CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Economy › Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America?

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

Started by Jeremy Turner3 · · 👁 9 views · 60 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Jeremy Turner3jadehound53driftingnomad68Alexander HallJamie Newman40Frank Lee6rapidpuma43Charles Hill78Chris Ruiz10Anthony Moore8hiddenpuma2Aslyowl6Andrew HernandezKenneth Rivera8
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#41 ·

Frank Lee6 said:You’re out here acting like headrests don't matter, yet you have the nerve to claim seatbelts are basically useless. As far as I can tell, seatbelts are the single most effective thing you've got when you're heading into a head-on collision... 37 miles/h, so we're talking speeds that are pretty much identical to what you'd see cruising through a major metro area. On top of that, those headrests aren't just some decorative fluff—they’re actually functional. They exist specifically to prevent neck snaps during a rear-end collision after the seatbelt has already done its job...

So why just Uber, then? Why doesn't this rule apply to every single vehicle on the road? At the end of the day, the law says the car is required to have it, not that the driver is forbidden from pulling away if the passenger hasn't buckled up...

Frank Lee6 said:Look, that whole rule about trunk space is really just a practical necessity. When you're hauling a group around, especially during those peak summer months, having way too much luggage becomes a massive headache real fast. Most Uber drivers tend to run higher-end models anyway, which usually means there's plenty of room for both the passengers and all their gear... but you can't always count on it.

Why does the government even care about this? If I’m out there picking up a passenger in my Smart, my Lupa, or my Cinquecent—and let's say a whole family shows up—sorry, but you can't just jump in with me...

Frank Lee6 said:Look, AC used to be some high-end luxury feature, but let's be real—these days even a base-model Ford comes standard with air conditioning. At this point, making it a requirement isn't about being extra, it's just about preventing discrimination and making sure nobody gets stuck sweating while everyone else is chilling...

Unequal playing field? Please. It’s actually the exact opposite. Nowadays, any driver running an AC unit has a massive leg up on anyone without one. As a passenger, I can just flat-out say, "I'm not stepping foot in a car without climate control," and who's going to stop me? I'll just go find the guy whose ride actually has air conditioning. That's what you call a free market. And honestly, that driver should be able to charge a premium for it too—if you don't want to pay the extra fee, enjoy sweating through your shirt... Every time the government tries to meddle and overregulate things, they just dull the edge of progress. That's exactly why we're never going to reap even the smallest benefits of capitalism...

Frank Lee6 said:The only real headache is going to be those older vehicles that just can't keep up with all these heavy-handed requirements...

Look, this whole mess is a direct result of how Dražava handles things. I’m telling you, if an Uber driver gets hit with a flat tire or some other bullshit, what’s stopping you from just moving on to the next guy in line? It shouldn't be this complicated...
Frank Lee6 Frank Lee6 Member
42 messages
joined Oct 2005
#42 ·
I believe you are heading in the wrong direction. These regulations aren't designed for the drivers, but rather for the passengers they serve.

Why does this apply specifically to an Uber? Because an Uber is a public service, not just a private vehicle.

When you need an Uber, how will you decide which one to call? Which driver will have air conditioning? Or when an Uber arrives after you call it, do you really think they won't charge you a base fee just because you were being difficult? Having AC isn't even a luxury for drivers anymore, since they aren't allowed to charge extra for it; if the AC works, it’s for their own comfort, not just the passenger's.

If we had a fleet of Ubers with wildly different amenities, it wouldn't be a market—it would be chaos. Drivers typically follow a specific order for trips, so it only makes sense that everyone provides a standardized level of service.

Dražava hasn't caused anyone any trouble here; someone driving an older car has clearly been in the business longer and has earned more than someone with a brand-new vehicle.
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#43 ·
Frank Lee6 said:I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Those regulations aren't actually designed to look out for the drivers; they're there for the people sitting in the back seat... the customers...
Why does this only apply to a Yellow Cab? Because a cab isn't your personal ride—it’s a public service...
And you’ll be the one wandering around the city searching for a Yellow Cab when you actually need one, wondering which driver even bothers to turn the AC on... Or when a ride finally shows up after you called it, you think they aren't going to hit you with that extra base fare just because you wasted their time by canceling last minute?!...


