And one of the interesting questions for me is "where does 'cheap' come from"?

In the case of WhatsApp, it came from telco monopolies overcharging for a particular use of data. I'm certainly ok with that.

And I was initially excited about Airbnb, rideshare, etc, because some of the cheap comes from finding underutilized resources (an apartment that happened to be empty for a few weeks, people who were going somewhere anyhow) and putting them to work.

But I find the second-order effects fascinating. Certainly some of Airbnb and Uber's cheapness comes from dodging regulation and shifting costs onto other people.

"Privatize the gains, socialize the losses" is undeniably a lucrative business strategy, but it's not one I particularly want to celebrate.

> "Privatize the gains, socialize the losses" is undeniably a lucrative business strategy, but it's not one I particularly want to celebrate.

This doesn't describe anything that AirBnB or Uber are doing.

Taxis were expensive and horrible because governments created artificial scarcity via taxi medallion systems. They were "socializing the gains", to build off your aphorism.

Uber re-privatized the gains by circumventing this ridiculous system, and we're all much better for it.

"Socializing the losses" refers to groups getting bailed out on taxpayer dime when they fail, and nothing even resembling that has happened with AirBnB or Uber.

Taxis were mostly horrible because of pre-mobile-phone dispatch systems and expectations. That would have gotten fixed with or without Uber, although Uber certainly did push it along.

But taxi medallion systems served a number of purposes. One of the big ones is reasonable regulation of taxi and driver quality. Another was keeping supply and demand balanced at a level where people didn't have to cut corners on things like taxi maintenance just to survive, which helped keep taxi fleets safe. A third was setting up a reasonably livable wage for career taxi drivers. A fourth, at least in some cities, was creating a de-facto retirement system: since drivers had dibs on medallions, they could invest and create an asset that would fund their retirement. A fifth was creating a revenue stream for cities to that helps pay for regulatory and road costs. Those are off the top of my head; I'm sure there were more.

Now instead a lot of those costs are borne by other people. Uber has shifted capital and maintenance costs entirely away from cab companies and on to random people desperate enough to drive for Uber. Losses are no longer the problem of the cab company, but individuals. When those drivers go bankrupt, society bears the costs. When those drives use public assistance [1], society bears the costs. When they retire and we make up for their lost retirement savings, society bears the costs. And that's to say nothing of the direct and indirect societal costs that come from more traffic.

Similar issues come up with Airbnb. E.g., if you thought you were living next to a neighbor and now are dealing with an illegal one-unit hotel in your building, you are experiencing a loss. If the apartment you rent out is trashed because somebody is running an illegal business out of it [2], you experience significant loss. When rent goes up because people are illegally converting housing to de-facto hotel stock, that is a socialized loss with privatized gains.

I'm not even saying this is necessarily worse. As with the bankruptcy system as a whole, it can sometimes be overall better for society to pay for something. But we shouldn't sweep this stuff under the rug.

[1] E.g., https://uberpeople.net/threads/you-may-qualify-for-governmen...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/airbnb-nightmare-homeowners-...

Note that none of the reasons you listed for the medallion system was "for getting paying customers efficiently from A to B". They're all secondary objectives that have little to do with serving the customer. If it was not the government, medallion system could be called a protection racket. That's why Uber succeeded.

Not really. Even if we accept your frame of analysis, which begins the moment somebody starts a trip and ends the moment they're done, then regulating taxi quality, driver quality, passenger safety, and paying for effective roads are all relevant factors.

But if the system isn't sustainable, then in the long term customers don't get what they want. So when we're designing society-level systems, we need to think about society-scale sustainability.

Personally, instead of our hodgepodge of retirement and health insurance systems, I think we should just fund a strong safety net out of taxes. That minimizes barriers to entrepreneurship and avoids distortions. But that's not what America had when the medallion system was being developed, so we got what we got. You can certainly propose a change to that, but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to explain how you'll solve the problems the existing system solves, or at least be honest that you're not solving them.

> One of the big ones is reasonable regulation of taxi and driver quality.

