There are plenty of examples of individual companies (or groups of companies) getting too much monopolistic (or oligopolistic) power and doing just that or similar. You could look at at the Phoebus Cartel of lightbulb manufactures [1], the Bell System monopoly [2], or in transportation the GM Streetcar conspiracy [3].

Due to Uber's network effects you could say they'd have even greater power to change prices dramatically. Let's say Uber became the dominant transportation network in a particular geography and then trebled prices. Any new competitor has to both lure riders and drivers from Uber. Riders, sure they can be lured by cheaper travel but drivers want to earn the most money. Uber could simply double how much they paid drivers. All the existing drivers (and any new drivers) would rather work for Uber and get paid more. In fact they would have a vested interest in seeing the competitor fail.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System#Nationwide_monopol...

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

Phoebus couldn't last, no free market cartel can.

Bell System ended up being heavily regulated, and it's service was second to none. It was nearly a natural monopoly because of the cost of running phone lines. If Uber ever became that, we could resolve any problems with regulation.

But in reality Uber can never become a natural monopoly, entry into their market is too easy and just gets easier over time as costs decline for systems development/operation.

What will happen if they succeed is that Uber will become a valuable brand, people will prefer it, and other competitors will be forced to compete solely on price. So far brand building is something Uber is struggling with.

> Bell System ended up being heavily regulated, and it's service was second to none. It was nearly a natural monopoly because of the cost of running phone lines. If Uber ever became that, we could resolve any problems with regulation.

I think it's unlikely that the current political climate will allow such problems to be solved with regulation.

At this exact moment? No. But if Uber was really gouging people Trump would be one of the first to try to make political capital from regulating them.

Politics is politics. I was just re-listening to Dan Carlin's podcast series on the fall of Rome. He starts with the Graccus brothers, who were populists. Rome had an elitist power structure, basically the founding families controlled the senate, with the Equestrians and Plebes below them (and slaves below that).

The Graccus brothers got themselves elected Tribunes, which were roles intended to check the power of the senate, and took those roles to push forward land and other reforms to check the power of the senate and give things to the middle class and poor (some would say to buy the mob).

To stop this, the Senate at one point recruited their own Tribune candidate, and he didn't promise to rollback the Graccus reforms, in fact he did the opposite. Instead of giving away land for cheap prices to the Plebes, he offered them free land. He offered even more bread subsidies, and instead of the state paying for a foreign colony for the plebes, he offered to pay for 12 of them. And he got elected to replace Gaius Gracchus.

All politicians are sensitive to where the wind is blowing and most try to take advantage from it.

Don't forget cable providers.

> Yeah, and I bet after Borders shuts down, you'll see Amazon raise book prices sky-high!

There's some truth to that: whenever I bother to check I find that Amazon is no longer price-competitive with brick-and-mortar.

> If Uber tripled prices, a competitor would start up to cut into their market share.

...unless there's no actual profit at anything less than 3x the current prices. Isn't Uber running on a VC subsidy right now?

To be fair, Uber has already been profitable in some markets.

3x the current prices would put us at roughly what taking the cab looked at before Uber cost-wise.

VCs wont pay for rides forever.

VCs are just paying for rides until self-driving cars get to the point that drivers are no longer needed.

I'm not concerned with the price of rides increasing, I'm concerned with the unemployment our country is going to get punched in the face with. Between cab drivers and OTR (truckers), we're going to have a MUCH bigger problem on our hands than we've seen since Detroit collapsed (which was arguably less of an issue since it occurred over a longer period of time).

VCs are needed until a self-driving car can pick an elderly passenger at the airport and help them with their baggage when they get home.

Uber will run out of money long before we have self-driving cars.

There have been services to help elderly people get their bags in and out of the car at the airport for literally decades.

As for "at their home" - if you think that the cross section of elderly people who:

Can't lift their bag into a car.

Travel frequently.

Have no friends or family to help.

Have no neighbors to help.

Don't live in assisted living.

Is enough to sustain the industry, I think you're in for a rude awakening.

> VCs are needed until a self-driving car can pick an elderly passenger at the airport and help them with their baggage when they get home.

This is a very good point. Also consider that many more people need help with groceries than with luggage.

Just call the "Human Uber" service instead, which will come with a pair of hands. I doubt that's more than 5% of their market, so it justifies having a differentiated price for the extra help you get.

I can't see why they're can't be a uber human driver option or you can simply ask from a cart boy to help with groceries.

Heck, with amazon groceries and other similar services, why do they even need to go to the store?

The people will just move back to the forests and the mountains. The rivers will be their roads, paths their sidewalks, trees their grocery stores, and grubs their food.

With Uber, Lyft, and other ride-sharing services, I would say there is more employed in the "move people from A to B" business now than ever before. The mobile apps increased the supply of drivers and captured the market demand for convenient and cheaper rides.

Self-driving would take away a big chunk of that market, but estimates vary on when that becomes a reality. With every major technology improvement, there were massive employment and social shifts. Wars and revolutions were often side effects. However, I don't think the percentage of the population engaged in the taxicab and trucking industries are enough to destabilize society. By its nature, the employees in that business are often transitory. Perhaps there will be legislation to force self-driving vehicles such as taxicabs and commercial trucks to keep a human "driver" to supervise and assist when the vehicle gets into situations outside of its programming.

True, but in cities with medallions supply was effectively restricted which probably had an influence on prices. That probably wont happen under a rideshare system.

I guess you have never rode Uber during "surge" times. Sometimes the pricing becomes insane.

But he isn't wrong. Uber will raise prices after subsidy stops.

I doubt Uber's US market is subsidized much, if at all. The financial analysis that's been done can't break down the cost of investment in international markets and new businesses from actual operating costs in the US ride share market.

Uber's service costs pennies per ride to provide, drivers pay them dollars per ride to participate. There is almost no chance Uber can't be profitable at current prices. The only question is whether prices need to rise to ensure a decent supply of drivers.

Selling books and operating taxis are a very different market.