Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The obvious rejoinder would be that you stick with the devil you know.
Uber is novel. It seems that there is some sort of wealth transfer from investors to consumers. For once in this economy, the little guy is actually getting a break. But don't kid yourself, Uber is subsidizing your $1, $24, $65 ride. That is how they break into new markets so quickly, crush the competition, and that is why they are losing so much money.
The question that reasonable people, and I think some of these people work in City Hall, are asking is what is the long game? Taxis have kind of worked for a long time. The economics of maintaining a semi-public good like a city livery service are complex, and it includes maintaining a standard of living for drivers, keep vehicles somewhat roadworthy, providing some choice for consumers, and providing a modicum of security through livery insurance.
|
This isn't uber vs cab though as the mayors office would like to make it out to be.
Its the failure to properly regulate an industry.
Uber doesn't have the opportunity to fight the establishment if the establishment served its consumers.
So regardless of why people like Uber (and in the long run road worthiness of vehicles and types of drivers end up being the same as cabs) it is a complete red herring.
Its real simple:
People want a ride in a reasonable time
People can't get that from a cab
10 years pass.
An alternative appears.
It has nothing to do with race, quality, even cost though people may site those of reasons to choose uber over a taxi when both are available but really the only deciding factor on people using uber right now is availability. ( Calgary Only)
If the regulation was fixed and there were surge cabs available to meet demand no one would back uber entering the market. So it isn't about race, bottled water, cost, gum, odor, conversation or vehicle quality.
Its about getting into a vehicle and getting to or from where you are going.