The market, i.e. customers, are saying they prefer Lyft and Uber to monopoly taxis.
Market forces are naturally driven by customer demand and the realities of supply costs. Government intervention/subsidies is the only thing that interferes with that process, and almost always that intervention is being driven by self interested actors looking to reap above market profits.
You may not like what customers want, but that doesn't mean it's not better for them.
I don't prefer Lyft or Uber to monopoly taxis, I prefer to axe the monopoly part, which seems to have led to terrible taxi service in many places.
I don't want - Drivers that drive like maniacs. Drivers that spend the entire ride on a phone call to god knows where. Drivers who lie to me and tell me they can't accept my credit card.
However, it seems to be conflated that the alternative to that can only be people using their private cars that don't necessarily know the area they're driving in and are by no means professional drivers working in an ill-defined "non-employee"/Employer relationship with Uber.
> Drivers who lie to me and tell me they can't accept my credit card.
For what it's worth, in New York, that's not your problem if they tell you at the end of the ride. By law, if a card reader is broken, they must inform you of this at the beginning. None of this "ok, I take you to ATM" business that tacks on a few more bucks onto the meter.
Market forces are naturally driven by customer demand and the realities of supply costs. Government intervention/subsidies is the only thing that interferes with that process, and almost always that intervention is being driven by self interested actors looking to reap above market profits.
You may not like what customers want, but that doesn't mean it's not better for them.