For reference, the 15-minute law mentioned in the article is a restriction that companies like Uber have to force their customers to wait at least 15 minutes before getting a ride. Given that the average black car gets to a customer in 7 minutes, this is a serious handicap. [1]
This sort of law feels really backwards. It degrades the service of companies like Uber and imposes negative externalities on society--more cars pointlessly idling and waiting around, more traffic congestion and so on. The idea behind a market is to improve quality; trying to "improve" the market by arbitrarily degrading the quality of some competitors is exactly counter-productive.
Given that the taxis have gotten this absurdly protectionist restriction in place, it's even harder to empathize with their protest. Actually getting violent is even worse.
Of course, it's also important to remember that this is likely an extreme action by a single individual and does not represent taxi drivers as a group. In fact, there is no immediate link between the attack and taxis, although it seems extremely likely. That said, even ignoring the violence, I do not really sympathize with the taxi protests here.
How would you feel if you paid quarter of a million euros for your taxi licence (maybe by mortgaging your property or going heavily into debt) only to be undercut by illegal taxi drivers who didn't bother to get licensed and didn't follow regulations ?
Obviously it's not an excuse for violence, but it's important to remember there are always multiple sides to any argument.
This is exactly what happened here in Ireland in 2000. The market was deregulated overnight and there was a flood of new taxis on the roads.
Needless to say existing taxi drivers weren't very happy as a lot of them had paid around €100,000 for their license. They were effectively worthless after deregulation.
All this was great news for consumers of course. Before deregulation it was practically impossible to get a taxi in Dublin on weekend nights. I can recall queuing for hours in the cold and wet for the privilege of being dropped home.
The taxi drivers mightn't like deregulation but you can't hold the general public to ransom by operating a closed market. Of course the government should have handled the whole thing better by doing some sort of deal with the drivers who'd paid so much for licences thinking it was a long term investment.
Because the system is broken and people are heavily invested in the current system and it being broken...
What? What's the logical conclusion to that sentence in your mind?
Should we keep on running the war on drugs because there are so many people who make a living off of it? Should we maintain copyright law the way it is today because companies have invested so heavily in it? Should we maintain software patent law the way it is because some folks have spent billions acquiring patent portfolios?
There are a lot of middle-ground options, such as "buying back" taxi medallions before opening the floodgates and letting anyone run a taxi. This is obviously a tricky approach for a lot of reasons, but certainly there's a middle ground between "taxi medallions forever" and "all taxi medallions are worthless overnight".
that's why they added 1000 licences, to deflate slowly the market. The are going from 17000 to 18000 licences.
The market got corrupted by artificial scarcity, it has to go back to a normal level, those who speculated will have to pay for it, as they are part of the problem. They know it and that's why they are so violent, they have no hope.
It's not exactly a level playing field, with a limited number of taxi licenses being bought and sold on the open market for around 200k-250k. No surprise they're not happy and want to recoup their investment…
Thank you for the link. The licence value is the key reason why taxis are pissed. It is also the reason why they organised taxis scarcity, keeping the licence price up, and the service terrible. They kind of created the ideal conditions for alternative solutions developpment. But a proper way of recouping their investment should be provided to them rather than articially distinguishing the Uber businesses and taxis businesses. Its basically the same.
> For reference, the 15-minute law mentioned in the article is a restriction that companies like Uber have to force their customers to wait at least 15 minutes
This law is disadvantageous both for the customer and the driver, so just how difficult would it be to even enforce?
It is quite difficult actually, if only for political reasons. Taxi drivers have a high level of nuisance, which gives them bargaining power. It would be suicidal for the gvt/institutions to go directly against them.
While violence is unacceptable (and hopefully the perpetrators will be found and tried), one also needs to realize that taxi drivers had to pay a high price to become taxi drivers. The current price for a license is 250000 euros in Paris (according to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxis_parisiens). Anybody in that situation would be pissed, and a fairer solution would most likely involve a plan to rebuy licenses.
The existing taxi companies, of course. If you have to wait 15 minutes for a car to arrive when you use an app or place a call then you are vastly more likely to try to hail a cab on the street.
