There was no monopoly in many of the markets they entered.
I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company.
Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion).
Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...
>by dodging taxes
Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it..
>for their disguised employees.
Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.
But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning.
It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.
It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?
That wasn't the innovation. Uber was able to create a fleet from rented capital and made billions because they did it so well, but it wasn't just the business model. On the consumer side, Uber made hailing a ride-share much cheaper, easier and safer than ever before, and it got rid of the old practice of taxi cabs refusing fares from certain neighborhoods. Uber also broke the taxi monopolies that had taken over municipal policies and hindered public transport.