Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America?

The government sets the tax-free reimbursement for using your own car for business at exactly 0.3 times the price of a gallon of gas per mile, and there's a very specific reason for that math. It’s basically a calculated way to cover the vehicle's depreciation over every mile driven. There is no way the IRS would ever approve a deduction if the costs didn't hit at least that threshold. If you were driving a high-end luxury vehicle, that mileage rate would have to be significantly higher to make any sense.
Gas prices are hitting a whole new level right now. $2.25Which brings us right up to a price of—let’s just call it— $0.67per mileListen, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: you don't just "pay" depreciation like you're paying a monthly bill at AT&T. It isn't some line item on an invoice that you settle after a trip to the mechanic or a fill-up at ExxonMobil. Depreciation is the silent killer that eats your wealth every single second you own a vehicle, whether you're driving it across Chicago or letting it sit in your driveway. You pay for it the very moment you sign those papers to buy the car, because the value drops instantly, and then it keeps bleeding out through every service appointment and every gallon of gas you burn. It's an invisible tax on your net worth that most people are too clueless to actually account for.
Let’s say you were looking at twenty average trips. 3.1 miles If you're looking at a typical daily commute that lasts about ten minutes, you’re easily looking at spending more than... Three hours of driving actually gets stuff done.Look, the numbers don't lie—we’re seeing some seriously solid occupancy here. We're talking 20 trips per day, easy. 3.1 miles I don't know what you're trying to get at with that, but if you've got something to say, just say it. Stop wasting my time with half-baked nonsense. $0.67The price per mile really drives us toward... $33 Let's talk about daily earnings.Imagine if you actually had an Uber driver running three different shifts just so you could make a decent living. $100 Seriously, where exactly are you seeing any profit potential here? Honestly. $33 Every single shift, you're on the hook for paying the Uber driver, covering the company's overhead, licensing fees, and all that other junk.
If you start messing around with the numbers—even if you double the number of trips or stretch out the distance—you’re left with practically nothing. You'd be bankrupt.

By the way, I’ve been looking through everyone's analyses—unless I somehow missed a post—and it seems like all you guys have focused on is the supply side. Not a single one of you has actually bothered to look at the demand or even try to justify why people would want this in the first place. Do you honestly think a trip from... $1.00 You think mileage is what drove everyone to start using Uber? I don't buy it for a second. Not happening. $5.00 I don't even know where to start with this nonsense. It’s just constant, mindless chatter that doesn't add anything to the conversation. Honestly, if you're going to post, at least have something worth saying for once. 3.1 miles Most Americans just couldn't stomach the price tag.

I didn't even bother looking at demand because the supply side is already failing.

jadehound53, I'm not trying to act like I know everything—and I have to qualify that statement now since people tend to get defensive—but the reality is that everyone has a starting cost. These aren't just some small-time local gigs; as far as I know, every business has overhead. In our case, we have $8.25, which seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't account for that, you could end up wasting 20 or 30 minutes just picking someone up, then lose another 10 minutes while they travel two miles, and if you have to head back to the base, you've burned 45 minutes just to earn $2.00. If demand were so high that you could just circle the streets and pick people up constantly, maybe I'd understand ignoring the starting cost, but that's completely unrealistic. I don't know, maybe I saw drivers in New York cruising like that, but I'm sure most Uber drivers there still wait for a dispatch call.

You can't just say, "Here, take three bucks," and assume you've hit equilibrium. Not without knowing the total costs, the demand, or the competition. But I can tell you this: if you have a franchise and you're working non-stop, you probably wouldn't even break even at that price.

It is refreshing to see we have finally acknowledged that improved logistics, increased effort, and actual competition can drive down Uber prices.

The figure I mentioned is merely an estimate—though it remains significantly lower than what people are paying right now.

The core objective here is to slash Uber rates; there is simply no logical reason for passengers to subsidize poor organization or the inefficiency of drivers idling at stands.

Subpar management—or sheer laziness—should never be a justification for inflated service costs; fortunately, there is a cure for that, and it goes by the name of competition.

Charles Hill78 said:The government sets the mileage reimbursement rate—say, at $0.67 per mile for gas—to roughly account for vehicle depreciation. They wouldn't greenlight a number that low if the actual wear and tear didn't justify it.

I appreciate your breakdown, but I have to offer a slight correction.

It seems most people in the States still approach this logic the same way:

"Well, the IRS says the cost is X..."

But frankly, what the government dictates has nothing to do with the actual operating costs of your specific company or setup.

We’re all still stuck thinking along these lines:
"How much should I charge so that I actually make a profit without killing myself with the workload?"