Give me a break! I’m not the one heading in the wrong direction here. The entire country is spiraling in the wrong direction...
Look, let's get one thing straight: running a Yellow Cab isn't some kind of public utility... It’s a private business, plain and simple.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: being a driver for a Yellow Cab isn't some special, elite vocation. It's just a service business. At the end of the day, someone running a taxi stand is doing the exact same kind of work as a local tailor, an optician, or even someone selling umbrellas on a street corner... It’s all just small business operations, plain and simple...
The whole thing with base fares is a joke—it’s a direct result of how messed up current regulations are. As a customer, you don't even get a say in which car shows up to pick you up. If the taxi market were actually deregulated, drivers would be out here busting their tails to give you the best service just to win your business, rather than some random competitor getting the call... I haven't personally tested this lately, but if you call a Yellow Cab today and demand an AC unit, they’ll make it happen. And honestly? Let them try to charge me if I turn them down. What did I use? Nothing. What am I paying? Absolutely nothing...
It’s like you’re forced to buy something at every single shop you walk into, or like you absolutely HAVE to go pick up your pizza yourself when you order delivery... ridiculous...
Frank Lee6 said:If everyone had their own wacky little set of perks and custom rules, we wouldn't be looking at a functioning market—we'd just be staring straight into pure chaos. Look, how things actually work is that drivers usually pick up fares in a specific, predictable rotation. Because of that, it only makes sense that everyone provides the exact same level of service...

What you’re calling chaos, I call a free market. What some people label as mindless conformity, others see as pure discipline. What one side screams about as anarchy, the other recognizes as true pluralism... and this goes on forever...
Is it even remotely logical to assume that every self-checkout lane offers the same experience? Absolutely not...
Is it actually logical to think that every single restaurant out there provides the exact same level of service? Absolutely not... It’s just not how the world works. You've got your high-end steakhouses where they treat you like royalty, and then you've got those greasy spoons where you're lucky if they even acknowledge you exist. Thinking they all operate on the same wavelength is just plain delusional...
Look, let's be real here—Yellow Cab isn't some special case...
At the end of the day, whether you're booking a flight or catching a train, you're always looking at a bunch of different tiers of comfort... just a whole spectrum of ways to spend your money if you want to feel less like cargo.

Running a taxi business is just entrepreneurship, plain and simple. It’s no different from any other hustle out there...
It honestly kills me to think about it... if you had asked me just two years ago, I would’ve been stuck in some endless debate with you, trying to argue that it was impossible for AT&T to provide an itemized bill. I mean, come on—their service offerings aren't even remotely similar to what you'd find at a retail store. It’s just common sense...
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#44 ·
Alright, you bunch of contrarians. Look, your points are actually pretty solid and well-reasoned. I don't have much else to add; I respect where you're coming from, even if I don't exactly see eye to eye with you on everything—it’s actually pretty refreshing to have a debate like this.

But here’s the thing—setting aside all the talk about service quality for a second—I feel like we haven't really hit the nail on the head regarding the core issue: Is it actually necessary to...
- let one single Association hold a total monopoly over the taxi business?
- require specific concessions just to operate a taxi service?
- allow a single area to run without any actual competition?

So, before we dive deeper into this, I want to know if you guys agree with my basic premise here: that running a taxi service is just a standard small business, no different from any other trade, and there's absolutely no logical reason why it shouldn't be treated exactly like one.
Frank Lee6 Frank Lee6 Member
42 messages
joined Oct 2005
#45 ·
Anthony Moore8,

Perhaps my previous wording was slightly imprecise. A Yellow Cab isn't a public utility or a state-owned entity, but it is certainly a specialized service. They provide transportation options that are largely limited to government-controlled transit agencies or state-regulated private firms. However, one cannot truly compare a taxi driver to a tailor or an optician. When you need a ride, you need it right then; there is rarely time—or the desire—to haggle with someone trying to sell you a "pig in a poke." These regulations exist specifically to prevent drivers from using the guise of free market competition to offer wildly inconsistent levels of service.

