This only happened because Uber broke the law, actually undermined the rule of law and they got away with it. Think of what would happen if every corporation could pick at will which legislation they ignore.
Think about this, a business is disrupted to the point where they can't make any money at all. Yet, no customer is hurt in the process. In fact the customer is happier because now at least, he has a choice. I would break a monopolist law for that.
Of course a lot of customers are hurt in the process, actually the entire society is: by weakening the rule of law and by rolling back most advances organized labor made in the last 100+ years. You have been bamboozled by calling this the "sharing economy".
All you see is a cheap ride -- sponsored by VC money and you gladly take it.
Edit: thanks for the downvotes. Care to educate me where I am wrong?
"Of course" is not an argument. Please explain how customers are harmed by having more choice in the marketplace.
The medallion racket was certainly not an advancement for organized labor. Quite the opposite, really - it prevented common drivers from being able to make a decent living and instead transferred more money into the pockets of the established players. Rather than paying off cars and building businesses, drivers end up spending a great deal of money renting medallions (or going into debt when presented a chance to buy one, as the guy in the article did).
Even if you buy the idea that this was to "protect" drivers, would you accept that same logic in your own industry? What if you built a new CRM (sorry, I don't know what you build, if anything) that was better than any other CRM... but you aren't allowed to sell it because the government quota for CRMs is already full... but if you enter you name in an annual lottery, you might get a very small chance to buy a CRM Medallion someday at a reasonable price... or you could buy an existing medallion from another company for $233k and bring you CRM to market now. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Progress is made by breaking laws. The founders of your country committed treason against England. Strikes used to be illegal. Fredom of assembly, speech, religion and press used to be severely restricted.
Those were organized moves by various people not by a company for profit. They have proven to be advantageous to society. I utterly fail to see what advantages are made here.
> Edit: thanks for the downvotes. Care to educate me where I am wrong?
I have upvoted you, because I fully agree with you. Breaking laws is, in my opinion, acceptable in some situations... for example, to protest against injustice (as it was the case with strikes, right to free speech/assembly, and racial segregation) or standing up against neo-Nazis and police brutality. But it is not acceptable at all to break any law for business profit. If you want to make more money and a law hinders you doing so, then go through the democratic channels.
Of course, this does not account for politics being effectively gridlocked, but hey, given you're a multi-billion-dollar corporation, it's definitely easy to hire some top notch lawyers and lobbyists.
And since people get a better service out of that, on average (yes, I know everyone can bring up a terrifying anecdote), it looks like we're better off making a few changes. You seem to paint it black & white, but really if some laws are still being broken, they can be enforced. Or changed. Or reconsidered from the beginning for the new situation.
The change proved that medallions were either a bad idea, or a badly managed idea. Some change would occur anyway.
It only worked for Uber because they provided a valuable service that consumers loved and because the law was corrupt in the first place.
I do not care that rich people who spent millions on a medallion, only to rent it out to actual workers, are losing money.
The self made man taxi driver, is a rare exception, not the rule. The people who own these medallions are rich taxi companies, that then force workers to pay them rent. Good riddance.
