The problem is that there is a big difference in the effect Uber/Lyft had on places with functioning cab systems (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, DC--where Uber/Lyft should have gotten squashed by law) and those places where there wasn't (Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, etc.--where ridesharing was a boon)

While I'm not a big Uber/Lyft fan, prior to them the cab companies in the non-functional cities were atrocious.

I spent 40 minutes getting a bloody taxi at my lawyer's office in Las Vegas--and then had to wonder if I could get one back from the restaurant I went to. Getting from Monroeville to the Pittsburgh airport was a disaster. I can go on and on.

With Uber/Lyft in existence, a whole bunch of things don't happen with impunity anymore. Drivers can't refuse to pick you up. Drivers can't blow you off and not show up. Drivers can't refuse to take a credit card. etc.

Uber/Lyft aren't my favorite companies, but neither were the taxis.

Indeed, it is terrible that many more people can do a job now, with lower barriers to entry, and that the service is more easily available, more reliable and often cheaper. The medallion system of decreasing supply with employee drivers and a taxi regulator that did everything possible to protect drivers and frustrate consumer complaints about drivers not picking up black customers or refusing to drive people to places within the mandated service area was far superior for those who could buy medallions and rent them out to drivers, and for drivers who could refuse customers and still be able to pick up a fare.

Most estimates place wages for Uber and Lyft drivers at roughly the same as taxis after expenses are covered. And if you factor in the six (or at its peak, seven) figure cost of a medallion, it's basically impossible to claim that traditional taxi jobs are better than rideshare.

At the cost of billions in venture capital. The market is starting to correct itself now that most ridesharing companies are publicly traded profit seekers and cutting wages.