Who says it is? I'm questioning whether the taxi drivers actually have any more rights. The parent comment here said that the disruption that caused ridesharing to rapidly grow this mobility segment was because the drivers were independent contractors instead of being employees. My point is that taxi drivers were never employees, either, and that the success of the ridesharing companies had more to do with user experience and reliability than their business model.

Or maybe it's because they give cheap subsidized service. What's the long game? How can they keep it cheap and make profit? They can't. Because it's an extremely inefficient endeavour.

I understand your point but I'm not sure it's relevant. Taxis managed to survive for a long time without any artificial money injection, it's probably at a stable equalibrium. Allowing this artificial market to keep growing is just a endorsing a bubble. The bigger it gets the worst the collateral will be when it'll finally collapse.

Ridesharing is profitable today. The reason these companies lose money is because of investments in other areas. Whether that's wise or not is up for debate, but both Lyft and Uber are public companies. Neither is seeking VC money at this point for further injections.

Both Lyft and Uber are public companies. If you know this is a bubble for sure, there are plenty of opportunities for you to cash in on that. In fact, if you have solid research that proves it's a bubble, plenty of people will pay you for that research.

fomenting not fermenting.