What ends up happening with for profit and relatively low entry (or well-defined entry) markets is that it's a race to the bottom in prices. Someone is going to have to pay more or be paid less. Investors won't want to be paid less and consumers don't want to pay more.
So it's the people providing the service who bear the brunt of the force of competition. They get paid shit and/or get treated like shit.
From this perspective, a co-op for taxis sounds like a splendid idea for everyone except investors.
Plus the profits for international technology platforms - especially as they mature - leave the local and national community, often ending up in a tax haven.
People should be focusing on local and national businesses (and things like co-ops) to keep their communities alive. The startups that are celebrated on this website are the antithesis of that mindset.
I'm think you've got a leap there. I agree that when the barriers to entry go down (as uber does to the taxi market) prices go down. Obviously the drivers don't like this. But, as you said it's not just investors in the mix. It's the consumers that this plays against..
But, for this dynamic to be more favorable for drivers you need to price fix and/or get drivers out. Either way, it's not the best for consumers. It also seems unlikely to succeed unless they can prevent new drivers from undercutting them on Uber. This is effectively a cartel of some sort, regulating prices and producers.
I'm not against co-ops. In some cases they make sense and maybe this is such a case, but they are not a neutral party. They have their interests and those are not necessarily everyone's best interests. They also will use regulation and/or market power to benefit themselves at others expense, if possible.
A co-op isn't supposed to be a neutral party, it's supposed to represent the workers (and possibly, the customers, depending what type of co-op).
The reason I would support a co-op version of Uber over the actual Uber is exactly because that would be an organisation run democratically by it's drivers.
I'd prefer one where customers got a vote too over that as it goes.
But this is why it makes a difference whether it's a corporation, a non-profit, a worker's co-op or a workers-and-customers co-op: Who gets control? Who gets the profit?
Non profit's are marginally better than corporations because at least the few in control can't obviously easily use their power to directly claim it's resources for themselves.
Worker's Co-ops are marginally better than non-profits, because they give democratic powers over the decisions of the organisation to all of the workers, not just the bosses.
Customer Co-ops are marginally better than Worker's Co-ops because the customers also get a vote in that democratic enterprise.
And of course, often, visionary leadership from a single benign dictator that can ignore his customers, his workers, his shareholders and just DO THE RIGHT THING is powerful like dynamite.
Dynamite can be used for good or evil, obviously.
As you said, some things need managing in different ways.
Also: I've never actually used Uber or any of these other apps. I tend to get the bus frankly. The bus timetable apps are great ;)
you act like co-ops work different than any other organization. Uber has used political power to get politicians to back down which is basically the same as getting politicians to pass regulations.
So it's the people providing the service who bear the brunt of the force of competition. They get paid shit and/or get treated like shit.
From this perspective, a co-op for taxis sounds like a splendid idea for everyone except investors.