Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The article said they cost $500,000 (each), which was probably the least believable part of the article. If they actually cost $100,000, that might be close to reasonable.

Somebody can probably do 5-6 rides a day at $50 a ride for a $100,000 tag. That's pretty believable for an average over a year. Even $200,000 might be. I have difficultly believing they're all making money needing 30 rides at ~$50 every day all year long for a $500,000 tag.

> value of his three taxi licence plates – worth about $500,000 each.



I would believe the 500k number. Taxi badges are ridiculously priced. I think NYC’s was over 1.5m.

Keep in mind, they are able to lease the badge out, so you can have your cab running 24/7.


Why are you assuming it must necessarily be paid for in the first year? Are they not keeping these plates indefinitely, unless sold?


Guess because I thought that Australia would not put a huge up-front cost on starting a taxi service (and I'm now numb to Australian prices and numbers looking nonsensical from America. If the rents are in the $1000/wk, plane tickets are $5000, start losing track of "reasonable". It's Australia, multiply the normal price 5x-10x).


In Boston they peaked at selling for well over 500k. Your math assume drivers purchase them, but most drivers here would lease them.


You should believe it. They reach a high of $450,000 in 2014 dollars, so well over $500,000 now: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cost-of-buying-a-taxi-li...

They were at that price because of artificial scarcity. They created a tidy income stream for the governments who sold them, who found by limiting supply the prices when auction rose spectacularly. The net result was not enough taxi's to fill natural demand, while taxi drivers paid to delivery an artificially limited service were paid stuff all. This wasn't unique to Sydney - the model was repeated all over the world; they just copied it.

It created the perfect environment for Uber to step into. Because it was copied everywhere it was a huge, worldwide market. To exploit it Uber had to knowingly break the law, and lie about it. You can see that reflected in Uber's highly criticised internal culture at the time. The governments and taxi drivers fought Uber tooth and nail. Where I live taxi inspectors booking rides with Uber, and fining the drivers for not having a licence. Uber responded with technology, using their apps to track their phones and modify what they saw. The inspectors saw no Uber drivers around. It was open warfare for a while, technology vs the law. Technology won in that case. Uber's "it's all about me, whatever it takes to win" culture was probably a necessary part of that victory. Now the war has been won I see Uber is changing it's culture.

Here in Australia, the taxi licence owners watched the value of their licences evaporate overnight under Ubers assault. When it became evident the huge debts they took on to finance the licences meant they had no hope of competing against Uber commercially, they sued the government over the inflated prices they were forced to pay. The government responded to the law suit by saying no one forced them, they were sold at auction. The courts largely sided with the governments, perhaps because they have near infinite legal resources and the taxi's were broke. Some governments later did hand some "sorry" payments to the taxi drivers, but there were more token amounts.

So the real reason for the enormous pain the taxi's have had to endure (I'm sure it cause financial ruin and suicides) is taxi's licenses were effectively a very poorly implemented tax. When a business discovered how to use new technology to exploit the opportunity created by that tax, it wasn't the drafters of the law who suffered, it was the taxi's. They have my sincere sympathy.


Thank you for the rather long explanation that was not especially inflammatory.

The original point of the comment was that $500,000 seemed difficult to believe. You at least provide a thorough, if rather Machiavellian explanation.

Not sure if I agree on the sympathy, mostly because they probably had $AUS in their eyes initially, seeing the prices other people complain about. However, too far away in America, with too much American shadowbanning filter on all news, to have any relevant view on the issue.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: