane national Single Payer health care program that could get employers out from providing health insurance.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Babblelot:
Quote Legend:

But to clarify, when I go to the local airport I rent a car and drive. Costs about $40 plus $5 in gas and I can use the car for up to 24 hours. If I take taxi it is about $150 for the 60 mile drive. Return is about $5 more for airport fees. So If Thom rents a car to go from his boat to the Dulles Airport instead of a taxi is he being hypocritical because he is not using a Union taxi? To me it is a no brainer.

Crystal clear, Legend. People who need to rationalize their behavior will go to great lengths barfing up a wordy (or two) tangential response justifying their behavior.

You are now legendary at this technique.

Babble, you can do what I do, skip what you do not want to read. Be intelligent not an a!!

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am
Quote fudgemeister:

I owned a medallion cab in NYC for 20 years. I also was on the board of a guild that represented drivers. Right now, UBER has been in a fight with DeBlasio. While I totally agree with the opening poster, there has been a couple of points that no one seems to bring up which are quite important. In NYC, the mayor MUST be concerned about the environmental impact on the quality of life in the city. Road space is finite..the more cars, the more traffic, the more congestion, the more pollution.

In the 1920s, the cab industry in NYC was unregulated. With the depression of 1929, many people got thrown out of work. Many had the idea, "Oh, let me become a cabdriver." The result, crippling traffic, smog, and the drivers were cutting a pie so much that they each got crumbs. Plus crime increased by the drivers. The city decided to regulate the industry, by limiting the number of cars with medallions on them. Only they could pick up. The enforcement bureau was in the NYC police dept. and it was called the hack bureau. Drivers had to take a test, and were checked.

So, it is very important for environmental reasons and for driver compensation to find the right number of cabs that takes care of community needs, and insures that drivers make a decent living.

I lived the experience. Too many cars on the road leads to less money made for the driver. As I told everyone i knew, you cannot gear a taxi system to the maximum need required at the rush hours. A driver must steadily work for 10-12 hours. There must be business for all drivers in the non rush hours too. If you had enough cabs for everyone who needs them at rush hour...think about it, there would be gridlock.

So, a big city MUST regulate a cab industry. To think otherwise makes it a libertarian nightmare and the UBER dream. Thom, I ask you to stop using UBER!

Well I commend your honesty for admitting you are an organizer for union taxiing.

You talk about one incident in 1929 (which was, by the way one of the worst events of its kind in modern history - the great depression) and say that is the reason your policy is neccesary. One incident. (With no link I might add.) Oh and "smog."

Talking about the "crumbs" that drivers would get is irrelevant. If someone is willing to work a few rides on the side, that's his prerogative. If a large number of people are willing to do part time work, that is their prerogative. If that crowds out the full time taxi driver, tough. I would argue it is better for everyone to get a small piece than for the outsiders to get no pieces of the pie.

But the whole "pie" analogy is bunk anyway. Just imagine how many people would sooner walk at union prices, but who would now take an uber taxi. Uber may be making the pie bigger.

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 4:26 pm

I've used a non-union cab when I lived in Misssouri. It was the only cab in town. Round trip to any point in town was $10. The cab driver was contacted through his cell phone when a ride was needed...642-2222.

He was self-employed....with no middleman eating into his income.

It was a socialist enterprise...the man directly owned his own workplace. That's the historical definition of socialism. I've no idea where the notion that government ownership is socialism came from. It isn't. That's merely a change of employers.

If GM were owned/operated by its workers, it would be a socialist enterprise. If it was government owned, it wouldn't be.

I'd hardly call Bernie Sanders a socialist, though he seems to like the term. I've never heard him advocate direct worker ownership of their own workplace...socialism...which may or may not include elements of a social democracy like free public schools, etc....democratically determined.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Maine:
Quote fudgemeister:

I owned a medallion cab in NYC for 20 years. I also was on the board of a guild that represented drivers. Right now, UBER has been in a fight with DeBlasio. While I totally agree with the opening poster, there has been a couple of points that no one seems to bring up which are quite important. In NYC, the mayor MUST be concerned about the environmental impact on the quality of life in the city. Road space is finite..the more cars, the more traffic, the more congestion, the more pollution.

In the 1920s, the cab industry in NYC was unregulated. With the depression of 1929, many people got thrown out of work. Many had the idea, "Oh, let me become a cabdriver." The result, crippling traffic, smog, and the drivers were cutting a pie so much that they each got crumbs. Plus crime increased by the drivers. The city decided to regulate the industry, by limiting the number of cars with medallions on them. Only they could pick up. The enforcement bureau was in the NYC police dept. and it was called the hack bureau. Drivers had to take a test, and were checked.

So, it is very important for environmental reasons and for driver compensation to find the right number of cabs that takes care of community needs, and insures that drivers make a decent living.

