This makes me wonder what even would be a natural or desired state of any market like this. I don't want companies to have agreements on bottom prices they aren't gonna go under. At the same time this dynamic clearly is fueled by the desire and promise to turn a profit once the competitor is gone. We don't want to set a monopoly in any market. On the other hand why aren't we seeing this in older industries? Why aren't airlines trying to drive each other out of business on price?
I think for as much as people talk about businesses undercutting a market to capture it and then profiting from a monopoly position, very few businesses ever make it past the undercutting stage.
As wrong as the efficient market hypothesis is about certain things, a great many industries actually do exist in a sort of perpetual state of trying to balance capturing market share with low prices with staying profitable.
I’m not sure that it pays its drivers more poorly than the taxi industry, and I’m not sure that users overpay. Do note, though, that both of those points imply “healthy economics / markets” (dynamic pricing on both sides).
But that doesn't forgive using regulatory capture to prevent anyone else from benefiting from the same things that helped you, that's just pulling the ladder up after you.
Uber did fix the problem of people who would happily make money driving a taxi being unable to because of regulatory capture. They made much worse the problem of drivers making a living wage, and when the sugar rush finally ends and they ultimately have to raise prices you know that extra margin isn't going to go to make the drivers whole and bring their wages back up to what a taxi driver used to make. It's going to go into Uber's investors' pockets.
Although personally I think Uber will just go the way of WeWork once people realize they own (close to) zero vehicles, have (close to) zero employed drivers, and lose money on every ride. What happens after that? Well, public transit has been gutted already so I guess... um... scooters?