Regarding your pizza comment: imagine receiving an order that is perfectly fine, yet you simply don't like it. In that case, you are more than welcome to stop ordering from that establishment altogether.

When you walk into a shop, you aren't obligated to buy anything. But if that shop came directly to your door at your explicit request and you decided not to purchase anything, that would be a different matter entirely.

As for your thoughts on the "free market" versus "chaos," I suggest reconsidering. What kind of free market would actually exist if there were zero standards, allowing every provider to decide their own level of quality at their own whim?
You mentioned that self-service stores don't all offer the same level of service; of course they don't, since there are no mandates for it. But they all, for example, keep dairy products in refrigerated displays. Imagine if they weren't required to do that. You go to the store for milk, bring it home, and find it spoiled. You won't return to that store, but now you have to wander all over town looking for a shop that actually keeps its milk cold. Is that a "free market," or just total chaos?

Passenger transport naturally includes various classes of service, but each class is precisely defined. When you book a specific tier, you know exactly what level of service to expect. Under your version of a "free market," you would know nothing upfront; you would simply have to be incredibly patient and persistent to find the quality you actually want.

P.S. In my humble opinion, a base fare for a Yellow Cab only makes sense for call requests, provided the pickup point is more than a mile away from a designated stand. If you hail a cab at a stand or catch one returning from a trip, there shouldn't be a base fee. I believe such a solution would be much fairer than the current system or the complete removal of the fee.
hiddenpuma2 hiddenpuma2 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Nov 2005
#46 ·
Donald Duck said:I think that might be the catch... even if it doesn't look that way at first glance. It says here you have to pay dues and meet certain requirements only if you actually want to join the Association. But there’s absolutely nothing stating you can't just walk into the Department of Commerce and apply for a concession without becoming a member first.

Maybe someone who knows the ins and outs of this could weigh in.

If I'm completely off base here, feel free to ignore me 🙂 (I haven't read every single post yet, but it seems like nobody has brought up this point:🙂

In Washington, D.C., they have this taxi competition that I think is handled brilliantly. There's this specific service that keeps a fleet consisting entirely of Mercedes models, and none of them are older than, say, three years. They handle corporate accounts, invoicing, wire transfers—whatever the client needs. They are incredibly fast, efficient, and professional. Their rates might be a tiny bit higher than what you'd pay a standard Yellow Cab when you're just catching a ride to your destination...
I honestly don't know how they pulled it off; maybe they started their own union or something... 😕

Anyway, just my two cents.
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#47 ·
Frank Lee6 said:Under your version of a 'free market,' you’d basically just be praying for patience and grit if you actually wanted to find a decent level of service.

