Taxi Driver protests against legislation.

[Puggie]

following a demand survey which didn't rely on an uber student to tell them

 

If Sheffield's licencing office miraculously found an accurate (and honest) way of measuring demand estimates, this model would be used around the world and be known as the 'Sheffield model'.

 

Councils are notorious for modeling that lacks objectivity. It doesn't take an economist to work out that you can tailor models to produce the numbers you want to see.

 

When the OECD Competition Committee debated this issue back in 2007 they said the following:

 

"It is widely agreed that the informational requirements for efficient regulation of the taxi industry are substantial, particularly in relation to the turnover of the industry. Regulators are likely to be unwilling and/or unable to invest the resources necessary to gather the required information for efficient regulation, while undertaking the required analysis may also be highly challenging."

 

source: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/41472612.pdf

 

And before you accuse the OECD of being an Uber agent, I draw your attention to the fact this was published before Uber even existed.

[SheffTF]

If Sheffield's licencing office miraculously found an accurate (and honest) way of measuring demand estimates, this model would be used around the world and be known as the 'Sheffield model'.

 

Councils are notorious for modeling that lacks objectivity. It doesn't take an economist to work out that you can tailor models to produce the numbers you want to see.

 

When the OECD Competition Committee debated this issue back in 2007 they said the following:

 

"It is widely agreed that the informational requirements for efficient regulation of the taxi industry are substantial, particularly in relation to the turnover of the industry. Regulators are likely to be unwilling and/or unable to invest the resources necessary to gather the required information for efficient regulation, while undertaking the required analysis may also be highly challenging."

 

source: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/41472612.pdf

 

And before you accuse the OECD of being an Uber agent, I draw your attention to the fact this was published before Uber even existed.

There is a reason why you are a student because you need to learn a great deal, do some more research before trying to teach Granny how to suck eggs lol. Demand surveys have been carried out periodically since the mid-Eighties to ascertain whether the public were being served adequately by the existing taxis or Whether more are required. On some occasions more were tecvomwnded and subsequently licenses issued as per recommendation. Legally binding accepted survey validity lasts for three years and so if the council needs to retain a cap on the number they then have to carry out a fresh survey and abide by it's recommendations. Just because you don't know enough about thevtrade and the market does not mean these things don't exist and don't happen. FOI all councils who retain a cap on the number of Hackney carriages operating in their area have to carry out a demand survey before they can limit the numbers l and even then only if the survey finds there is no Uber demand. Sheffield model indeed pffft! Ask uber to update your script

[redfox]

There is a reason why you are a student because you need to learn a great deal, do some more research before trying to teach Granny how to suck eggs lol. Demand surveys have been carried out periodically since the mid-Eighties to ascertain whether the public were being served adequately by the existing taxis or Whether more are required. On some occasions more were tecvomwnded and subsequently licenses issued as per recommendation. Legally binding accepted survey validity lasts for three years and so if the council needs to retain a cap on the number they then have to carry out a fresh survey and abide by it's recommendations. Just because you don't know enough about thevtrade and the market does not mean these things don't exist and don't happen. FOI all councils who retain a cap on the number of Hackney carriages operating in their area have to carry out a demand survey before they can limit the numbers l and even then only if the survey finds there is no Uber demand. Sheffield model indeed pffft! Ask uber to update your script

 

 

 

Who is answering all these posts while your out in your cab mate ? Or do you stop and post every so often ?

[*_ash_*]

Who is answering all these posts while your out in your cab mate ? Or do you stop and post every so often ?

 

Why don't you answer when someone spends time answering your posts?

 

 

The restriction on numbers should never have happened in the first place. There is simply no economic justification. The restrictions owe themselves to successful lobbying efforts. Licencees monopolizing on the scarcity value of plates at the expense of other stakeholders.

 

The thread has already gone into this a bit now between you and SheffTF, and I still think it's not an accurate representation. I said before that the limit was on Hackneys. There wasn't any limit on PHVs, and still isn't.

 

-

 

My opinion on the cap was that 330 was far too low btw, and at the time I didn't think it was a fair limit. Working out a fair limit is tricky but necessary*. These posts that make out that it's most lucrative business in the world, but I'm telling you it isn't.

 

 

*I'll tell the forum now... that if they hate hackneys now (which is pretty conclusive when you've been here a while ) and limit was taken off, there would be at least 2000 more hackneys on the road within a year!

 

*most would get one. I'd consider it, now they are more comfy - I can't drive manual ltis.

 

If Sheffield's licencing office miraculously found an accurate (and honest) way of measuring demand estimates, this model would be used around the world and be known as the 'Sheffield model'.

 

 

Like I said above, the wasn't and isn't a limit on PHVs, so all this isn't necessary. The question I posed earlier was why people are going elsewhere when they can get a SCC badge?

 

(I'll tell you the ash model though from my experience of this trade and knowing how many are working in each city (predereg) it's this: In Sheffield, the limit should be no less than 1/1000 population (too like your earlier quote about bouncers), and not more than 2/1000 (as we haven't the space to house them)

 

-

 

This roughly equates (again predreg) to a plate having a pretty balanced value based on the market, rather than be worth anything. In economics, I would call that a good balance with the best number of outcomes.

 

The dereg just basically took the decades of finding a balance, and had a huge weight thrown onto the scales. In economics I'd call that a bombshell, and when so quickly done and thought out about as well as most suggestions and posts in here, it's caused all of us to have a massive sudden change to their income.

 

-

 

I know people don't give a toss about taxi drivers, I didn't before I got my badge 17 years ago, so I can't complain on that front!

