You don't see a lot of elevator operators anymore. That used to be a job. It became "deprofessionalized" as now anyone with a finger can operate an elevator. Should we have erected a wall of legislation to protect their jobs?<p>> For taxi drivers staring down an even bleaker future of driverless cars<p>These are not "taxi drivers". They are human beings. They are not single-purpose machines who are incapable of doing anything else. Humans are capable of learning a variety of different skills, even if they have already learned one. Articles like this treat them like specially made parts that are only suited for one thing.
Most of the comments in here are along the lines of "are we expected to protect the outdated taxi driver? Let them drive for Uber or get a new job!"<p>In a vacuum, that logic holds. But remember that the government has made taxi driving very regulated for a long time. To become a driver you had to buy their medallion and follow all of their regulations. These regulations imposed a high fixed cost and many recurring costs on taxi drivers. Yes of course these regulations were also beneficial to taxi drivers by restricting their competition, but the point is that this deal was struck between the industry and the government and a lot of individuals staked their livelihood on the details here.<p>Now the same city governments are basically saying "thanks for all that investment, we are deleting it" when they let Uber and Lyft come in. The city officials also did this with an uncharacteristic speed, basically capitulating immediately in a world where it takes years and years to get anything done. Taxi drivers were rightly surprised and individually harmed, they played by the rules as they were written and were told to fuck off by a bunch of VC-funded engineers with big lawyers and bigger budgets.<p>This is not a good precedent.
I wish people would stop blaming companies for doing exactly what they are designed/incentivized to do. That is the capitalist system. We should be blaming the system that allows for the circumstances that many people being displaced by technology are experiencing. Individuals should not have their financial viability completely compromised by shifts in technology or society. Sure, I feel for the existential problems that shifts cause (e.g. seeing your life’s work commoditized), but the material, economic harm that comes from it is entirely systemic. Is not Uber’s fault that taxi drivers are becoming homeless. It is the government’s fault for not providing an adequate social safety net.
<i>"He blamed politicians — mayors Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo — and their acquiescence to the rich for permitting so many cars to flood the streets."</i><p>Sounds like this guy didn't really believe in a free market and wanted the politicians to make sure supply was tightly controlled so that he could profit from reduced competition. I'm sorry but I can provide no sympathy for someone with this mentality because I'm quite sure he saw no issue with restricted competition and a very, very significant barrier to entry when he was able to profit from it (those medallions cost more than most people's houses in NYC).
Taxi and Limo drivers were setting themselves up for such disruption for quite some time. Forget the cost of the ride, if only they (as in, all drivers) had provided respectful and quality service without denying rides or throwing a tantrum for those who chose to pay by card, Uber and Lyft wouldn't have benefited from such anti-incumbency sentiment.<p>During the pre Uber/Lyft days, a driver himself told me how he worked: Basically, give enough rides till he get's his next meal's money or a bit more. Thats the kind of job security they had. Of course, they were benefiting from the regulatory bubble before Uber and Lyft deflated it instead of popping it.<p>I feel bad for those who joined the taxi industry just before Uber/Lyft juggernaut started, and were probably singed the worst.But I guess such things happen for those who join industries that are about to be disrupted..<p>The incumbent Taxi and Limo drivers didn't realize that with Uber and Lyft, they (cab drivers) had lesser political clout, to get favorable terms in regulations.
