Wednesday, April 03, 2024

How Uber Overcharges Riders and Underpays Drivers


 
 APRIL 3, 2024
Facebook

Photo by Paul Hanaoka

If you’ve taken an Uber ride recently, you’ve probably noticed it cost a lot more than a few years ago. Why is that?

PowerSwitch Action, my organization, conducted the largest-ever study of rideshare fares to find out. We discovered a story of gaslighting and greed that squeezes drivers and riders alike — while funneling our money to banks and billionaires.

In March, Minneapolis passed an ordinance requiring rideshare corporations to pay drivers at least $1.40 per mile and 51 cents per minute. In a desperate attempt to block this pay floor, Uber and Lyft are threatening to leave the city, claiming the requirement would make rides too expensive for residents.

This argument — that higher driver pay would force big fare hikes — is one of Uber and Lyft’s favorite scare tactics. As drivers across the country have protested poverty wages and organized for better pay, the rideshare giants have trotted out this line again and again — in Connecticut, Chicago, New York, and Seattle, to name just a few places.

We decided to test that claim. Our team analyzed over a billion rideshare trips, comparing four years of data in Chicago and New York, the only two U.S. cities that make rideshare corporations report detailed trip data.

In New York, drivers overcame Uber’s fearmongering and won a minimum pay standard that took effect in February 2019. In Chicago, drivers are organizing but haven’t yet won pay protections. If Uber’s argument were true, fares should have gone up more in New York after the pay standard took effect.

In fact, the opposite happened. Over the four years we studied, Uber and Lyft raised fares by 54 percent in Chicago, where drivers have no pay protections. In New York, they only increased fares by 36 percent. The reality just doesn’t match Uber’s scare tactics.

So if fares went up more in the city without a pay floor, what’s causing these big price hikes? We looked at many possible explanations, but only one fits the data: pressure from Wall Street.

For years, Uber used money from the likes of Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, and Jeff Bezos to subsidize cheap rides and decent pay. But now that Uber dominates the market, its investors are demanding their cut. So Uber has jacked up fares and cut driver pay.

The strategy is working: just last month, Uber reported an annual profit for the first time ever — and promptly announced plans to give $7 billion to shareholders.

Letting rideshare corporations bully and bamboozle to get their way harms all of us. Riders are forced to pay more to get around, while drivers have to work long hours and still struggle to cover the bills. Falsely claiming that wage protections will drive up fares seems to be a tactic to pit drivers against passengers and obscure this massive transfer of wealth to Wall Street.

The good news is that communities are no longer falling for Uber’s scare tactics. In Minneapolis, the city council stood with the city’s drivers instead of giving in to Uber’s bullying. And in Chicago, drivers are organizing for an ordinance setting a living wage and protections against unfair deactivations — and have the support of a majority of the city council.

These fights are far from over — already Uber and Lyft are turning to the Minnesota state legislature, which could pass a law banning the Minneapolis ordinance from going into effect.

But when drivers and communities stand together, these cities are showing we can say no to Uber’s bullying, ensure drivers are paid enough to provide for their families, and shape a transportation system that serves us instead of Wall Street.

Mariah Montgomery is the national campaigns director at PowerSwitch Action.


The Village Voice Helped Me Become the Person I am Today
 
APRIL 3, 2024
Facebook

Newsstands used to be like a library. Dozens of newspapers, magazines and paperbacks filled the shelves of even the smallest such establishments. They might be standing alone like those in major cities everywhere or they might be one section of a drugstore or bookstore. On most military bases, they were an extension of the US military’s equivalent of a department store—the Post Exchange (PX). I spent many hours hanging out at such newsstands, reading science fiction magazines, music rags, the Sporting News, peeking at the Playboys, scanning various daily newspapers and exploring paperback books of all kinds. When I lived in the racetrack town of Laurel, MD. I would look at the Daily Racing Form, trying to decipher the phrases and numbers various men argued over at the lunch counter in the neighborhood People’s Drugs. The variety of media that existed then and was available in print was better than any school course I ever took. That is, if one took the time to read it. Indeed, if it weren’t for newsstands, I would probably never have become a weekly reader of the Village Voice, a forerunner of the underground press and all that succeeded it. The Voice’s ornery challenge to the powerful and the arrogant struck a chord in my fourteen year old brain the day I discovered the paper in 1969. When I lived in Frankfurt am Main in what was then West Germany, it was the Village Voice that helped keep me in touch with the parts of US culture I was interested in. It also convinced me to move to New York City as soon as I go out of my parents’ house.

