> Taxi drivers are not knowledge workers, or artists and clearly not entrepreneurs.

> They are easily replaceable "cogs in the machine", like many non-specialised factory workers, office clerks, retail employees and so on.

> There's a reason why humanity introduced protections for vulnerable workers in almost every society.

I appreciate the point you're making, but I also think you are grossly undervaluing the specialisation of cab drivers.

In the UK, the Knowledge [1] is a notoriously arduous exam which certainly makes cab drivers anything but "replaceable 'cogs in the machine'".

In fact, I think the fact that people view these jobs as being replaceable is what leads to their deterioration. Someone who has a GPS but no innate and learned knowledge of the terrain does not provide a service comparable to someone who has a thorough understanding of the domain. And the more people rely on the former, the more they think that that's all there is to it, and so it becomes a race to the bottom of sorts.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating this fully, but basically: jobs such as cab driving require specialisation and skill to be done well, but are often replaced by those without that skill doing freelance driving, which leads to a deterioration of expected service, and people ultimately thinking that the workers are all interchangeable.

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

I agree uber drivers =/= black cab drivers, but I'd also argue that most people don't want or need a black cab driver today.

What extra services does a black cab driver provide over an Uber driver in London?

  - Better knowledge of traffic patterns?
  - Ability to recommend places, give you local knowledge

That's all I can really think of. I agree that local knowledge is sometimes useful, but the vast majority of the time I know exactly where I want to go, and if I'm looking for recommendations I'm likely to trust the internet more than a taxi driver.

It's all about the subtle nuance of the service provided. A skilled driver will know which route to take if the passenger wants the absolute quickest route, or if the passenger wants a scenic route, or which cobble-stone roads to avoid if the passenger says they're feeling a bit ill, or hundreds of other such intricacies and peculiarities which come with offering expert service which someone who just has a GPS app on their phone and some free time can't begin to offer.

That's nice. They should continue to offer this premium service at premium prices, then, for the few people who are willing to pay the premium.

My point up-thread was that this tier of service used to be more or less the de facto standard of service that you would get for a standard, not a premium, fee. Over time, it has deteriorated and is now the domain of specialty car hire services. I'm not sure that that's a good thing.

My point is that the "standard" fee is premium when compared to Uber which tends to cost half as much in the countries where I tried it.

Aside from solving the trust/scam problem, that's one of the reason why people like Uber - it made 'car as a service' affordable. Without Uber, I might have bought a car, because a factor of 2 completely changes the picture.

>In the UK, the Knowledge [1] is a notoriously arduous exam which certainly makes cab drivers anything but "replaceable 'cogs in the machine'".

>In fact, I think the fact that people view these jobs as being replaceable is what leads to their deterioration.

Uber and the online routing within the app made this obsolete. The jobs that gig economy jobs may be skilled, but these gigs now aren't. The platform took the skill away from the job. The workers are just drones now.

> he Knowledge

Only applies in London.

> Taxi drivers are not knowledge workers, or artists and clearly not entrepreneurs.

Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car. They choose when and where to work and for what company to drive for. They can also work for black car in addition to ride share and can even manage private rides. They have some ability to accept or reject fares.

> There's a reason why humanity introduced protections for vulnerable workers in almost every society.

No one is restricting "knowledge workers" from being able to strike a contract. Why can't we afford the same dignity and respect to "cogs in the machine"? You ever thing these "protections" that "humanity" places on "cogs" can end up hurting them? Like how immigrant taxi drivers in NYC were encouraged to rack up 100k debt to buy medallions

I'd expect entrepreneur to have a freedom to set own rate and market own brand, for example.

You can choose when and where to work. Most businesses don't have pricing power. There's a market price. They can charge more or less sure but in theory there's a market clearing price, and anything above/below that price will yield suboptimal returns. You're romanticizing the discretion individual businesses have.

> Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car.

That's such a broad definition of entrepreneur that includes 99% of freelancers and self-employed.

> No one is restricting "knowledge workers" from being able to strike a contract.

The job market does, unfortunately.

There is a very simple litmus test to decide if someone is an entrepreneur or not: do they own the customer relationship? If they do they are an entrepreneur otherwise they aren't. This is the core of the dispute with the app stores and various companies as well: they don't want to end up at the mercy of a third party for their customer relationships.

"Of course they're entrepreneurs. They have to own or finance a car."

When we were taught business in school, it was about setting the price, hiring staff, choosing a target market. You know, thigs that make a business a business.

I am willing to bet my house that there isn't a single business or economics testbook where maintaining a car is even a consideration.

> When we were taught business in school, it was about setting the price, hiring staff, choosing a target market. You know, thigs that make a business a business.

You have a very narrow understanding of business and entrepreneurship. Not all businesses have employees. Every business book will tell you almost all businesses are price takers, not price setters. You can't wave a wand and say "I want to charge X".

The target market could be Uber, Lyft, black car, limo or personal. Maintaining equipment and accounting for depreciation is very important

"You can't wave a wand and say "I want to charge X"

Of course you can! Whether anyone pays is another matter.

"The target market could be Uber"

1 company is a customer, not a market. You are perverting the term to the point where it looses all meaning. It's like Agile - everything is agile now.

"Maintaining equipment and accounting for depreciation is very important"

So is a regular exercise routine, but neither of them defines a business. Are half the country are 'entrepreneurs' now because they have to drive kids to school? This is absurd!

You don't like my criteria, fine, but the only criteria you put forward aren't even relevant to lawyers, accountant and hundreds of other kinds of Real businesses that do have employees, set the price, run their marketing, etc.

Exactly. It's unskilled or semi-skilled work. Treating them the same as freelancers doesn't reflect reality as they have almost no leverage in there situation with their employers.