Jeremy Turner3 said:I haven't even considered demand—these offers are already failures.

jadehound53, I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing you—though I should probably caveat that now since people tend to get prickly—but the reality is that everyone has a starting cost. This isn't some niche local business model; as far as I know, everyone incurs overhead. In our case, they have $8.25, which seems perfectly reasonable. If you don't account for that, you end up wasting 20 or 30 minutes just picking someone up, then another 10 minutes driving them two miles, and by the time you head back to base, you've burned 45 minutes just to earn $2.00. If demand were so massive that you could just circle the streets waiting for riders, I might understand skipping the initial costs, but that’s completely unrealistic. I don't know—maybe I saw drivers doing that in New York City, but I'm fairly certain even there, most Uber drivers operate based on dispatch calls.

You can't just say, "Here's three bucks," and assume you've hit equilibrium. You can't make that call without knowing the total overhead, the demand, or the competition... but I can tell you this: if you have a franchise license and you're working non-stop, you likely wouldn't even break even at that price.

Dear Jeremy Turner3,

My apologies if I was a bit provocative or offensive at the start; please accept my apologies.

In my view, the base fare doesn't really matter in this specific concept. This type of Uber service wouldn't rely on fixed stands; they'd be constantly moving, eliminating the need for the current model where a driver hunts for a "victim" and drives ten miles just to fleece them. Though, I suspect they don't even hunt for victims when they are far from 1.9 miles.
You don't even need to go to New York City to see this kind of service. Athens has a similar service where riding an Uber is actually cheaper than taking public transit.

And let's not get hung up on the $1.00 right away. Whether it's 3.33 or 2.99, it's secondary—the core concept is what matters here.

Ultimately, success comes down to better organization, fresh ideas, and hard work. Jeremy Turner3, isn't that the fundamental principle of the country you live in?

Just fix it... 🙂

Here’s my logic: the government sets such high tax-free allowances that it actually increases the value. The state isn't just handing out money for nothing. So, if the government provides an offset equal to 0.3 times the price of a gallon of gas, then the actual depreciation on your car is significantly higher than that figure suggests.
I only brought up the government to illustrate the math. They aren't even central to the calculation.
But I also disagree with your claim about knowing the exact cost. The government dictates most of the variables anyway—things like the "market rate" for gas, vehicle taxes, property taxes, and so on.

The bottom line is that my calculation still holds water. Given the current conditions here in the USA with $1.00 mileage costs, you're definitely going to have to cover that gap per mile.

jadehound53 said:At the end of the day, success comes down to one thing: better organization, fresh ideas, and actually putting in the work. Jeremy Turner3, isn't that basically the whole blueprint for running a country?

I missed this thread earlier, so I’m jumping in now to address this.
Look, I agree that you can cut costs, but the real question is by how much. Based on everything I've seen, nothing that enters the USA from abroad actually keeps those "international" price points—everything just pivots to match the local American market. Take the owners of major US banks, for example; they usually recoup their entire investment within three years, which is the kind of rapid turnaround you typically only see in shady industries like smuggling or trafficking in more organized societies.

jadehound53,

I agree with you that competition is necessary—not the chaotic kind, but something regulated and functional. That’s always been my stance.

But when you actually dig into the data, you realize that while competition might drive up quality, the prices probably wouldn't budge much. You might see a marginal dip here or there, but nothing substantial.

Admittedly, comparing different cities is a mess because there are so many variables at play. Every urban landscape is unique. You have to account for the cost of living, gas prices, public transit reliability, road infrastructure, employment rates, and even how commercial zones are distributed—whether offices are crammed downtown or spread out logically. It’s complicated. To get any kind of realistic picture, it would probably be best to compare Washington, D.C. with nearby metropolitan areas of similar scale and infrastructure. Anything else is just guesswork.

Jeremy Turner3 said:jadehound53,

I agree—competition is essential—provided it isn’t total anarchy, but rather some form of regulated market competition. I have held that view from the beginning.

However, once you actually dig into the data, you realize that while competition likely drives up quality, the price point tends to remain relatively static. We might see a marginal dip here or there, but nothing revolutionary.

Admittedly, comparing cities is a bit of an exercise in futility since every municipality operates under its own set of variables. You have to account for the cost of living, gas prices, public transit reliability, road infrastructure, employment hubs, and general traffic patterns—essentially, whether the commercial centers are concentrated or decentralized. It's a massive list of factors. To get a meaningful comparison, one would probably be better off looking at Washington, D.C. versus similar-sized Mid-Atlantic cities with comparable infrastructure and standards... then we might actually have a realistic picture.

At least nowadays, it takes very little effort to look online and see how many taxi services are operating in places like Mexico City or Ljubljana:



http://www.autoberza.info/company/se...?categoryId=46



http://www.hit-taxi.com/ang.htm

A quick scan of these sites reveals about 20 services in Mexico City and 10 in Ljubljana—whereas Washington, D.C. is stuck with just one, effectively a monopoly.