I can only imagine that someone who rarely or never travels would say something like this. The main reason I switched to uber is that taxis are universally horrible, both in terms of drivers and vehicles. It's gotten much better since uber forced them to compete, but they still generally suck.

So maybe you're right, and that was the reason for taxi medallions; but guess what? It didn't work.

> Uber has shifted capital and maintenance costs entirely away from cab companies and on to random people desperate enough to drive for Uber.

Again, this is something that I can't imagine hearing from someone who actually uses Ubers on a regular basis. Most Uber drivers I've talked to love the platform, and a good portion of them are e.g. students working a side job, none of them "desperate" people.

It is frustrating that you ignore the meat of what I wrote, pick on a couple of things you can object to, and carry on carping. I'll try one more reply and see how it goes.

> I can only imagine that someone who rarely or never travels would say something like this.

Your imagination is poor. I've lived on 4 continents and am on an extended trip even as I write this.

We're talking about different kinds of regulation. You apparently care about things being shiny; most regulation, though, is about setting a minimum bar.

In the early, high-growth days of something, regulation is rarely useful because everybody's on their best behavior. It becomes more important when things settle down into a relatively steady state. Then, the incentive to shave nickels and dimes can come out elsewhere. E.g., taxis face significant safety inspections and maintenance requirements because when you use a car as a commercial vehicle, you put a lot more miles on it and you are more likely face safety issues.

We don't yet see these problems with UberX because it has only been going for a few years, and because Uber has a strong incentive to keep from becoming an obvious disaster until growth slows and revenue gains come more from exploiting their market position.

> Most Uber drivers I've talked to love the platform

Gosh, might they have some incentive to only say happy things to you? Gosh, might there be some selection bias in your sample? Gosh, might people not talk about their pain and fears to random strangers?

>Uber re-privatized the gains by circumventing this ridiculous system, and we're all much better for it.

Who are those all? Taxi drivers or the general public? I'd rather have professional, decently paid, taxi drivers instead of amateur hour weekend drivers making minimum wage at the expense of yet another working class job.

Actually in India, I am really grateful for Uber. Previously talking to an auto rikshaw or taxi is pretty painful. They are rude, not reliable, charge a lot if you don't know the city or area. Also atleast from my talking to lot of Uber/Ola drivers is that they are earning a lot compared to their previous taxi service. So to answer your question, both drivers and public.

Earning more isn't very true now though.

Did you ever use a taxi before uber? Nothing you said is grounded in reality. Taxi drivers are usually extremely unprofessional, underpaid, and horrific drivers. It's actually gotten much better since Uber came around.

>Did you ever use a taxi before uber?

Almost every day.

People really need to specify a geographical context for discussions of Uber; I've no doubt that wyager and coldtea are both reporting their experiences, but taxis are necessarily a very local service. Clearly some cities just have really bad taxis.

Finally, sense!

In London, Uber is a taxi service. The people driving for Uber are taxi drivers, with taxi driver licenses [1], and the vehicles they drive are taxis, with taxi licenses [2]. The experience is therefore much the same. The difference arises from three things: Uber has a nice app, whereas legacy taxi offices are a shambles; Uber drivers are desperate to keep their star rating up, and so might be nicer; Uber subsidises the whole operation to win market share. The app is the only significant difference, in my experience.

[1] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

[2] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

Yeah same in the US. Honestly there was an under supply of cabs. The cars themselves were all uniform and weren't very clean. Cabbie drivers weren't very well paid ever. It was often difficult to pay with a credit or debit card...Uber and Lyft put so much competitive pressure on the system that cabs are nicer now.

Airbnb socializes the costs by transfering them to the flat owners (cleaning etc.), and Uber to the drivers (fuel, maintenance etc.)

In terms of Airbnb socializing costs, it's not the flat owner who is taking on some costs and some profit, but their neighbours, who bear the costs of noise and reduced security and community.

That's not what socializing means. Socializing means using government to redistribute costs to the population at large via taxes. Entering a voluntary private agreement where you have some obligations is not "socialization".

It's funny that facebook is amongst the biggest on that list, when they don't actually seem to provide anything of use to the end user.

cheap plentiful stalking?