|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations #939617 added August 12, 2018 at 11:49pm
Restrictions: None
This Just In - August 12
I'm divided on how I feel about this issue of the New York City Council putting a freeze on any new Uber or Lyft drivers while they study the effects of ride-sharing services on traffic congestion in the city. On the one hand, I know these ride-sharing services are most certainly adding to the traffic in congested areas like Manhattan, and in many cases the excessive competition results in driving down wages for everyone. There was a time when you could make a decent living as a taxi driver, but a lot of studies have shown that there are simply so many drivers on the road in big cities these days, that many of them spend an awful lot of time driving around looking for rides, which is time and mileage they're not getting compensated for. So in those respects, I'm actually for New York studying the issue to see if there's an ongoing concern.
On the other side of the coin, however, ride sharing services are an enormous new industry for people who would otherwise be unemployed. There are a ton of Uber and Lyft drivers out there who lost old jobs and need to make ends meet in the meantime. The old medallion system used for driving yellow cabs in New York meant that someone couldn't just decide to drive a taxi and make a few extra bucks to help out their family. The economy is becoming more and more freelance, and preventing ride-sharing services like these (even with their problems) is curbing a potential source of revenue for people who need work and/or a job with flexible hours they can set themselves. Additionally, there have been specific studies in New York that show Uber and Lyft are addressing a specific need in the outer boroughs and low-income or high-crime neighborhoods where yellow cabs don't bother to cruise around looking for people to flag them down. So limiting the number of people who can drive for ride-sharing services might have an adverse effect on people on the outskirts of the city or in bad areas who rely on the ability to summon a driver if they're not near public transit or in an area where yellow cabs regularly cruise around. So in those respects, I'm against this legislation.
The tiebreaker for me, then, is the way this is being implemented. You don't actually need to freeze ride-sharing services to study traffic patterns. How many new drivers are on the road this year is irrelevant to a scientific study, which would most likely take the hard data from all of last year (rather than making estimates about the future of this year), and compare it to years before Uber and Lyft were in existence. There have also been rumors that this legislation was motivated, at least in part, by the recent suicides of half a dozen taxi drivers who blamed financial hardship as the reason for their distress, and lobbying on behalf of the cab companies.
Ultimately, I think studying the effects of ride-sharing services on local economies is important work. I think it needs to be done so we can fully understand the impact on our communities. But I also believe in a more or less free market, and in the freedom of people to find and work jobs that fit their needs and lifestyles. So I can't say that I'm a big fan of this legislation at a time where they haven't even determined what detrimental effects there are. If this legislation were in response to a valid study that found, yes, ride-sharing services are ultimately bad for local economies, then fine... let's put this legislation in place. But to pass this legislation before that evidence is there... well, that sounds an awful lot like they're hurting one industry and advantaging another before they even know if that's the right course of action. 
|
© Copyright 2018 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