So in France its become a rule that violence is the way to counter unpopular laws? Recently a negotiator was kidnapped by workers, which is sad enough, but apparently its become the norm to kidnap negotiators as a regular tactic.
Has all rule of law broken down in France? I sounds like some Mad Max free-for-all there.
Not trying to advocate violence here, but few broken windows works better than wearing black armband.
This is how it seems to work in this country. Nobody will ever pay attention to some quiet, peaceful and respectful protesters, but as soon as things are getting dirty, then medias are all in and people/politics are actually talking/thinking about it.
This is indeed unfortunate, but as a matter of fact it works
The London way (a difficult exam, probably far beyond what's actually needed for the job, as the main way to reduce supply) is probably the best way to manage supply.
Most American taxi markets aren't restricted like NYC (or a few other big cities), and even those that are are not anywhere near as expensive. NYC and SF seem like the big outliers for restrictive permits in the US.
Let me tell you how things are in Russia. We don't have any taxi driver unions, I don't think we have any licensing for taxi drivers, but if we do, it's probably not expensive.
In Russia it works this way: you go out on the street, raise your hand and you get your car in like 1 minute (even at 4am in the morning it doesn't take very long time, provided you are downtown, did that many times) - basically some guy who wants an extra buck will stop and get you anywhere. Some make a living that way. You negotiate the price, it's usually rather cheap even in large cities compared to what you'd be charged for the same ride in Europe or the US. You don't have to tip the driver, since the price is negotiated beforehand. Now we also have a lot of competing official taxi companies. They all are relatively cheap and they mostly get their clients through internet or phone and the use case for those is when you need to go to the airport or have a pre-arranged trip.
We also have jitney transportation which is only slightly more expensive, but much faster than public transportation. Drivers are mostly from central asian republics or southern republics - demographics russians are rather hostile to - yet I haven't met more friendly drivers in the whole world. And, in my personal view, people are rather receptive to that and are quite polite with them too. It's pure competition and free market and it works to the benefit of all.
You can criticize Russia all you want, but in some areas the free market here exists relatively untouched (probably thanks to bribes, but still, it's better than regulation).
Would light regulation hurt this? Just requiring that all taxi drivers display an ID number, and with some inexpensive process to become a new taxi driver (verifying you're not already banned, that you have a valid license, and if required in Russia, insurance).
The problem with taxi regulation is when "safety" is used as a pretext to reduce supply. I pay a premium in general to get a taxi which is somewhat less likely to be driven by a criminal, and I imagine female/small/weak/foreign/etc. people would pay more of a premium for this. If the regulation is just for the purposes of identification and safety, it wouldn't have a huge cost for the taxi driver ($50 or so and a few hours), and would probably justify an increase in rates to make up for that.
I could easily imagine a private licensing system coexisting with an unlicensed market.
Why would you need an ID from a taxi driver? If you're scared a taxi driver's gonna rob or rape you (a common concern among ladies) you remember or photograph his plate number (or ask your friend to do so). An official government paper wouldn't make it any more safer. It would only add problems for drivers since they would have to acquire those licences, it would increase corruption and decrease supply, which would in turn raise prices. If you care about safety, call a licenced taxi company - your choice, isn't it?
Update: I misread you. "licensing system coexisting with an unlicensed market" is definitely the state of things in Russia currently. I think that's a good way to go. Except maybe that since licensing is not required, then safety may be guaranteed by non-governmental agencies or maybe even technologies (as mentioned in another comment below).
An Uber-style taxi service would certainly make the situation safer. You get a paper trail before you get into the cab showing that driver X picked up passenger Y at time T.
I agree. But please note that government regulation would have nothing to do with it. This would be safety provided by the free market. Question is, what would the demand for such a safety be. If the prices were to remain the same, then the company providing this safety would drive all those freelance drivers out of the market. If not, then there would still probably be some demand for Uber, but also some demand for less safe options.
I was in Russia a few times back 10 years ago and regularly did this as a solo woman traveller whose Russian is not so good. I felt perfectly safe, at the instruction of other girl friends at the time. Not sure I'd do that anymore solo (youth provides a certain fearlessness) but no qualms when with others.
