Uber is a great concept, but the reality is that Uber has shown us time and time again why taxis cost what they do: regulation to protect users and our cities.

Uber, like AirBnB and a lot of other startups, are 'disrupting' industries by entering them and taking them over by ignoring regulations, insurance, and even laws to keep costs low and make a profit. In this day and age, they can grow fast enough that by the time cities see the repercussions and react to them, the companies are big enough and rich enough (and flush enough with VC money) to fight back, and are already entrenched with a loud and enthusiastic user base.

In other words, Uber is great if you ignore the various safety and insurance regulations, background checks, licensing, etc. that taxis have to comply with.

Regulation also limits the number of taxis out on the streets (for better or worse).

Uber has no incentive to limit the number of drivers they employ. Our small streets are jammed with Uber/Lyft cars endlessly driving back and forth.

Do they circle while not carrying passengers or going to pick up? I've observed them usually waiting by the curb for the next hail.

Uber provides commercial insurance, no? Other than that, I generally feel safer in an Uber ride than in a taxi.

To explain: I've never been yelled at by an Uber driver. I have been cursed at by taxi drivers. Yes, more than one. They often don't like my destination and get mad at me for being in their cab.

"I've been waiting for two hours, and you're going to Chinatown!? Fuck you!" (Not far enough)

"Brooklyn?! Fuck you!" (Wants to stay in Manhattan)

One cabbie was so pissed he went 70 in a 35 zone to demonstrate how annoying my destination was.

Cabbies pretend to get lost so that the fare is longer. Uber will refund the difference. Etc. Etc.

People without as much money as you would probably prefer more robust public transportation systems, which Uber/Lyft compete against.

Oh, sure, I'd prefer a better transit system, too. But in the meantime, I'd rather have more choice than less.

Uber costs less than a taxi, so this is giving poor(er) people more choice.

Until the VC money runs out and the poor(er) have zero choice. Those people chose to give their money to Lyft / Uber instead of supporting their local public transit. Fast forward through Uber/Lyft's 'disruption' the local public transit shuts down due to lack of funds for maintenance, upgrades, etc. The public transportation ridership will be at an all time low, so it would be very hard to get tax payers to shoulder the burden of the costs... Seems like a sad state for the future.

Uber has a low cost because it doesn't use monopoly power to gouge consumers like cities do when issuing medallions. So Uber's secret sauce is the fact that it breaks the law, not VC money.

The medallion laws are unjust and should be broken, other laws like insurance, driver training and vehicle safety are not. This is what makes the debate so complex and passionate, with people taking one side or the other depending on their personal incentives and political bias.

Uber loses money, so at most you could argue that it is law breaking AND VC money. And without a lot of numbers on the cost of medallions, etc in each city it operates, you're actually just asserting your belief, not making an argument.

> Uber loses money, at most you could argue that it is law breaking AND VC money.

I don't follow the logic. Many companies have negative cash flow while they invest in growth. What is "it" in your sentence? If you're saying there are only two possible factors for the relatively low ride fares, I think you're forgetting the reduction of transaction costs.

Hailing a cab on the street is frustrating. Hailing a cab by phone call even more frustrating and uncertain. Decreasing the transaction cost increases demand, which encourages supply, which lowers cost, which ... Anyway, there's a new equilibrium price.

Uber has a low cost because they are not charging you enough to cover their own costs, they are making up the difference with VC money. Any factors that make the cost of providing an Uber lower than the cost of providing a taxi are unimportant because they are not pricing based on the cost. If they had to pay for taxi medallions they could still undercut existing taxis if they wanted to.

> not charging you enough to cover their own costs

Are you an Uber employee revealing private information? If not, it seems you're making a big assumption about the proportion of their expenses that are marketing and growth versus steady-state marginal cost.

Amazon didn't make profit for a while and everyone wondered if they could. Oh, it's a low margin business, they'll never be profitable, blah, blah. Turns out they can, in fact, make a bit of money. Maybe Uber and Lyft can, too. Delta can, even though flights are a commodity business.

wow, you're really attached to this narrative you have, to be so desperately reaching for a reason to discredit the impact of VC money on their operation. I think my previous comments have already said everything relevant about the breakdown of their marketing costs vs steady state marginal costs.

> really attached to this narrative you have

Oddly enough, I was thinking the same thing.

You've asserted that they're ignoring cost in their pricing, but have provided no evidence for it. Uber and Lyft have claimed to be profitable in their biggest markets. Doesn't that suggest they set prices above marginal cost?

Wow. They were apparently profitable for two minutes in 2016, might be what you're referring to? I haven't provided any evidence because I assumed you had access to the same real world information as I do, but if you don't have internet I can mail you some stuff.

You're confusing company aggregate profit for profit within each market.

No, I'm referring to the US market. They have never been profitable overall but for a very brief period in 2016 they claimed that the US operation was profitable.

How about in NYC? Profitable there? I believe they announced that they were.

In any case, even if they're not currently profitable, that may be because of capital expense, not operating costs. Until they go public, it's hard to know.

I also prefer more robust public transit, but I know of no community who decided against a public transit project because Uber was meeting their needs.

A typical big-city transit system is standing-room-only and heavily subsidized (fares are way too low to cover costs). More riders would just make all their problems worse.