Look, I really don't feel the need to prove you wrong here since this isn't some debate where there are objectively right or wrong answers—fine, whatever, think what you want; I’ve already said that once before.
I just want to address this 'my' free market model thing you're throwing at me.
My take on how taxiing should work is pretty simple:
- Anyone should be able to register as an individual or a company to provide rides in any city without facing insane overhead costs.
- Because of competition—just like how snack brands fight for shelf space—drivers will naturally strive to offer better service, nicer cars, safer vehicles, bigger trunks, friendlier attitudes, and so on. We don't need the government or City Hall dictating those standards.
- With prices dropping significantly, people would ride more often and have more choices. Following basic Darwinian principles, the overpriced, rude drivers with junk cars would just get weeded out. Right now, regulation just forces them to pretend they aren't terrible.
- As for the right to refuse service—my pizza analogy still holds water (even if I wasn't talking about delivery), because not only will a pizzeria stop delivering to me if they mess up (and what if the driver loses the order?), but I won't be ordering from them anymore either, and I'll tell everyone else their food sucks! It's the same for drivers. A customer—just like in anything else—has the right to refuse goods if they aren't satisfied, and not pay for them.
An extreme example would be hidden cameras in a torture chamber. You won't do it, and you don't have to.
- I never said the market shouldn't be regulated; I just said regulation should focus strictly on passenger safety, not on whether they're comfortable.
Since you already bought into my self-service comparison, here is how taxiing falls short compared to retail, and how customers are screwed even with regulations in place:
* When you open a corner store, you don't have to beg a Merchant Association for a permit or pay them for one $3.25 instead, you just pay the state what the law requires.
* From what I see in places like Chicago, there isn't a legally mandated minimum square footage for a shop, and if there is, it stays within reasonable limits.
* Milk and perishables definitely need to be in a fridge, and that fridge needs to work, but a trade association doesn't dictate its color, how old it is, its volume, or extra features like specific door types or ice buckets.
* The law doesn't require shops to have AC, even though most do so the food lasts longer, nor does it mandate heating in the winter—but everyone provides it anyway.

But also:

* A shopkeeper doesn't charge a premium rate just because it's late at night or a holiday.
* Shopkeepers don't collude to keep prices high just to avoid being kicked out of a trade group.
* A customer in a store can return items and get a replacement or a refund.
* A customer isn't forced to buy from one specific shop if they don't want to—they have options.
* A customer doesn't have to visit one exact store just because a trade association decides so.

So, maybe a better summary would be:
I am against regulating every tiny little detail of service quality.
I am for regulating the absolute bare minimum safety requirements for taxi services.

I am against monopolies and the practice of private associations wielding public authority.
I am for letting everyone try their luck in the business arena under equal but reasonable conditions.

I am against both the state and taxi associations dictating the terms of engagement between passengers and drivers.
I am for applying the same logic used in all other services, where the best and cheapest options win the user's trust.
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#48 ·
Since I’m trying to stop writing these massive essays—or honestly, just break this bad habit of mine😁—here's another quick one for you,

Maybe Greyhound could give us a better breakdown of how this works.
Everyone treats the MTA in Washington, D.C. like they have zero competition. But they actually have one little rival out in the suburbs—some local private shuttle service that holds the contract for city and commuter transit in a nearby suburban town.

From what I hear, those small town residents consider the ten-mile stretch from their station in the Neighborhood to the main terminal at the Neighborhood as a single zone, charging maybe 3 or 4$1.75 bucks, which is way cheaper than paying the MTA's $2.75 rates when you buy a fare directly from the driver. I’ve actually seen people who refuse to dodge the fare on an MTA bus hand over those few coins to the local guy instead.
But then, for a slightly longer trip from the suburb to that same Neighborhood where there's absolutely no competition, those guys split the route into a million tiny zones, making a single ticket cost 10$5.00 bucks.
There you go—just a little example of how even public transit can actually face some real competition!
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#49 ·
Donald: Here is the link that zizi dropped ()

If an interested party wants to join the Association, they have to check these boxes:
1. Start a taxi business (Department of Commerce)
2. Have completed transport school or undergo retraining for a commercial driver's license
3. Pass a taxi exam (The test is administered at City Hall)
4. Purchase 2 taxi operating concessions
5. Be at least 21 years old
6. Have at least 2 years of driving experience
7. Pay the Association membership fee of $3333 to gain access to the Association's radio network.

Based on what I've gathered from this whole thread (if you care, I think the juiciest part is the transition from page 1 to page 2) and based on what I recall from a recent episode of Chicago Panorama and an old Congressional show, if someone wants to drive a cab, they need a concession. These concessions are issued by the city to the taxi association. To join—see the list above.
My critique of the current situation is built on these premises. If I've completely misunderstood everything in some extreme scenario—please, someone set me straight, so I don't keep wasting my time or yours...
As for the other specifics in your questions, I don't have the inside scoop, but we aren't even debating the current regulations here; we're talking about the ones being introduced (or attempted to be introduced) by the Department of Transportation. That’s what I gathered from your post back on July 22nd.
Frank Lee6 Frank Lee6 Member
42 messages
joined Oct 2005
#50 ·
If you had led with your most recent point, we wouldn't have wasted so many words on irrelevant tangents.