How safe is it? I heard that one of the reasoning for the entire registration of taxi services was that a lot of unlicensed taxis were actually dangerous, and that enforcing registration greatly lowered the amount of crimes happening inside the taxis (at least reports of this).
I think it's safe. But I'm not a lady. Even if I was a lady and was really concerned for my safety while riding cabs, why wouldn't I call a licenced taxi company instead and pay more for my safety? The problem with requiring everyone to be licenced is that you force customers who are less concerned about their safety to pay for those who are more concerned.
So if I'm not concerned about my safety someone should force me to be concerned? On what grounds? Who gave that someone an authority to intrude into my personal life?
That's not choice. You're saying I shouldn't be able to use unlicenced cabs because someone considers them unsafe. It's like saying I shouldn't be able visit websites a government considers dangerous, and if I don't like to read government approved websites, there are other ways to get information apart from the internet (which, incidentally, are more regulated).
No, I don't think so. Maybe from some. But my guess is that most of them would have no idea where to get you a prostitute. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like a stereotype.
My friends travel quite a bit in Russia and from what I hear it would probably be difficult to find a taxi driver who couldn't get you to a hooker. I strongly believe the same is in all other countries.
This is simple case of a Scab breaking down the power of the union and the union fighting back against it.
Violence is wrong and this is not ok.
However, Uber should be more aware of what they're 'disrupting'. Strong unions see this as a foreign company threatening their livelihoods and there will be push back.
We had similar problems in the US. Various organizations would start legitimate businesses and engage in violence against competitors - garbage collection, construction and importing Italian foods (olive oil in particular) were quite popular.
They would also extend "protection" to favored businesses, and use violence against businesses which did not accept "protection".
I wasn't referring to the mafia infiltrating unions at all. I was referring to organizations who use violence against competitors, run protection rackets and corruptly influence politicians. In the US the Mafia was such an organization. In France it appears their taxi driver unions are.
However, Uber should be more aware of what they're 'disrupting'. Strong unions see this as a foreign company threatening their livelihoods and there will be push back.
Yeah, this isn't USA. There are actual employment rights and strong trade unions here.
I'm also in France and I am very happy that workers actually have rights here (as opposed to my native land, the USA).
But you always must keep diligence, because unions can devolve into a mafia. The taxis here in France are an example of that. I have never had a single ride that was the correct price, and after many attempts I gave up. I'm certainly not alone. People have been trying to disrupt and get around them for ages but they fight as mafia do: fiercely.
I'm also an American living in France, and I have never even been able to get a taxi in Paris, on the street, at marked taxi stands, or asking directly in a bar where the taxi drivers hang out while they are 'working'. Fortunately I don't live in Paris.
It seems that taxi companies are more mafia than union in the US also, but at least they will pick you up. This is because the government won't give them money if they don't work. I appreciate that France has a strong social safety net, but this is one of the downsides of that; it's easy to abuse.
This seems quite disingenuous to say the least. I'm a French living in Paris, and have never had any trouble getting a cab, unless I happened to be in one of those neighborhoods that are completely deserted at night. In that case you'd have to call one up.
Maybe the cabs you were trying to get already had customers on board. Hint : if a taxi is free, the light on top of it is green. If it's red, there's already a customer on board.
The last time I tried I was with my wife and daughter, trying to get to the airport with luggage. I think the luggage scared them off.
You know that the idea for Uber came from the founder's experience trying to get a taxi in Paris, right? That suggests I'm not alone in my experience with Parisian taxis.
> You know that the idea for Uber came from the founder's experience trying to get a taxi in Paris, right?
Actually that link says the complete opposite. It says that while in Paris, the founder were talking about their (bad) experience of getting a taxi in San Francisco.
> Garrett Camp and I were hanging out in Paris for a week at Loic and Geraldine LeMeur’s LeWeb conference. Amongst the amazing food, the copious amounts of wine and inevitable nightlife crawls there were all kinds of discussions about what’s next. Garrett had sold StumbleUpon to Ebay and had been doing “hard time” at a big company. I had just completed my tour with Akamai after selling Red Swoosh to them in 2007.
>
> Jamming on ideas, rapping on what’s next is what entrepreneurs do. Garrett and I would get some good music, good drinks and jam until 5am. Garrett’s big idea was cracking the horrible taxi problem in San Francisco — getting stranded on the streets of San Francisco is familiar territory for any San Franciscan.
Heh, I wonder if it's because it's an American looking for a taxi in France, as opposed to a French person looking for a taxi.
When travelling around Europe, I put big Irish stickers on my motorbike. You can get Scottish flag stickers for your car that say "Scotland" in French[1], so the French drivers don't think you're English.
I never experienced the kind of hate that some Americans attribute to French people. As far as the French hating the English, have you ever listed to any Roald Dahl childrens' stories? They pretty much ensure that good English kids are raised to hate the French. I used to know an English family who played Roald Dahl CDs for their kids whenever they were in the car. It was frightening. So a little reflection of that isn't too surprising.
How the hell can you end up paying the wrong price. There is a leaflet in the taxi itself explaining pricing, and there is a taximeter. And no expectation of tipping. Also prominently displayed is the number to call if something is wrong. For all its faults, it's a heavily regulated activity...
Seriously? I've lived in Prague for years and sometimes struggled with the taxis there (you have to use the right company, watch out for turbo which spins up the meter, etc.). I'm sorry but it's nothing compared to France. I don't know of a single local here who uses a taxi. I'm sure I could call the number to report each ride, but I'd just rather avoid it.
There are 17000 taxis in Paris, so I doubt that I'm their only customer. And I'll answer to your anecdotal evidence that 100% of the people I know take a taxi somewhat regularly...
it's slightly ironic that the unions in France are strong despite low participation rates , and in the US there's much more participation.
One could argue that , because of collective bargaining, there might not be that many advantages to joining a union in France (the biggest union ends up representing you anyways).
That was my point, as subtly as I hinted it. Some people just don't have a sense of humour though. Or maybe I'm not funny. Or maybe they're too attached to what I'm poking at. Who knows.
This would be really terrifying for the passengers and driver -- impressed that the Uber driver was able to deal with it as well as he did. This pretty clearly falls into a lethal self defense situation, so driving off, and if required through, the attackers would be totally reasonable, but if your car is already disabled you're kind of screwed.
It's amazing how some cities have essentially criminal mafias running taxis (Paris, Pattaya, to some extent Bangkok), some have crazy feudalism (New York, where you have rich people sitting on $1mm medallions and Somali immigrants making $30/day to drive), some have what seem to be overpriced but reasonably well run services (London, Singapore), and some just have ~no taxis at all (most of the US outside major cities, and most poor parts of US cities).
I will shed zero tears for the end of the taxi industry. First by Uber and ride sharing, finally by robots.
The way I think of a union, it's an organization of employees who bargain with its employer.
Unless the entire taxicab industry is nationalized by law in France, it makes no sense to me that a taxicab union is protesting against another company disrupting their business. That's just being a thug.
You should have the right to organize for bargaining of salary. Imposing an artificial handicap on another business model is really backwards.
For one, a "its employer" doesn't work. The employer does not employ the union, and employees of multiple companies may be part of the same union. ".. who bargain with their employers" is a better fit.
For another, a union can do more than just bargin with the employer. It can provide skills training, mentorship, insurance, petition government on behalf of the employees, and more, even outside of any employment relationship.
For a third, union abilities in the US are "artifically handicapped". Jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, common situs picketing, closed shops, and other actions are prohibited by law. By your argument, you want unions in the US to have much more power than they already do.
Ah, yes, you're right. My understanding of unions is indeed limited in the ways that you pointed out.
Not sure I agree with your last statement. It depends... I don't think unions should be able to forcefully close down a shop if the owner can actually resume operations by firing all of the union members. On the other hand I'm completely alright with unions organizing and deciding to go on strike, in order to push for a bargain. I suppose I'm more comfortable with these boundaries because it "naturally" follows from ownership (the union can't shut down a factory because they don't own it) and respect for volition (the employer can't prevent people from willfully organizing).
I also understand that sometimes large corporations prefer to shut down a factory rather than sell the factory to the workers, in order to prevent competition. In this case I'm willing to concede that the workers should be able to purchase the factory from the corporation, as a judgement call that the livelihood of the factory workers are more important than whatever benefit the corporation sees.
But I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market. I believe there is more at stake in lost opportunity that way, and so I call such practice "backwards".
I'm probably missing a lot of subtlety here; like if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory worker banning unions outright? I really don't know the answer.
"I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the growth of another company that is winning in the free market."
That's the key point. Unions are constrained on what they can do. I can threaten to stop working unless my employer stops purchasing from a company with a horrible safety record, where the employees of the other company are on strike as protest. We're both agreed on that, right?
But do it collectively - say, 90% of my fellow 4,000 employees threaten to stop working in support of the workers of the other company - and suddenly it's labeled a union and our actions considered an illegal sympathy strike.
I can't help but conclude that the legal constraints on what a union can do mean that it can't fully participate in a free market. Instead, the 'free market' you're talking about is actually 'the market where collective action freedoms have been deliberately handicapped.'
(Personally I think there must be constraints on a free market, but that's a different conversation.)
"if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike"
Why can the factory owner do that? Surely the union contract would prohibit mass firing during a strike. Otherwise, as you say, what's the point of having a union?
In the context of US law, there are certain things that an employer is prohibited from doing. Mass firing of legally striking employees is one of them. Even non-union ones. (See http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/15/walmart-striking-wor... for a nice summary.
if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory worker banning unions outright?
Yes it is. And that's why (in many countries) you can't fire people when they go on strike. The employer doesn't have to pay them, but the can't fire them. When/If the strike is over, they still have a job.[1]
Is it legal to fire striking employees in USA?! That sounds bizare!
I don't think we should compare the taxi lobby to an union. French politicians are scared of them for one reason : they keep talking about politics to their clients. Violence isn't a such a nice way to get what you want.
Many taxi drivers are considered semi-criminal tough guys where I'm from (apparently elsewhere around the world too), so this is one incumbent which can become quite unpleasant while on their way out.
"Microsoft Managers And Employees Protest, Bash Computer of Linux User"
Eventually, some of these hardworking taxi drivers will have an epiphany. They're fighting the wrong entity. Fighting against decentralized commerce and personal choice is generally a side of aggressors. When the dynamics of reality become inconvenient to monetary interests, the first call of aggressors and cultists alike is to forsake the freedom of others. We pay the piper. We eat gruel. You better fall in line too, or else... The sooner a person begins to actually care about other people, the sooner a person may acknowledge reality to adapt or improve.
Times are changing and people tend to resist change.
Unfortunately many times it gets violent. Unions are a dangerous thing to mess with, but in the end the customer convenience should win.
All they need to make sure is that Uber pay their proper taxes in France. ;-)
This calls for the police to get involved and bring these attackers to court, plain and simple. How anyone could imagine this is a valid form of protest is beyond me.
All french people are not rude, stupid and whatever like them ;)
It's a shame and in the same time, we can use it against cabs who don't understand that it's maybe time to accept change and move on with, not against.
I think the protest is not directed towards the right direction, but Parisian taxi drivers need to buy a license which is like 200 k. They see this investment go down the drain as new businesses like uber appear.
I know, I am from Paris :).
But my point is "why not accept it's maybe time to change some "things"".
Why we use Uber? it's geek (ok its a point) but mostly because:
-nice and clean car
-nice people
-good service
-moderne (phone, payement,...)
I am sure it's possible to modernise cabs of Paris (and other cities)(hmm maybe time to think about a new project! ;))
As a French, I hate taxis as much as other people. I guess the taxis drivers only have other taxi drivers as friends. Even the government is acting out of fear. I suppose the government could lead a battle, but they have to pick them wisely since they have low ratings, and gay mariage have already quite strained the support in a very conservative country. Moreover that would be seen as a movement to ease the entry of a foreign company stealing the money from french ones.
Uber driver apparently pulled them out safely. It's a shame some countries take change so violently. I love Paris and France, I also use Uber there... this is terrible. SO glad Kat and Renaud made it home safely afterwards.
The article doesn't state it's a protest against Uber.
I condemn violence and most strikes when they're used as an easy form of politics, but we can also note that protesters don't feel supported by their government and that's their way to make a threat.
