I think there can still be a moral component, if you know that they are enacting and perpetrating a vicious cycle that will lead to the depletion of public transit:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/12/ci...

What about the opportunity cost of driving more sustainable competition (whether that's better taxis, direct competitors, or public transit) out of business? Uber doesn't exist in a vacuum.

That's an interesting point. In the long term I think there will always be a need for the service so when a loss leader goes out of business someone will step up.

Public transit has existed alongside taxis for hundreds of years. Uber won't kill transit.

> The way Uber treats its people is a separate issue.

Why should that be the case? If you know one part of company X is against your interest, why support revenue of said company at all then?

You misunderstand. I don't use uber because of their people policies. I would use them if they treated people better. And I would enjoy the subsidy.

Exactly. Other than the moral-environmental issue of the subsidy encouraging me to take more short trips, thus increasing my footprint...