🚖 Rideshare fares are peaking, so why aren’t driver wages?
Plus, results from our reader survey
This week, Wilfred takes a closer look at this moment in rideshare economics and Josh digs into two years of reader surveys. And we’ve got our favorite links from the last couple of weeks for another round of What’s Clicking.
Despite Über high prices, apps fail to lift up driver pay
No, it’s not your imagination: Uber and Lyft prices are still sky high. In June, an Uber from Midtown Manhattan to JFK cost one passenger as much as his flight to San Francisco. A report in NPR last week mentioned another user who was quoted $150 for a 24-mile ride from LAX to the suburb of Highland Park — after a wait time of half an hour. The rideshare companies cite a combination of a driver shortage and a growing demand from consumers who are eager to get back outside post-lockdown.
You might expect each driver to be profiting handsomely from her share of these astronomical fares. But besides temporary incentives, which typically reward drivers for signing up to the platform or completing a certain number of rides, multiple reports have found drivers aren’t being paid proportionally more as fares skyrocket. So where is that money really going?
I think it helps to remember the rideshare business model. As I wrote last October in The Nation:
It’s important that we all understand the platform capitalists’ playbook. They are taking over industries by using underregulated labor and setting rock-bottom prices. The companies willingly lose billions of dollars a year just to win market share—which in turn lets them force concessions from local governments and further cement their dominance. Their end goal is to become the sole provider of vital services, then raise prices, cut wages, and extract profits. All of this is subsidized by a pipeline of cash from venture capitalists…
It seems to me that after years of buying themselves exemptions from labor laws, lowering workers’ pay, aggressively elbowing out public infrastructure and increasing congestion, Uber and Lyft are betting it’s time to start “making money.”
But where does that leave the rest of us? After a few years of enjoying cheap rides on VC dime, we’re arguably worse off than we started: paying too much for an inefficient service, provided by workers who make too little because we’re collectively locked into this digital platform. Maybe it’s time to figure out a way to log off.
– Wilfred Chan
We asked, you answered
Both this and last July we asked you, our readers, to answer a survey. We wanted to know what you thought we should be focusing on, including the past, present, and future of technology.
In 2020, the top three roles our respondents picked to describe themselves were civic technologist, product manager and urban thinker. We asked respondents about the most interesting things happening in their workplaces, industries, or peer groups related to the future of tech and digital spaces.
Last July, as I’m sure you remember, was only several months into the pandemic. Many respondents were grappling with the challenges of remote work with no end in sight and what it means to live in a community and be of a place. One respondent cited the need for “balancing life and work when there's not physical separation,” and another noted the ongoing “redefinition of urban living,” and the “effect of increased technological reliance on the future of jobs.”
The survey came fresh on the heels of the global protests inspired by George Floyd’s murder, along with renewed, urgent calls for diversity and equity of all kinds. Respondents were concerned about “racial justice in the design industry,” and were interested in “Tech designed for marginalized communities.” When asked, “What specific voices would you like to hear more from and about?” respondents sought diversity: “Always, BIPOC, Queer, and Female voices.” “Radical feminists, eco scholars, people with disabilities, the young (teen/tween tech users).” “Non elites. Folks in flyover country.”
One year later
This year, the top three roles you identified yourselves as were activist, designer and academic. A bit more used to working from home, your responses from this July were concerned with the long game: how will remote work, climate change and government intervention shape the tech industry? You also wondered about ongoing, systemic issues such as algorithmic bias and Big Tech monopolism that seem here to stay. “The battle for attention between honest & valuable content vs: dopamine distraction shorts is entering the next round with an ever increasing number of facts about why big tech is out to scam us all,” said one respondent. Some of you noted the rise of the creator class, both in terms of representation and as a workforce to be reckoned with. One respondent noted an interest in “how Black cultural makers on social sites are leaving sites and how companies are trying to keep them via money.”
In part to help us conceptualize our magazine, we asked a new question this year: “What’s most interesting to you about ‘decentralization?’” One respondent answered, “the human component — these things can't just be run by A.I. etc. — I'm watching a train wreck on ’Nextdoor’ platform right now.” The concept appealed to respondents for its theoretical ability to resist monopolies, including the power consolidated by white men in tech. Our readers don’t think decentralization is likely to be a panacea for our social media ills, but some are hopeful it could deliver “the adaptability it would afford to meet the needs of people on a more individualized scale.”
And also, who could forget the metaverse? One respondent wrote, “I think conversations about the metaverse are infuriating, but of course infuriation = interesting on some level.”
For both surveys, respondents agreed on the best things this newsletter can provide: A glimpse into the different futures of digital public space, a quick digest of what’s happening in the world of public-spirited tech, and conversations between unlikely partners about our most pressing questions. This year, “Longer form content and perspectives you can’t find anywhere else” was also high on the list.
As we continue to refine this newsletter, we sincerely thank you for your feedback. Stick around to see what changes we have coming your way, and if you’ve enjoyed reading us, please consider recommending the newsletter to a friend!
– Josh Kramer
🌐 Online:
“While not every Black creator decided to engage in the dance ‘strike,’ the experiment succeeded in calling attention to the ways Black creators are often overlooked or not credited for their contributions to the app.” (The Hollywood Reporter)
"It appears that in some cases, the same scammers who offer ban-as-a-service also offer or are at least connected to services to restore accounts for users who were unfairly banned from Instagram, sometimes for thousands of dollars." (Vice)
“As newsrooms look to the future of comments, they’re considering ways to improve the experience.” (Nieman Lab)
"While Africa boasts over 1,000 native languages, each with its own unique accents and speech patterns, the three bestselling voice assistants can’t respond to a single one of them." (Reasons to be Cheerful)
🏙 IRL:
"Were Floyd still alive, or somehow reborn, he would not be hired to work within any of the institutions which now produce popular culture in his honor because he never obtained a bachelor’s degree." (Current Affairs)
“It’s here — a beachhead on the Pacific Rim — that the Kremlin hopes to create a hub for robotics and artificial intelligence innovation with the goal of boosting Russia’s ability to compete with the United States and Asia.” (The Washington Post)
“Law enforcement agencies have long used license plate readers to track traffic patterns, aid in investigations and check vehicle registrations. Now that technology is in the hands of individuals.” (CityLab)
“Like many aspects of mass transit systems, door chimes may seem banal, the dull background track to daily commutes. If you listen more closely, though, you’ll notice regional patterns and distinctions.” (The New York Times)
Flash Forward
Reminder, the deadline for our Flash Fiction Contest is September first. Here are some resources if you’re not sure where to start: Writer Kathy Fish has a great newsletter, The Art of Flash Fiction, and this post is particularly helpful. Maybe reading some good examples would help? Check out SmokeLong Quarterly, an online literary magazine focused on this type of writing.
Email us your stories at hello@newpublic.org with ‘Flash Fiction’ in the subject line.
Deadline: 9/1/21
Theme: Social Media
Word Limit: 500 words
Prize: Original illustration, publication on newsletter
Next Week
YORB! Students and faculty from NYU take over the newsletter and explain how when the pandemic pushed them online in spring 2020, they recreated their school digitally. It’s a deep dive into digital platform design and a great opportunity to consider the alternatives to remote work as we’ve come to know them.
Logging off Typeform,
Josh and Wilfred
Illustration and design by Josh
New_ Public is a partnership between the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas, Austin, and the National Conference on Citizenship, and was incubated by New America.