Technological disruption can often be a good thing - more/better product/services can be had for less money - I don’t think the HN crowd needs to be convinced of this.<p>However, it also means that in the short term, the people doing the work that has been disrupted are going to be impacted. And while a few Stanford grads can push an app at the click of a button, it takes humans much longer to adapt to the changes engendered, particularly if they’ve been doing the same job in the same city for 30 years, supporting a family with that income, and all of a sudden that job only generates a fraction of the money it once did.<p>Ideally, the society in which this occurs would have a number of safety nets (public healthcare, housing/food assistance, cheap/free education, reliable and affordable public transportation, etc) to ensure that those people do not suffer too much because of the transition.<p>Put simply, the US does not have many of these safety nets. Labor protection laws are a joke - the US still has no laws mandating paid maternity leave, for one example amongst many. Healthcare is a disaster, meaning that if you are unemployed and get seriously sick, it could literally spell the end of your life. Education is very expensive, making a professional reconversion hard to fathom for most. And housing prices in large cities are spiraling out of control, meaning that if you can’t make rent, homelessness is often the next step.<p>Uber, and so many companies like it, are improvements in some ways - who knows how long it would have taken for taxi companies to let people summon a car from a tap of a button on their phone. But in doing so, they’re also destroying the livelihoods of many. If the taxes that Uber paid were put to good use by the US government to offer support in all the ways we’ve seen above to those affected, it wouldn’t be as much of a problem. But here we are.
What would all these drivers do once self driving taxis become the norm?<p>They would instantly go from severely underpaid to completely unemployed. Considering that a market disrupter like Uber has affected them to this extent, do people honestly believe 100,000 new jobs would be available once automation takes their jobs?
Sucks for who ever invested in the medallions at the wrong time. Other than that I find it hard to feel sorry for the taxi industry.<p>Cabs refusing to pick people up based on race, refusing to go to certain areas, flat out cheating people by manipulating routes, some times not showing up if called. I've seen it all. Uber seems to eliminate all of those issues as far as I can tell.
What’s stopping them from switching to driving for Uber and Lyft? Whether or not those are devasting to Taxis the fact still remains those systems are superior to traditional Taxis.
I am surprised that most comments here have zero empathy for a worker in that age group that had been (for lack of a better way to put it) 'put out to pasture'.<p>Under the same type of thinking (and I wouldn't say that I am a union sympathizer in any way) there would be little use for unions since there will always be a large group of people that are willing and able to take the job at a vastly lower pay rate (for many union jobs).<p>There has to be a balance but the balance isn't simply removing all restrictions and letting people loose their living.<p>And no when you are in your 60's you are not going to simply learn and pursue a new career either everything becomes harder and your obligations are such that many times it's simply not practical.
I don't like it that uber is coming to my country also and taxis are being deregulated.
Until now you could make a decent living driving a cab, and all the cab drivers were skilled and professional and trustworthy. If you forgot your wallet in the cab you could be sure to pick it up at the lost and found.
It just isn't possible to operate a quality servicde with uber's model and prices.
You will have unskilled labour for less than minimum wages, ie. they won't be able to afford to buy a home for themselves driving for uber.<p>This is key from the article: "Implicit in his testament was the anger he felt over the de-professionalization of his life’s work"<p>Somebody here compared this to elevator operators. Come on, what a silly comparison. Driving optimally in a city and finding your way and not crashing is actually a job that takes skill and practice.
Taxi drivers can cry me a river.<p>Maybe if they didn't provide shitty service and lobby for self-serving, anti-consumer laws to limit how many taxis can be on the road, I'd have some sympathy, but no.<p>They shit their own bed, now they get to sleep in it.
Adding the link to Doug Schifter's Facebook post before committing suicide in protest<p><a href="https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1888367364808997&id=100009072541151" rel="nofollow">https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1888367364808997...</a>
One question no one explains is since the value of a medallion is obviously lower now why doesn't the commission have some kind our revaluation and give back money to the people who purchased it at a higher price.
It's a sad story and an unfortunate part of capitalism. But the alternative is worse. You don't (or shouldn't) have a right to make people purchase your product or service at whatever price you want.
One of my close friends killed himself. I don't wish suicide on anyone.<p>I'm sure Doug Schifter's fallacies are obvious to us. He was committing the CBT cognitive distortions of "Personalization" and "magnification". He failed to recognize that his taxi job was an ill-gotten gain, gotten through lobbying, government control, and harming consumers.<p>Our species is built around the principle of adaptation. When the world changes, you must change with it. Or you die.