I agree that those listed conditions are complete nonsense and place the taxi association in an absolute monopoly. It seems rather strange to me that the government would delegate the right to sell—or rather, lease out—concessions to an association.

I am not entirely sure how things work in Venice, but considering the taxi drivers (the local association) protested during the last round of concessions because City Hall offered more than before, I assume the granting of concessions isn't actually under the association's control.

Standardizing service only makes sense if we lack the option to choose, meaning we are "forced" to accept whatever level of service is provided at that moment. I still maintain that taxi services are unique because they aren't usually planned ahead (unlike going to a grocery store or a restaurant), and the primary goal is simply getting from point A to point B as quickly and smoothly as possible. Besides, very few people have the time or patience to hunt for the exact specific ride they want (unless they already have the driver's cell number saved).

Still, I am not convinced that a completely free market would actually improve quality. We are famously experts at finding ways to bypass anything even remotely normal, so chaos often erupts even in industries that are quite heavily regulated.😉
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#51 ·
Martina,
Look, I don't agree with you, but I'm not looking to start some massive blowout over it. Like I said before—I think everyone here has already laid their cards on the table!
I totally get where your skepticism is coming from—we Americans have a knack for twisting every single rule to suit our needs.
It reminds me of this segment on NPR about euthanasia. You had doctors, lawyers, priests... all the big hitters. At the end, they were supposed to take a final stand on whether legalization was the move. This one doctor, who seemed pretty middle-of-the-road, dropped this absolute bombshell:
"I'm against legalization, not because I see an inherent flaw in euthanasia itself, but because our people would take even the best law and twist it for purposes it was never intended for. Right now, I can't tell you exactly how legalizing euthanasia could be abused, but I am certain our citizens would find a way very quickly."

I think part of why we're clashing is that we're just looking at the whole concept of using an Uber through different lenses. It seems like you're talking about how people currently use a taxi service (honestly, the only time I ever used a taxi in my life was when I was 21 for a business trip, and the company cut a check for maybe 40-$17 for a ride from Downtown to the Lakers arena)
What I’m describing is a fast, cheap, high-frequency ride service—like what you see in those old movies where a guy just waves his hand, hops in, and drops a few bucks for a quick trip.
If you ask me, the only way to make that a reality is to have actual competition among drivers and for the government to just stay out of it as much as possible.
Just to set the record straight—you don't exactly "plan" a trip to Starbucks or Walmart on the corner. You run out of sugar—so you go, and you buy it... maybe grab something at Restac while you're at it? I wasn't talking about five-star dining experiences; I mean something simple like, "Man, I really want a Steak, or a pizza, or some veggie dish..."
Another thing is, in NYC, the rules aren't even set by the state; they're dictated by some civic association!
Give me a break—this "qualified driver" nonsense. I know a guy who drove his brother to work every single day for 40 years, took him on weekend trips, and drove the family across various states and even out to visit Expats a few times a year. He was driving well into his 80s without a single accident; yeah, he got a couple of speeding tickets or a seatbelt fine, but never a DUI, and he never lost his license. If that guy were 50 years younger today, he wouldn't be allowed to drive an Uber because he isn't a "qualified driver." c'mon!
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#52 ·
Look, that’s just how it looks on the surface.

I didn't want to bring this up earlier since I don't have anything in writing—I just heard it mentioned on a segment of Chicago Panorama.

The city isn't issuing any new licenses based on the recommendations from the taxi Association anymore, mostly because the Association claims there are already way too many drivers out there.

Ever wonder why they specify two? Those two licenses mean that if a new driver wants in, they have to track down two existing drivers who are looking to quit, then pay them whatever ridiculous price they demand for their spot just to be allowed into the Association.

