Hacker News Reader

Comment by asn0 | Hacker News Reader

Didn't Uber disrupt an industry that was already very well protected by government regulation, and seems much more exploitative?

It costs around $100,000[1] to be allowed (by the city) to drive a taxi in New York ($1.3MM in 2014), for a job that pays on average $43,000[2] per year - which involves driving an average of 70,000 miles per year - which at an average speed of 4.7mph[3] works out to $3/hr (not counting waiting time).

It's still not a living wage, but making $9/hr[4] just by owning a decent car seems like progress.

[1] https://citylimits.org/2019/11/30/need-to-know-taxi-medallio...

[2] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/taxi-driver...

[3] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-york-traffic-manhat...

[4] https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/education/how-muc...

View on HN

Uber didn't comply with the regulation though. They just ignored it.

Labor laws are much harder to ignore than taxi boards.

I don't think Uber disrupted anything. Private car services or gypsy cabs already existed, they just had a brand name and an app. The result of which is that the same problems remain for workers. Unless that's how disruption in an industry is defined these days.

Update for clarity:

I guess my bigger question is: what really changed? Customers became more comfortable and the business side became more reasonable, but competition and workers still get the shaft.

My experience in London was that Uber radically disrupted things. Yes, private hire cars existed, but the experience was pretty bad. You'd phone a number or go to an office, they'd say "20 minutes" and then, hopefully, a car would turn up. It involved a lot of waiting on streets (especially at night) and sometimes no car would turn up. There was no recourse or way to contact the driver.

Maybe app based hire cars were an inevitable product of smart phones. If not Uber, then someone else. But certainly Uber's business model was incredibly disruptive of that industry. From my perspective it had a really strong effect on how my generation lived in the city.

I happily use an app to hail taxis in London before Uber existed. The biggest change they caused that the trips got cheaper occasionally after Uber.

I've never taken an uber from a place with hailable cabs. I would never have left a night haunt in Tottenham or a friends house in Denmark Hill and expect to find a taxi. Like, ever.

Sure, some cabs would be finishing jobs taking people home from Shoreditch and soho, but you'd just have to walk to a main road and hope you bumped in to one. Along with anyone else doing the same thing...

I'd say that the biggest change is that you now can use that same app to effortlessly hail a car in New York, Hong Kong and Sao Paulo.

The fact that I don't have to stress and figure out a new taxi system every new city I visit is a big plus. On the flip-side, the taxi system quirks of new cities could also be charming in a way. Double edged sword I guess.

I’ll argue on the side of their disruption, Uber and Lyft’s.

Prior to their arrival on the scene, getting a taxicab in SF was nigh on impossible for there were far too few drivers, the cabs were often unsanitary, often took up to an hour to arrive when called, the drivers often tried to argue against taking card, often falsely claiming the machine was broken. The complaints stacked up on the SFMTA’s website and the SFMTA did basically nothing.

Uber and Lyft were disruptive, they were disruptive to the benefit of their customers. I have my complaints about Uber the company, but I would take this band of psychopaths over what we had prior to their arrival on the scene.

I never understood why Uber existed, until I tried to get a cab in San Francisco.

One day we'll get to the point where MUNI is replaced with private bus lines. Although the regulatory environment here might prevent that.

Before Uber New York City was the same way except for availability. You could get a cab but it stank, the machine was always "broken", the driver didn't speak English (until it was time to tell you the machine was broken), and if they suspected you were from out of town they would drive you around in circles just to increase the fare. I learned to always start my ride by immediately making it clear to the driver that I expected him to take a particular route and if any monkey business happened I would report him to the TLC. Acting confrontational is way outside my comfort zone but it was the only way not to get fleeced.

All that garbage is gone with Uber and Lyft.

Can't agree; Uber and Lyft caused a massive change in the culture of cities in America. Maybe not the biggest ones -- NYC already had a taxi culture. But they exploded the use of hired cars in all of the medium-sized cities.

I still disagree, I think their explosion is the result of other factors. Medium-sized cities still had taxi cab services but they were more expensive and less used. Uber and Lyft had massive capital backing to essentially invade these cities with lower cost rides. Once that honey-moon is over (it's over in NY for sure) customers will be in the exact same place. Another factor is that there is more leisure money moving around in the middle class as opposed to before. To attribute Uber/Lyft to the cause of the culture change is just way off base.

I dunno, it shifted overnight in my life. People I knew in Seattle went from not using cabs ever to taking Uber and Lyft constantly in the course of a couple of months. Cabs were such a miserable experience that it just wasn't part of going out. They were reserved for emergencies or for getting to the airport.

As soon as apps existed, "calling an uber" became a thing within a few months -- for getting to and from restaurants and bars; for getting to work when you're late, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com