In both those cases, rates are lower than in Washington, D.C. (which shouldn't surprise anyone), but the interesting part is the base fare. In those cities, the starting fee is roughly equal to or less than the cost of a single mile, whereas the Washington, D.C. service charges almost 2.5 miles right out of the gate.
There are also loyalty discounts based on frequency of use, which—of course—is a direct byproduct of a competitive free market.

Doing the research is trivial—just hit Yahoo and search "Ljubljana taxi" or "Mexico City taxi."

Uber

Right now, Uber prices in Ljubljana range from 80 to 150 SIT/km ($0.86– $1.50) with a base fare of 150 SIT ($1.50).

So, here’s what I found. It's cheaper than Washington, D.C., assuming your info on D.C. rates is actually accurate. I’m assuming fuel costs would be similar, neither city provides subsidies to drivers, overhead remains comparable, and there's enough demand to sustain it. If those variables hold, then this is the realistic rate you'd see in a competitive market.

One could dive deeper into an analysis of operating costs, local demand, or traffic infrastructure, but let's just say prices should hover in this ballpark. When you're drafting a petition, you need to present the data this way if you want to actually make an impact.

Thanks for your input, Jeremy Turner3,

for the record, here are the official sites and what you can expect to pay for an Uber in Washington, D.C.:

It’s hardly surprising they cost this much... out of everything I've looked at over the last few days, whether in the USA or Canada, this is easily the best Uber site yet:

Here is their breakdown:

For an interested party to join the Ocean Association, they must meet these requirements:
1. Register a business for providing transportation services (Department of Economy)
2. Complete transportation training or undergo retraining for a commercial driver's license
3. Pass a taxi exam (administered by City Hall)
4. Purchase 2 concessions for operating a taxi service
5. Be at least 21 years old
6. Have at least 2 years of driving experience
7. Pay an Ocean Association enrollment fee of $3333, which grants the right to join the Association's radio network

So, according to this, they are heavily regulated yet still privatized. Anyone can buy a concession provided they check all those boxes.

Of course, I don't agree with this setup. It seems to me the "association" has zero incentive to operate efficiently; you run the risk of conflicts of interest and various shady dealings. In principle, the sector is privatized, but it’s bound by this concession system. Concessions should stay if we want some semblance of order, but a concession shouldn't be a massive expense—its purpose should be consumer protection. Furthermore, joining the radio network and paying membership fees shouldn't be mandatory for everyone; competition needs to be encouraged there too. This is just a quick glance, though. If anyone actually has the time, read through all the "rules of the game" and make some suggestions... only then are you ready to start a petition.

Now, it would be a different story if these drivers had their own association to reduce overhead costs—say, by sharing a single radio dispatch—rather than being forced into an association just to be allowed to work.

The bottom line? A concession shouldn't carry such a heavy price tag (does anyone actually know what one costs right now?). Instead, the city should simply mandate certain standards to protect consumers, while membership fees and association ties should remain optional. That would actually foster competition.

In fact, a concession could cost a small amount if the city is responsible for maintaining taxi stands and similar infrastructure... but it shouldn't be anything substantial.

If you ask me, this is a textbook monopoly—let's just call it Yellow Cab.

The fact that they dictate their own rules—including those ridiculous $3.25 registration fees just to get on the dispatch line—is entirely their own issue.

The real issue lies elsewhere; there’s a distinct stench coming from the total lack of any competing associations. I suspect folks have tried to start their own groups in the past, but the "powers that be" likely shut them down.

Does anyone actually have the inside scoop on how this single taxi association managed to seize control of Washington, D.C.?

That’s probably where the confusion lies... though looking at this, it doesn't seem to be the case. It says here you have to pay a membership fee and meet certain requirements only if you want to join the association. Nowhere does it state that you can't just walk into a municipal office and apply for a concession without becoming a member first.

Someone who actually knows the ins and outs of this should weigh in.

Jeremy Turner3 said:That’s likely where the confusion lies—though this doesn't explicitly state it—it says you need to pay dues and meet certain criteria only if you want to join the association. It says nothing about being barred from walking into a municipal office to request a concession without becoming a member first.

Someone with actual expertise should weigh in here.

I can't help but feel a bit "nostalgic" reading your post:
it reminds me of those days when you had to check all the boxes, pay your dues, and join the Party.

As for why there isn't another party to join? Well, nobody seems to know. 🙂

Some tourist rolls into the Washington, D.C. airport late at night and looks for a cab.

Since they have a total monopoly, of course they ripped her off.

The fare to the Square was $100.
Fine, whatever—night rates, blah, blah.