 

I was thinking of an analogy, and I thought about nursing, purely because they are almost exact in numbers with number of taxi drivers: 300,000 ish. (before the twitt-facers start typing, I'm not comparing the job they do! ) - and if the government just shoved a new rule through, with no thought at all* to considerably alter the rules of nursing, and within a year the whole nursing profession saw in influx of lesser trained nurses, and they lost about 1/5th of their income to boot - the country would be in uproar! The whole place would be on strike, not a few brothers driving to the town hall and beeping occasionally... McClucksy's head would instantaneously self-combust!

 

 

*don't rule this out! Teachers/Nurses/Civil Service etc. none are exempt from this!

Edited April 1, 2017 by *_ash_*
typos and clarity

[kidley]

*don't rule this out! Teachers/Nurses/Civil Service etc. none are exempt from this!

 

i would say teachers have already got them (teaching assistants) and nursers to a

certain extent (auxiliaries).

Nobody is safe PricewaterhouseCoopers predict in another 15 years i think its 15% of jobs now done by humans will be done by robots, thats including driving.

[*_ash_*]

*don't rule this out! Teachers/Nurses/Civil Service etc. none are exempt from this!

 

i would say teachers have already got them (teaching assistants) and nursers to a

certain extent (auxiliaries).

 

I know, that's why I decided to use these examples

 

Nobody is safe PricewaterhouseCoopers predict in another 15 years i think its 15% of jobs now done by humans will be done by robots, thats including driving.

 

I'd guess more than that. It's always happened since the industrial revolution, and like I've said before, it's our turn now. It'll just be less well known than the miners, the steelers, and the cloth industry. More people to provide for and fewer people working.

 

What's more worrying is for the future is that there won't be the people to pay for all the redundant people and people living longer (DWP and NHS - which coincidentally are the biggest expenses for the country). Where is this money coming from in the future? Does anyone really believe that Gogle Microsft and amazin are going to fund it?

 

When I worked for Mercury there were about 10 students working there at times. Is Mr Algorithm going to employ those, and the other 55 Sheffielders?

 

(if you'd been a student a few years ago Puggie, your friends would have relied on this income, they were generally ones that obviously didn't come from money)

 

All so an algorithm and big money can make people think they're getting a better deal. You aren't. And hundreds of local people lose their livings and all the money goes into these few company computer geniuses. Taxiing now at the least that people can live on. That's why they're doing 80 hours (quoting taxman), not because it's so good! I don't know how this way of thinking has become so common. In general, my default blame is Tony Blair

[kidley]

update

C & P

The report said up to around 30% of existing UK jobs were susceptible to automation by the 2030s.

 

Sectors such as transport and manufacturing were at the biggest risk with half of jobs at "potential high risk" of disappearing, according to the analysis.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/ten-million-jobs-could-be-replaced-by-robots-in-next-15-years-10812079

[ECCOnoob]

On two separate threads now I have seen comments from lots of Doom mongers.

 

I have got to ask what exactly are we supposed to do? Do we stop inventing and creating new things. Do we halt any advances in technology and just dismiss it in order to simply preserve a few jobs. This is not a new story. These predictions and tales of woe happen all the time.

 

The invention of machinery removed all the jobs previously done by labourers and animals, the invention of the typewriter removed all those hundreds and thousands of jobs done by those clerks with their pens and ledger books, the development of the computer removed all those hundreds and thousands of jobs done by great typing pools of secretaries, the development of robotics is now starting to eat into service jobs, the development of AI will inevitably start eating into the jobs done by legal financial and other professionals.

 

A rolling cycle throughout the ages and yet somehow we are still here, we are still surviving and the majority of us are still working. How on earth can that be if we are all supposedly doomed.

 

Enough with the prophecy. Its simple. As one generation of jobs become obsolete a whole generation of new ones come along.

 

Been that way for centuries.

[*_ash_*]

On two separate threads now I have seen comments from lots of Doom mongers.

 

I have got to ask what exactly are we supposed to do? Do we stop inventing and creating new things. Do we halt any advances in technology and just dismiss it in order to simply preserve a few jobs. This is not a new story. These predictions and tales of woe happen all the time.

 

The invention of machinery removed all the jobs previously done by labourers and animals, the invention of the typewriter removed all those hundreds and thousands of jobs done by those clerks with their pens and ledger books, the development of the computer removed all those hundreds and thousands of jobs done by great typing pools of secretaries, the development of robotics is now starting to eat into service jobs, the development of AI will inevitably start eating into the jobs done by legal financial and other professionals.

 

A rolling cycle throughout the ages and yet somehow we are still here, we are still surviving and the majority of us are still working. How on earth can that be if we are all supposedly doomed.

 

Enough with the prophecy. Its simple. As one generation of jobs become obsolete a whole generation of new ones come along.

 

Been that way for centuries.

 

A doom mongerer? Was that aimed at me ECCO?

 

I fully expect auto-cars to take the job I'm doing now in the future. Same with lorries, buses, trams, trains etc. Most of my previous jobs have been taken over by tech.

 

This isn't tech though, this is something that was already going on, apps and computers taking bookings... what changed here is another hugely backed company has worked out how to put squeeze money out of an industry by running to the EU and other similar politicians and cried that their algorithms are being punished by competition laws.

[ECCOnoob]

A doom mongerer? Was that aimed at me ECCO?

 

I fully expect auto-cars to take the job I'm doing now in the future. Same with lorries, buses, trams, trains etc. Most of my previous jobs have been taken over by tech.

 

This isn't tech though, this is something that was already going on, apps and computers taking bookings... what changed here is another hugely backed company has worked out how to put squeeze money out of an industry by running to the EU and other similar politicians and cried that their algorithms are being punished by competition laws.

 

They would be right in that "cry" wouldn't they. God forbid that its possible to have an alternative to the closed shop that is the private hire industry.