I lived the experience. Too many cars on the road leads to less money made for the driver. As I told everyone i knew, you cannot gear a taxi system to the maximum need required at the rush hours. A driver must steadily work for 10-12 hours. There must be business for all drivers in the non rush hours too. If you had enough cabs for everyone who needs them at rush hour...think about it, there would be gridlock.

So, a big city MUST regulate a cab industry. To think otherwise makes it a libertarian nightmare and the UBER dream. Thom, I ask you to stop using UBER!

Well I commend your honesty for admitting you are an organizer for union taxiing.

You talk about one incident in 1929 (which was, by the way one of the worst events of its kind in modern history - the great depression) and say that is the reason your policy is neccesary. One incident. (With no link I might add.) Oh and "smog."

Talking about the "crumbs" that drivers would get is irrelevant. If someone is willing to work a few rides on the side, that's his prerogative. If a large number of people are willing to do part time work, that is their prerogative. If that crowds out the full time taxi driver, tough. I would argue it is better for everyone to get a small piece than for the outsiders to get no pieces of the pie.

But the whole "pie" analogy is bunk anyway. Just imagine how many people would sooner walk at union prices, but who would now take an uber taxi. Uber may be making the pie bigger.

It is my understanding that UBER changes its rates based on volume of calls. So you never know what you will be charged. Cabs are regulated and the fare rate is written on the door before you get in. You are obviously a libertarian who cares not about wages and a decent living for workers. Follow Rand and enjoy the new feudalism. You obviously get joy from ordering peons around.

fudgemeister's picture
fudgemeister
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2015 6:11 pm
Quote polycarp2:

I've used a non-union cab when I lived in Misssouri. It was the only cab in town. Round trip to any point in town was $10. The cab driver was contacted through his cell phone when a ride was needed...642-2222.

He was self-employed....with no middleman eating into his income.

It was a socialist enterprise...the man directly owned his own workplace. That's the historical definition of socialism. I've no idea where the notion that government ownership is socialism came from. It isn't. That's merely a change of employers.

If GM were owned/operated by its workers, it would be a socialist enterprise. If it was government owned, it wouldn't be.

Good point. GM is more "fascist" than socialist when it is owned by the government.

I'd hardly call Bernie Sanders a socialist, though he seems to like the term. I've never heard him advocate direct worker ownership of their own workplace...socialism...which may or may not include elements of a social democracy like free public schools, etc....democratically determined.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 4:26 pm
Matt, let me tell you a thing or two about Chicago. Chicago is Uber's fastest growing markets. Coincidentally (not), the Mayor's brother has a huge stake in Uber and stands to make $1 Billion. Rahm says, "No conflict of interest" and continues to pave the way for more expansion.

A politician on the take? In Chicago? Now I've heard everything.

At this time, Rahm is trying to get the Uber parasites into airports. Currently, drivers wait 90 minutes in the staging area at O'Hare before they can get one fare out. More cars you say? Cab drivers disagree and are fighting the Idiot Mayor.

He's trying to get Uber drivers the ability to use the special taxi lanes at the airports. As it is now, someone requests a ride, then usually I call them (Uber allows drivers and riders to call or text each other, using Uber's phone numbers), and we agree to meet at the hotel that's connected to the airport.

And I've never waited more than ten minutes for a ride request to show up when I'm logged in to Uber. But I drive during peak times.

I'm really just doing this for fun. I like driving and I like meeting new people. Most of the Uber riders are very chatty and friendly. The little extra spending money is just a bonus.

The only problem I've had with Uber so far is that you can't see where someone is going until you've already agreed to take them. Sometimes people want to go 30 miles out of the city, and then I get stuck out there, knowing that no one out there will want a ride back in to the city, and I don't get paid to drive just myself back.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 12:29 pm
It is my understanding that UBER changes its rates based on volume of calls. So you never know what you will be charged.

You're talking about "surge pricing". The idea is that if demand is higher than supply, the rider agrees to pay extra, depending on how high the demand is. On a busy Saturday night in the bar areas here, the surge can go up to 4 times normal prices.

BUT, the rider has to show they understand the surge by typing in the surge multiplier before requesting a ride. If they are in a high-demand area, and the surge is 2.7 times normal prices, they have to type "2.7" when prompted, or it won't call a car for them. That way no one can say "I didn't know it would be so much!"

They can say "I was drunk and didn't mean to spend so much!" But that's their problem.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 12:29 pm

Sound like something you can market to make your service more competitive instead of crying for government to shut down the competition. At least you are up front in arguing for your crony capitalism.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

What Do Democrats Really Want?

Thom plus logo Thomas Friedman, the confused billionaire, told us decades ago that "free trade" is what made the Lexus a successful product when, in fact, it was decades of Japanese government subsidies and explicit tariffs that did so.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system