But the woman paid with US dollars ($100) and this jerk gave her back only $67 in written text: two hundred kuna!!!!?!?!
What kind of exchange rate is $1=$1.75? It's just pure robbery!!!

I mean, we seriously need some competition. They should kick this driver out of the association immediately and BAN him from ever driving again.

😠 😠 😠

Cheers,
Chris Ruiz10

If you'll let me jump in here for a second.
Let's talk about monopolies and regulation.
We need to start from square one—without all that extra baggage everyone else tries to pile on.

Think about how a taxi company with its own fleet actually gets off the ground—they need stands. You buy them or rent them; the city or the state shouldn't even be part of that equation.
Almost every business out there, excluding giants like ExxonMobil, state-owned entities, or big tobacco, sets its own damn prices. We’re leaving the government out of that math entirely.

The city or the state only needs to step in when you have to guarantee service quality and protect people's property and safety. That means the government and/or the city should only be allowed to regulate the specific parts of a driver's business that deal with passenger safety and making sure they actually show up on time. That's it. Nothing else. I don't care about what color the car is, the model, how old it is, the features, the fees, the surcharges, or granting concessions...
Because, by its very nature, a concession is only granted when a job can't be handled by an unlimited number of people, which simply isn't the case with rideshare or taxi services.
So, why is it that after I register my business and pay for my Uber decals and ID numbers—so anyone can report me using that number—I still can't just grab my bucket and start chauffeuring people around? If a customer isn't feeling the look or the equipment in my car, they don't have to ride with me. And if I don't take them the fastest way possible, or if my car breaks down on the highway, they can just call the cops...
Aside from safety (which is the only thing the government has a right and duty to meddle in), how is driving a cab any different from making candles, running a bookstore, or fixing umbrellas?
It shouldn't be treated any differently.

..........................

Setra Smoborček brought up a solid point—public transit in a suburban town near a major capital is run by a private company that gets subsidies for non-profitable routes, just like the MTA does in Washington, D.C. And the system works; it's not world-class, but at least it functions just as smoothly as if it were run by a public agency. So, all those fears that a private company can't handle public duties? Totally baseless.

We ended up reaching the same conclusion as you... based on what we pulled from the Uber website, there’s nothing stating that anyone can’t apply for a city concession. There are probably restrictions in place, but wouldn't it be helpful if someone actually knew what they were? How much does a concession cost, or do you need to belong to some specific association?

I agree that the city or the Dražava shouldn't overreach in the ride-share sector; their job should be guaranteeing passenger safety. When I brought up new vehicles, that was my reasoning. For instance, why not make side airbags a requirement? Only newer cars have them. As for colors and branding, most major US cities set those requirements so tourists and locals can easily spot an Uber. These aren't barriers meant to kill competition; they are standards meant to ensure a baseline level of service quality for the passenger.

Jeremy Turner3 said:"The Department of Transportation recently rolled out a new set of regulations requiring all Uber drivers in the US to have built-in AC, an ABS system, and airbags for both the driver and passenger. On top of that, trunk capacity can't be less than 350 liters. These rules regarding special requirements for public road transport and private hire vehicles are set to kick in on January 1, 2004. This also includes mandatory third brake lights, headrests, and seatbelts for every single seat. Existing fleets will have until January 1, 2006, to get their acts together and meet these standards."

This approach is completely backwards! The government isn't here to play concierge and guarantee a luxury experience! Who guarantees the quality of service when you walk into a local bakery or a corner bodega? You just get the bare minimum assurance that the food won't kill you. In our world, the equivalent is simply getting to your destination via the fastest route without you or your luggage ending up in a ditch. Air conditioning or extra trunk space shouldn't even be part of this conversation.
I guess the rule about headrests is somewhat justifiable (from my perspective, anyway)...
As for the third brake light, that’s going to be standard on every car anyway, just like seatbelts for every seat—which, let's be honest, doesn't change a damn thing when you're just grabbing a quick ride through Washington, D.C.!

Anthony Moore8,

I have to disagree with you there. The Dražava guarantees a baseline level of quality for all goods and services.

It is strange to dismiss the importance of headrests while claiming seatbelts serve no purpose. As far as I am aware, seatbelts are most effective during collisions up to 37 miles/h, which is essentially the speed reached in any major city. Furthermore, headrests are useless without a belt, as their sole job is to prevent whiplash after the seatbelt has done its work.

The trunk space requirement is purely practical. When traveling with multiple passengers, especially during the summer months, extra luggage often becomes an issue. That said, most Uber drivers operate higher-end vehicles that offer ample room for both people and bags.

Air conditioning used to be a luxury, but nowadays even entry-level cars come with it as standard equipment. This regulation simply prevents discrimination by ensuring all passengers enjoy equal comfort.

The only real challenge will be the older vehicles that struggle to meet these rigorous new standards.