But let's be clear, this "Association" isn't some nonprofit for animal lovers or historical preservationists... They hold public authority similar to the American Medical Association or that Bar Association group that has the power to grant or strip licenses from the losers of their profession. It's a total catch-22—if you want to drive on the streets of Chicago, you HAVE to be a member of this taxi Association! It's nothing more than a straight-up medieval guild model designed to protect their own interests through a monopoly.

As for the whole "hailing a cab on the street" thing, 🙂 the only reason I even brought it up was to try and put it behind us by simply pointing out the differences...
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#53 ·
To be honest, I’ve had some informal chats over the last few years with a couple of friends who really know their stuff, and they gave me the impression that the Association is actively pushing against any kind of open competition for concessions. Apparently, when the City tried to open things up to more players once before, the Association started making threats left and right, which pretty much shut the whole thing down. Of course, this is all just hearsay, so I’m using this thread to see if anyone has actual intel from other sources. I want to figure out if there’s a genuine legal barrier preventing competition, or if this is mostly just a backroom deal between the Association and the City.

In my opinion, the City needs to step up here and actually encourage some healthy competition. If I were calling the shots, I’d set specific requirements for entry, but honestly, for a major hub like Chicago, it would be great to have at least five to ten different private taxi companies operating.

From a purely legal standpoint, I’m still curious about the fine print regarding how these concessions are issued and how the Association manages to bully the City into meeting its demands. I’m heading to America for my annual vacation soon, so I might actually look into it firsthand while I'm there. We can pick this conversation back up after that.
slyowl6 slyowl6 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Nov 2005
#54 ·
Taxi services in Chicago really ought to be treated as a public utility, just like the CTA. At the very least, there needs to be some kind of standardization. We desperately need subsidies too, especially in a city where taxis aren't exactly the go-to option for everyone. Honestly, it was nothing short of embarrassing—and frankly, a nightmare—to deal with what happened to me at Union Station just last month. One morning, I’m standing at the main station and there isn't a SINGLE YELLOW CAB in sight. And then, to make matters worse, a ride from the bus terminal to... well, let's just say it was about five streetcar stops away, ended up costing me $25!
The pricing is absolutely outrageous (especially during the late-night hours), and the quality of service is just as bad. You've got drivers who seem like they've never seen a map before, and prices that make New York look cheap! As long as things stay this way, taxi drivers are going to keep whining about how quiet it is and why nobody is using them. If we don't fix this, Chicago is just going to end up stuck with a pathetic excuse for a taxi service.
Andrew Hernandez Andrew Hernandez Member
20 messages
joined Nov 2005
#55 ·
A situation in San Diego

Taxi services are overpriced, the cars are junk, and the drivers... well...

About a year ago, a new service called City Car started operating in town
with much lower rates and newer vehicles.

Ever since then, things have turned into a total Wild West scenario out there.
The local taxi drivers basically declared open warfare on this new service.

It’s gotten so extreme that City Car vehicles get intercepted on the street, where passengers are actually pulled out of the cars and forced into taxis. 😁
There were even instances where a taxi driver’s wife would book a City Car just to drive it to a secluded street where several taxis were waiting to "convince" them.

All of this happens while traffic inspectors look the other way, essentially playing favorites with the taxi drivers,
and the police seem only interested in handing out parking tickets to City Car drivers when they get cornered by the taxis. 😛

Just recently, while they were trying to pull a woman out of a vehicle at the airport, she fought back, shouting that she wouldn't go in a taxi because it was far too expensive.

