If there was a problem, increasing the number of medallions and scheduling surge pricing (like NYC has done with all cars now) would have improved service.

So… would NYC have done this if it wasn’t influenced by the existence of Uber/Lyft?

Would the taxi companies that owned all the medallions have allowed this to happen if their existence wasn’t threatened? Or would they lobby to stop this at all cost because it doesn’t benefit them?

I guess since flying is a hassle, I should buy a jet and land it in parking lots to make it convenient for consumers. So what if a few hundred die a year if tens of thousands have easier air travel.

So hundreds are dying due to Uber?

If you need to make a bullshit theoretical to justify your stance, you might want to reconsider your stance.

If flying cars were possible and if benefited consumers, it should definitely be adopted and regulated properly like any other service.

I mean we could build a better social safety net so this doesn’t happen…

You telling me you think we should continue to endure a transportation system that is basically a monopoly, where the user has little transparency on what they get charged beforehand, where they can only use the service if they call or are lucky enough to be in a high traffic location, just so no one loses their job?

I’m assuming/ hoping you mean the taxi drivers when you say workers.

I empathize with anyone who’s livelihood is affected by changes in society. But stagnating progress because someone somewhere will be negatively impacted only assures no progress will ever be made.

I think just about every taxi company these days is on some app or another (often the same that call unregulated cabs in countries that actually got their shit together and banned the unregulated ones).

I’d like to point out this probably would have taken another 10-15 years to achieve had it not been for the disruption of said ridesharing apps.

This right here is why I’m not convinced any politician would ever pass a leftist purity test.