Uber and it's ilk are nice and disruptive and all and you get a cheap ride out of it, but we must not forget that they are disrupting people's livelihood and cultural and social traditions too. I do not condone the violence, but I kind of understand it. Do we really want every country to be Americanized like this, one disruptive app at a time? To some people, these "unions" appear to be protection rackets, but I saw them as part of the French society and culture. If you don't like it, don't force your own beliefs and practices down their throats. Go somewhere else.
Oh yeah and the Mafia is just part of Italian culture right? Don't like it go somewhere else?
As a person with Amsterdam Taxi experience (including getting pulled out of a taxi and forced to ride another taxi at the train station at midnight) I welcome competition. The problem with no competition is the way some taxi-drivers can treat their 'clients': We've had drivers refusing to accept clients, because they were female, or because the ride wasn't profitable enough or even because they were BLIND. The driver didn't want the dog in the car. We've even had drivers trying to rape clients. It's a bloody mess. UBER in Amsterdam has been a big success. I welcome them with arms open wide.
The mafia is illegal in Italy as far as I know, so that is not a valid comparison. Yes there are problems with all taxi drivers, and I do not see how Uber drivers are immune from these.
THATS the disrupting part: You can rate your driver online. See https://www.uber.com/drivers You see the rating before you book a ride. This makes all the difference.
But aren't the ratings meaningless? I remember reading how Uber drivers were upset because a rating measurably below 5 out of 5 can get you fired. As long as that system prevails, a driver's rating won't tell you anything more than the fact that you found them on Uber did.
I think if you had the identity of the driver (both before and after the ride) a lot of drivers would not behave like criminals. Instead of fighting UBER these companies would do better if they put the client on the center stage and perhaps start their own rating-identity service.
The taxi registration and the time of the ride are as good as an identity for the purpose of identifying an individual driver if you chose to report the driver to the regulating authority...
"To some people, these «unions» appear to be protection rackets, but I saw them as part of the French society and culture."
This push of yours to shield the unions with culture is reprehensible. There are definitely elements that are part of culture/society (conferring it uniqueness), but those should be carefully kept apart from other things such as unions what are not. Don't let the economic players to corrupt your perceptions towards non-economical realm, especially when what is targeted is a part of your identity (and therefore affects your ability to judge things objectively).
While it might be hard to defend the incumbent taxi industry, and Uber generally seems to be a "good thing" (not convinced that surge pricing is worthwhile however, I don't think that drivers are reactive enough that increasing price will increase supply when its needed, plus the backwards bending labor curve, but I digress). There might be some reasons for regulating taxis, but things like the medallion systems seem to have been a failure.
Hotels are a different matter entirely: firstly, hotels are usually already pretty correctly priced, and services are usually good (in my experience at least). Secondly, the reasons for hotel regulation are still pretty relevant:
- I don't want my neighbor to sublet constantly, and have people run around. The commons (hallways and stuff) will probably get degraded, and my life will be generally shittier (see various stories about subletters).
- On a more maco-level, with things like rent control, subletting makes the supply even more constrained. Between getting rid of subletting and getting rid of rent control, I'd rather get rid of rent control, but in the meantime subletting is also kind of awful.
Not in Paris. The independents still paying their medallion ("plaque de taxi", valued at about 240k €) are strangled by debt, and those that are employee are barely above minimum wage.
It's pretty obvious to everyone that dropping the medallion system is the way forwards, but is there any example anywhere of dropping the medallion system in a fair manner for those that actually bought their medallion recently?
Also, another thing I'm pretty concerned about is the qualification of non taxi drivers. The taxi license is actually very hard to get, I'm not so sure of what Uber requires of its drivers...
Bashing french unions certainly is fun, but please note that there absolutely no evidence (in the article) that the attack was perpetrated by a french taxi driver. This article is either very poorly documented or consciously misleading (or both).
> There’s no confirmation that this attack came from the protesting taxi drivers; however, that certainly seems to line up with the sentiment felt by taxi drivers these days – unwarranted hate.
But it's not only about the physical attack itself, which I agree that it's doubtful, it's also about the broad view. There's an economical-based conflict that stretches far out of pure economical front, using questionable methods, for questionable reasons (fight someone because some one else ripped you off?). Not that is something unique, but interesting to watch nevertheless.