It was a complete circus... all happening right in front of the police, the airport director, travelers, and the usual traffic inspectors, while onlookers watched in disbelief. 🙄
slyowl6 slyowl6 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Nov 2005
#56 ·
Oh, bravo 🙂

So much for an "organized," affordable, and helpful taxi service! Well, if you can even call it organized. This is straight-up criminal! 😠
These thieves actually think the public owes them this kind of money. They just lash out at anyone who was smart enough to avoid using a taxi in the first place—it’s pure retaliation.
Honestly, those folks from San Diego are really setting the gold standard here. 🙄
jadehound53 jadehound53 Member
16 messages
joined Sep 2005
#57 ·
Andrew Hernandez said:A case study from San Diego

The taxi services are overpriced, the fleet is aging, and the drivers—well, let’s just say they aren't exactly welcoming...

About a year ago, a new service called City Car started operating in town, offering much better rates and newer vehicles.

Since then, the streets have basically turned into the Wild West.

The taxi drivers viewed this new competition as an act of war.

It has escalated to the point where City Car vehicles are being intercepted on the street—passengers are actually being pulled out of them and forced into taxis. 😁
There was even one incident involving a driver's wife hiring a City Car just to lure someone into a secluded alleyway, where several taxis were waiting to engage in some "friendly" persuasion.

This pretty much explains why the taxi industry remains a monopoly in America—more accurately, a mafia monopoly.
If you think about it logically, you eventually realize this syndicate holds enough sway over local government to ensure they stay protected.

It is disgraceful, yet somehow surprising how we all just accept it as the status quo. We have simply become accustomed to the idea that a taxi is prohibitiously expensive and something you only use as a last resort.
One can only imagine the ordeals business travelers or tourists face when visiting America.

It would be refreshing if a political party actually stepped up to address this and finally dismantled this blatant monopoly.
Anthony Moore8 Anthony Moore8 Member
14 messages
joined Oct 2005
#58 ·
Andrew Hernandez said:Take a look at what’s happening in San Diego
(full post)

Who’s actually causing the chaos, picking fights, and harassing passengers? It's the current Taxi Association!
The mess in this market wasn't caused by some new guy coming on board; it was created by the same old crooks who refuse to give up their monopoly...
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#59 ·
This situation down in San Diego isn't actually about a monopoly—because let’s face it, one doesn't even exist here—it’s more about exposing the massive cracks in our entire legal system. It’s wild how they just hand these kinds of wins over to the taxi lobby on a silver platter. Honestly, the judiciary is a cancer in almost every sector at this point. And I’m not even talking about corruption; it’s just pure, unadulterated incompetence. Just look at that recent blunder where they ruled against the City of Chicago regarding those interest rates... you’d have to be genuinely delusional to calculate interest the way they did. At this rate, we should probably just fly in 500 expert prosecutors and judges from overseas and live under some kind of international judicial protectorate.
Kenneth Rivera8 Kenneth Rivera8 Newcomer
1 message
joined Nov 2005
#60 ·
It’s an absolute fact that so many players in various industries in the States try to cling to a monopoly at all costs. It’s just way easier to dictate prices and do next to zero work when you can just fleece some unsuspecting traveler who doesn't know the going rate. It's that old-school, outdated mindset where the customer has zero leverage and is forced to swallow terrible service and inflated prices just because they have no other option.
Take my experience in Chicago, for example. They have plenty of different taxi services competing. Since I was visiting a place with such a history, I made sure to check the airport-to-hotel rate ahead of time. I got a clear price printed on a sheet of paper: 550 CK—let's call it $18—and everything seemed fine. The next day, the trip from the hotel to my destination cost 3.7 milesIbis Taxi 200CK ($7). Totally reasonable. But then, a day later, I took the exact same route with Ibis Taxi and they wanted 250CK, even though there wasn't even any traffic. It’s that classic "if it works, use it" mentality left over from a different era. When I called them out and said, "Hey, it was 200CK yesterday," the guy just shrugged and insisted on the higher price. Of course, if he had a total monopoly, he wouldn't have to give a damn what I thought.

Now, look at the situation in San Diego. As a visitor, the dynamic is crystal clear. You don't have to worry; the meter is clearly visible, the driver gives you a fair estimate, you have a pleasant chat, and you pay your fare and move on with your life.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads