"Why is he doing that?" was the question when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio attempted to limit the number of UBER cars on the street. Well, let's see, the NYC medallion market is on the verge of collapse and the taxi medallion owners chipped in a buck or two when Wild Bill was running for mayor. Nothing like having a friend at the city.
Well, as it turned out de Blasio couldn't take the heat when UBER cranked up the political noise. So, now Bill is stuck like Chuck with a collapsing medallion market which will cost the city millions, and not enough political fortitude to stay the course necessary to save it. Oops
Sometimes leadership is more than doing what is popular, it's doing what's necessary. Allowing UBER to provide on demand service without a taxicab medallion is the death knell of the taxi industry. Why in the world would I want a taxicab medallion when I can just drive for Uber and save my million bucks? I guess Bill views the "banksters," who stand to lose millions, the same way as the occupy hoard sees them.
All systems go!
Portland, Oregon reports that taxicabs and UBER are peacefully coexisting in the market and the people are getting better service. Well, good on 'em. The "experiment" is likely headed toward permanent status with taxicabs still having a few rules that UBER doesn't have to deal with, like not being able to ask for credit card information in advance. Why not?
If we are going to pretend that we're using a level playing field the rules should be the same for all. Response times are reported to be lower than ever and there is increased ridership. The taxicab industry has had the technology to improve service for quite some time, but has had divergent needs and priorities.
If you increase efficiency to the point where you don't need as many cabs you lose money on lease payments. Lose money on lease payments and you don't earn what you're supposed to and get fired. Oops, kind of looks like the status quo was the way to go if you lease. Now comes UBER and the taxicab companies have to decide, give mediocre service and die or pull out the stops and get your response time under ten minutes. Can't be done? Already has been done, UBER..
Philosophy on display
During the last month I read several articles about various candidates' position on UBER and whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. Left leaners believe it's bad because workers are being exploited and government needs to step in and “"redefine" their roles. Right leaners believe it's a good thing because it shows that less regulation provides for more competition and better service.
Since UBER originated in San Francisco, it would be hard to believe that the techies responsible for the UBER software are right leaners. So, it must be somewhat disconcerting for them to be getting beat up by their friends, especially since one of their main political spiritual advisors is the Obama administration.
Since the left is the darling of the unions and UBER is savaging the taxicab unions, the left has to try to "save" the heavily regulated taxicab companies if nothing more than to prove that their regulation for regulations sake works. Meanwhile, the right embraces UBER as an example of free market capitalism at work.
Personally, I like Uber's supply and demand pricing and their credit card up front model. While there is zero potential for upward mobility in the UBER model there is little upward mobility potential in the taxicab industry when exclusionary rules apply or pricy medallions are required. Weak kneed politicians across the country are giving in to the UBER model and shooting themselves in the foot on medallion/permit prices.
Oh well, they don't need near as many ice men since we have refrigerators. I guess the real question is who are the politicians who say we need more regulations. Are the regulations to serve the riders or the unions
It's here, it's here!
It appears the Taxi of Tomorrow is actually going to be in the future of New York City. There have been numerous arguments and court cases regarding the Taxi of Tomorrow but it looks like the industry will be switching to it starting this month. With the other regulations on the industry, the price of medallions and now the requirement to switch to the new Taxi of Tomorrow, the result might well be that UBER is the taxi of tomorrow. As costs are increased so must revenues increase. It doesn't look like taxicabs will be priced competitively
Feds on a roll.
Recent reports are that the federal government is after companies that classify their workers as independent contractors but treat them as employees. Such companies have existed in the taxicab world for decades, but little was done until now
Recent rulings against UBER and Stanford Yellow Taxicab have sent warnings throughout the industry that some practices mark you for lawsuits. The problem for Stanford Yellow was control, but the problem for UBER could be quite a bit worse. The ruling, which is reported to be under appeal, stated that UBER drivers couldn't work without the UBER ap and drivers were "integral" to UBER's business
While smart taxicab companies encourage their drivers to develop "personals" or "specials" who call the driver directly, UBER claims passengers to be covered only when the trip is dispatched via their smart phone ap. I would assume that Lyft is also concerned about the ruling since their drivers utilize a smart phone ap to get assigned their trips.
UBER could possibly get protection from the independent contractor/employee issue by utilizing existing car service or limousine companies, or starting their own as they did in York City, and utilizing drivers that have other means of getting business along with other means of providing insurance. UBER's dilemma is that they need the trip to be dispatched through their ap to get paid. However, drivers who are only able to get trips through their ap could be ruled employees. Time will tell.
It's a conspiracy!
Citing a desire by his bank to establish a relationship with UBER, the reputed "taxi king" of New York City, Gene Friedman, has filed for bankruptcy for several taxi medallion corporations (one or two medallions per corporation). Maybe so, maybe no. It would be hard for me to believe that a bank would be interested in repossessing potentially worthless medallions, unless they wanted to open their own taxicab company. Finding medallion buyers in today's market place might just be a bit of an issue.
It would seem to me that, if you've been the "taxi king" for any period of time, you might just have a few dollars stashed away for economic downturns. I don't understand how exactly you get into such a situation. I would imagine the bank would be quite upset at their potential exposure of a few million in losses. However, I would hardly see them stiffing their debtors to "establish a relationship" with a company reported to be killing off their debtors.
Does anyone think that UBER cares who the banks lend money to? The bankruptcy filings are most likely a bid for time to produce some funds in order for the "taxi king" to hold on to his assets for whatever price they might be worth in the future.
So, what's it all about?
Billionaire Donald Trump is making waves in the political world. Why is that? Talking heads across the land on both sides of the political aisle are somewhat stumped. What is it? Why are their normally loyal voter blocks deserting the parties and siding with this Neanderthal? What's the attraction to this brash, rude talking pit bull of the political world? Well, for starters, he's real. I don't know who is daddy is, but I don't recall any Trumps being past presidents, vice presidents, senators, congressmen (though I certainly don't know them all) or governors.
He's a guy willing to say what's on his mind in a simple, straightforward way that is easy to understand. "Our leaders are stupid." Now, let's examine that statement. Is it easy to understand? Well, yes. Do we agree with that statement? Well, yes. Is it crass? Well, to some it might be, but to others it is completely understandable.
While the politically correct news media is wetting their pants over Trump's "racist" remarks Americans aren't. Pretty much everyone except the true believers know the media is corrupt. So, if the corrupt politicians and corrupt media are trumpeting Trump's lack of virtue, the reasonably informed public must assume that he's a great guy and they're bashing him for their own gain.
Well, it doesn't seem to be working that way. The media has been concealing the extent of criminal activity of illegal immigrants and the American public is finally starting to figure that out for themselves. Now along comes Trump and starts giving voice to those of little hope of salvaging their country. What do you expect
Both sides of the aisle are figuring out how they can ram the next batch of amnesty down our throats without pitchforks and torches outside the capital building. Cities are actually appointing illegals to commissions. Nope, Americans of every race, creed and color see their opportunity to live the American dream going down the commode and suddenly someone is saying it right out loud. Yes, somewhat ineloquently at times, but saying it right out loud none the less.
Suddenly, there is hope that the issue can actually be dealt with in a way a huge number of Americans can agree with. Personally, I don't have anything against illegal immigrants, as long as they go home and wait their turn. I really don't care what country you escaped from, go there and wait your turn. Get vetted, be of reasonable moral character and come when invited.
If you don't want to break up families, I understand that, send the kids along with them. If the child was born here they can return when they come of age. If you do manage to wait your turn and get back, if you get convicted of a crime it's back you go. We have all the criminals we need, thanks anyway.
If all of that sounds too harsh keep in mind that I'm old and I well remember that this wasn't supposed to happen again since we granted amnesty back in the Reagan administration. Now, it has happened again and Trump is voicing the concerns of people like me.
Will he survive until the general election? Who knows. Will he win the nomination of the republican party? Who knows. I can tell you this, if the republican party figures out a way to get rid of him without the voters getting to vote there will be ramifications. Trump may not be a polished politician, but he's a fighter and a winner and Americans like that sort of thing.
What is that line attributed to Patton, "Americans love a winner and they won't tolerate a loser." I don't know if that's right, but it sure sounds right.
If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at don@mcacres.com.
—dmc