I've been always curious about these relationship that arises when someone disrupts an existing ecosystem.
I'm all for innovation,and finding ways to make things, environments and habits, better, more efficient, safer and more intelligent. This, however, raises an interesting moral dilemma. In these ecosystems, prior to the disruptor, agents live and thrive. After the disruptor, these agents must adapt or otherwise, be gone.
When you think these agents are actually human beings, with issues, dreams and families, a new variable is added to the discussion. Is it OK to disrupt an ecosystem if you find a way to make everything better? Is it moral? You found a better way, so surely it must be implemented, and there are few arguments against that. The agents in the ecosystem had almost all what was needed to find the new way, to enhance their ecosystem: time, experience, imagination. And for one motive or another, they failed to do it. What is their argument when someone else comes along and provides a better solution?
I'm not trying to sound Randian or anything, but I truly believe that 'we have families to feed' or 'will lose job' is not a very good argument. Is the ecosystem supposed to be kept in the previous state just for the agenda of a subset of the agents? Under that argument, we shouldn't have cars in the first place. Nor bronze age (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M)
Is this a testament of the inherent cruelty (cruelty in a poetic way, just as natural selection can be thought of cruel) of the free market, or just a testament of the importance of innovation as a way of survival? Maybe both? I can't help but notice heavy analogies with Natural Selection.
> There’s no confirmation that this attack came from the protesting taxi drivers
So why are we talking as if it came form the protesting taxi drivers then? Maybe they were just ordinary thugs. I know people who got robed in their rental car in Paris. I love Paris but there are certainly saver places in France.
While Uber doesn't seem faithful to me on this story, I would also love if taxis in Paris were affordable and good quality, like in Madrid and Syndey. It would develop the job and reduce car pollution.
Glad to see the taxi drivers of Paris taking action. Uber are just another scumbag American company, trying to turn a skilled profession into an anonymous commodity service, and in the process ensure the CEO makes millions while the employees receive peanuts. This doesn't fly in a country with such strong Unions and solidarity as France.
This seems like sarcasm, but if it isn't would you care to elaborate on how France or its citizens are harmed by Uber? You seem to have first praised the Taxi drivers for lashing out at Uber drivers, but then you claim that Uber is a "scumbag" because of the way it treats its drivers. Isn't that contradictory?
There's a license for taxi driving in France. Uber and Uber drivers don't pay for it. That's unfair competition.
I can see on taxis-de-france.com that the price is 120-195k€ (Notice the k) depending on the zone. It's not comparable to 240.000$ in Chicago, because the average salary is 1500€/month in France. Guess why taxi drivers are irritated.
Not sarcasm. American companies are notorious for treating employees like shit and paying them as little as they legally can. French Unions ensure decent working conditions and a fair wage.
Luckily for Uber, the protesters only protest a maximum of thirty five hours per week, Fuck off entirely for the month of August, and won't travel more than two miles from one of the dirty bistros to protest in the first place.
If I was Uber, I would pay cash to all the homeless people to take slow long rides in the normal cabs to block them up.
I downvoted your comment because it doesn't add nothing to the conversation other than prejudice and borders on racism.
Every other day there is content on the front page suggesting that a shorter work week and 4 weeks of holiday are actually good for you and still here you are.
You're probably just a troll, I shouldn't even have replied.
Can we please stop that type of comment?
I guess...maybe I am wrong we are here because we share common interest in new technology and future, not racisme and old jokes :).
This sort of law feels really backwards. It degrades the service of companies like Uber and imposes negative externalities on society--more cars pointlessly idling and waiting around, more traffic congestion and so on. The idea behind a market is to improve quality; trying to "improve" the market by arbitrarily degrading the quality of some competitors is exactly counter-productive.
Given that the taxis have gotten this absurdly protectionist restriction in place, it's even harder to empathize with their protest. Actually getting violent is even worse.
Of course, it's also important to remember that this is likely an extreme action by a single individual and does not represent taxi drivers as a group. In fact, there is no immediate link between the attack and taxis, although it seems extremely likely. That said, even ignoring the violence, I do not really sympathize with the taxi protests here.
[1]: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/28/uber-lecab-and-others-now-h...