Why Do ‘Progressives’ Want to Ban Uber and AirBnB?

Daily Beast ^ | 12/31/2014 | Adam Thierer and Christopher Koopman

[SeekAndFind]

There’s just no way regulation can keep pace with innovation, and pols who think it can are living in a land of paleo-fantasy. Ridesharing giant Uber has come under heavy fire recently with a string of revelations about its safety record, collection of private data, and relationship with the media. If Uber did actually mislead its customers, it should certainly be held responsible. But Uber’s stature looms so large that its unique controversies also threaten to cast a shadow over the “sharing economy” as a whole.

The rapid rise of the sharing economy is changing the way people around the world commute, shop, vacation, and borrow. Services like Airbnb, Yelp, and yes, Uber are disrupting long-established industries, from taxis to hotels. In the process, the sharing economy is creating new opportunities for those looking for work, and offers consumers greater convenience, better prices, and higher quality.

You’d think that, despite the actions of a few individuals, policymakers would embrace this pro-consumer movement. Sadly, you’d be wrong.

The response to the sharing economy from many policymakers in the United States and abroad can be best described as “ban first, ask questions later.” Even in Las Vegas—a city where nearly anything goes—consumers are forbidden from taking advantage of the benefits that the sharing economy can bring in the form of Uber and Lyft. And now Portland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are all suing Uber for refusing to play by their old regulatory playbooks.

[BitWielder1]

"Sharing" is all well and good until the left realize they're losing tax revenue.
It's that simple.

[Mrs. Don-o]

`

[PGR88]

The funny thing is - every Airbnb place for let I have seen in NY City, Chicago, San Francisco are all being offered by squishy leftists looking to supplement their art, teaching or community organizing income.

[hawkaw]

The only thing I worry about Uber is the chance that individuals might go around driving the vehicles without knowing that they need the appropriate vehicle insurance to cover passengers in case of an accident. As long as that is taken care of through a company or franchise policy etc., then I have no problem with Uber.

[BlackAdderess]

You do realize David Plouffe (yes, THAT David Plouffe) is behind this.

[SunkenCiv]

It’s obviously hurting minority and undocumented Americans who drive cabs. More white privilege in action! /s

[eyeamok]

Power and Control

Sig Heil

[Kid Shelleen]

It's simple. Uber didn't pay to play.
In some cities cab licenses, aka "medallions", are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and are regulated by government agencies like the parking authority. Everybody gets a cut.

45 Philadelphia Cab Companies Sue Uber

[Lorianne]

Because they are uber-scared of someone making money in new ways that might not be able to be taxed.

[logi_cal869]

You’re absolutely right. I’ve commented at length on insurance & medallions prior and will avoid it today.

However, since my last comment I have equated Uber to Enron, notoriety-wise. In my view, Uber is just a syndicate of investors operating illegal livery services in innumerable cities across the world. Rather than engaging taxi services and offering their App to them, let alone properly licensing their drivers (or, for that matter, insuring them before someone was killed and they were sued), they saw fit to invest in a legal strategy to support the operations on which all the investors are making $$ hand over fist while the legal battles, and settlements, go on...while drivers, and passengers, are in legal-limbo.

I’m thinking about writing an App for Legal Services to supplant Lawyers (/s)...maybe I should Crowdfund it...I don’t see it as any different from what Uber is doing.../s/s

People using Uber services think they’re being ‘progressive’, promoting free-enterprise and consumer choice...but all they’re doing is enriching lawyers and Uber investors. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

[GeronL]

because they aren’t controlled by the almighty guberment

[x]

The rapes, maybe?

[riverdawg]

I've used Über in several cities, including Philadelphia. A year ago, when I arrived at the Philadelphia airport, the temperature was 23F and it was beginning to snow. The line at the airport for a taxi was about 75 people deep and lengthening. A coworker I was traveling with brought up his Über app on his cellphone, located three or four cabs that were near the airport and chose one to engage. The Über driver arrived in 7-8 minutes in a clean, late-model sedan and we were on our way downtown while the taxi line had barely budged. We knew who was coming to pick us up, his rating by other customers, and how much it was going to cost. In most large cities, the incumbent taxi companies are regulated monopolists who are resistant to change of any sort ( including new technologies and different business models). They remind me of the 1980-era cable companies that most of us suffered through until satellite and fiber-optic technologies gave us viable alternatives.

[1010RD]

Government is the biggest mob out there.

[JimRed]

They (progressives) don’t want anyone to share voluntarily; they want to control who shares what with whom.

[JimRed]

I’m thinking about writing an App for Legal Services to supplant Lawyers (/s)...

Then we can follow Shakespeare's guidance! < /sarc >

[logi_cal869]

Uber investors would read that and wring their hands, marveling at the success of their marketing.

You confuse the services of victimized drivers who, by their actions under Uber, victimize their passengers.

It truly amazes me how emotional satisfaction supplants normal, rational thought in some otherwise normally-intelligent people...

I suggest you read this sometime
http://www.cnet.com/news/how-risky-is-your-uber-ride-maybe-more-than-you-think/
and actually read those Terms that passengers (you) agree to simply by using the App...

Then again, perhaps you have.

[riverdawg]

Several of the Über drivers I encountered were moonlighting from their “day jobs” as regular, licensed taxi drivers. One said candidly that his company was a dinosaur that was resistant to the positive changes that technology is bringing to the industry. All of the drivers I asked, including the moonlighters, said they enjoy driving for Über more than for a mainline cab company. So, who exactly are the victims and who are the perps?

Do you know anyone who has been victimized by an Über driver? I don't, but I do know people, including myself, who have been overcharged and rudely mistreated by licensed cabbies. It's pretty simple: if you are a monopolist, or work for a monopoly, you can continue in business with little regard for your customers. Über is disrupting that cozy, corrupt culture and the monopoly companies don't like it.

[logi_cal869]

That’s a rather simplistic view.

I have 2 rhetorical questions for anyone considering using the Uber App (out of pure personal responsibility):
1. Have you read Uber’s Terms of Use?
2. Are you confident that Uber will take care of you if something happens?

If one answers both ‘yes’, it’s an ignorant answer. The facts should dictate extreme skepticism. I have tried to find even ONE example of Lyft or Uber actually paying out under their so-called ‘$1 Million’ liability policy; nada. In fact, it appears that all cases in which both are involved are still in the courts. That includes Lyft’s July & November fatalities.

Fact: ZERO US-based insurance companies will underwrite ride-sharing. As far as victimizing drivers, well...the legal loophole is on their shoulders

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Leaked-transcript-shows-Geico-s-stance-against-5910113.php

with the basis of their commercial activity coverage being provided by an offshore-based insurance company for both Uber & Lyft (James River Corporation).

Most people fail to realize the value of their insurance until they suffer injury. I know people that have lost everything due to medical bills as a result of ‘uninsured/underinsured’ drivers. There is not a SINGLE example anyone can demonstrate that either Uber or Lyft does anything but fight claims in litigation...yet...leaving drivers, and passengers, ‘victimized’. The result is that taxpayers end up footing the bill. The whole scenario smacks of progressivism & liberalism.

Using emotional arguments to support anarchy and dismissing personal responsibility is not a very conservative standpoint.