I can't tell you about St. Louis, but in general the economics for cab drivers is pretty terrible. Profits always flow to the most constrained part of the supply chain, which in the taxi business is generally the companies with the city licenses. Cab drivers pay gross fees to those companies to lease their taxis for the day, and then do their best to make the day profitable.
Companies like Uber and Lyft put more money into the drivers' pockets, because they take a much smaller cut of the fare. In Boston there are four different levels of Uber: Uber-X (anyone with a car), taxis who are on the Uber system, "black cars" (limos on the Uber system), and SUVs. I generally take Uber-X, and the cars are *always* cleaner and nicer than taxis. The drivers are better able to navigate the city, using their GPSs and not relying on memory. (I had a lousy taxi experience today. The driver had no idea how to find the address I wanted, and I was stuck doing the navigation from my phone. That never happens with Uber.)
The drivers are working class, mostly immigrants, some students, and more women than in taxis, trying to make a living too. They're happy being able to be on the system without having to commit to nasty hours or giving a big cut to the cab companies.
One Uber driver I met in San Francisco really liked the fact that he can operate in different cities. He was planning on spending the summer in Austin, and working from there.
No, Uber hasn't pulled the racism out of the taxi business. Yes, Uber needs to work out insurance (although I believe they have in some cities for Uber-X). But I think pulling the intermediaries out of the taxi business is a good thing in general.
I'd be curious if the author of that essay is just a taxi driver, or if he owns a taxi company.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-22 02:52 pm (UTC)I can't tell you about St. Louis, but in general the economics for cab drivers is pretty terrible. Profits always flow to the most constrained part of the supply chain, which in the taxi business is generally the companies with the city licenses. Cab drivers pay gross fees to those companies to lease their taxis for the day, and then do their best to make the day profitable.
Companies like Uber and Lyft put more money into the drivers' pockets, because they take a much smaller cut of the fare. In Boston there are four different levels of Uber: Uber-X (anyone with a car), taxis who are on the Uber system, "black cars" (limos on the Uber system), and SUVs. I generally take Uber-X, and the cars are *always* cleaner and nicer than taxis. The drivers are better able to navigate the city, using their GPSs and not relying on memory. (I had a lousy taxi experience today. The driver had no idea how to find the address I wanted, and I was stuck doing the navigation from my phone. That never happens with Uber.)
The drivers are working class, mostly immigrants, some students, and more women than in taxis, trying to make a living too. They're happy being able to be on the system without having to commit to nasty hours or giving a big cut to the cab companies.
One Uber driver I met in San Francisco really liked the fact that he can operate in different cities. He was planning on spending the summer in Austin, and working from there.
No, Uber hasn't pulled the racism out of the taxi business. Yes, Uber needs to work out insurance (although I believe they have in some cities for Uber-X). But I think pulling the intermediaries out of the taxi business is a good thing in general.
I'd be curious if the author of that essay is just a taxi driver, or if he owns a taxi company.
B