It wasn’t perfect, nor was it as radical as I became. It suffered from a lack of Black writers for a while, just as its male chauvinism (as we used to call it) was often not only appalling but certainly beyond the pale. Yet, for me and many other, it was the paper of record, not the New York Times. Then again, in my world, the New York Times has always been more like Pravda was in the USSR. It gave the reader plenty of news, but it didn’t necessarily give them any truth. As we know, thanks to folks like the late Counterpunch founder and editor Alexander Cockburn and his groundbreaking media criticism writing at the Voice, sometimes the Times didn’t even provide honest facts. At least papers like Voice provided the reader with some truths. And some magnificent, bold and stylistically refreshing writing. A new oral history about the Village Voice continues that tradition. Titled When the Freaks Came Out to Write: The Definitive History of the Village Voice, the Radical Paper That Changed American Culture, this large and rambunctious book by one-time Voice worker Tricia Romano does the paper’s story justice. And then some.

Oral histories can be a challenge to read. The format invites the reader to skip over entries if the text seems to be dragging. I have to say, I read every word of When the Freaks Came Out to Write. Every goddam word. It’s that good. The stories of the egos, the personality conflicts, the legal challenges, and the responses to the revolutionary changes going on in the world, Manhattan and the Village are described by those who worked at the Voice, those who were covered by the Voice and those who read the Voice. Likewise, the changes in the paper’s content and approach that occurred with each new owner are discussed honestly and plainly. As a reader, I wasn’t interested in the Voice’s ledgers then or now. However, there were writers I wanted to read every time I picked up a copy. I am pretty certain that most other Voice readers felt the same.

Richard Goldstein, Jack Newfield, Robert Christgau, jill johnston, Stanley Crouch, Susan Brownmiller, Nelson George, Greg Tate, even Pete Hamill were writers I looked for over the years. Of course, none of them were all there at the same time. As Romano reminds us in her book, this is what made the Voice an exciting newspaper for so long. Not only did it write about stuff most media didn’t write about (until the Voice made it a thing, that is), it had writers who wrote about those phenomena in innovative, even revolutionary ways and styles. For example, no one I can think of has ever done what jill johnston did in her column during her twenty-one year run at the Voice. I never cared about dance until I started reading jill johnston. I was never afraid of lesbian separatists because of johnston’s writing and joyous take on the world of sexual politics. When I lived in the Bronx for a few months in 1973 and 1974, she was one of the people I hoped I might run into during the time I spent hanging out in the Village and the Lower East Side. Bob Dylan was another one. So were Abbie Hoffman and Tuli Kupferberg. I did see Dylan once, but it was on stage at the Garden.

When the HIV/AIDS pandemic hit the United States, I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Friends of mine whose friends were getting sick and dying—mostly gay men early on then intravenous drug users later—looked to New York City for inspiration on how to get health care and some kind of treatment for those coming down with the disease. It seemed that every house I went to during that time where gay men resided had a subscription to the Voice. The reason was simple: it’s coverage was visceral, agitational, reflective, and responsive to the trauma an entire community was experiencing. I’m not saying it was perfect and above criticism because it wasn’t. However, its approach to the crisis was genuine, very much so.

Romano’s text suggests that this was how the Voice almost always covered stories. It reflected New York’s place as what was then one of the most culturally and politically important cities in the world. It made people looking for a big and exciting world want to move there. It was also one of the first, if not the first, media outlet to go after Donald Trump. Indeed, reporter Wayne Barrett took him down often, pissing Trump off over and over. Barrett did something similar regarding Rudy Giuliani, well before it was popular to do so.

It’s not that the Voice’s politics were marxist. At best, they were democratic socialist. They weren’t. In fact, they were pretty consistently on the left side of the Democratic Party. Of course, the Democratic Party in New York City is more liberal than it is in Nebraska, but it’s still mainstream electoral politics. The one part of politics that the Voice did best was in going after corruption in the boroughs and at the State House. It was the writing on this that probably got them in more hot water with the powers that be than any particular political position it took. Despite their more or less mainstream liberal politics, many readers associated them with those further to their left. My personal take in 2024 is that the Village Voice was never necessarily what is nowadays called politically correct, but it was usually against the powerful and the corrupt, which are often one and the same.

This book is one of the best oral histories I have ever read. Romano’s ear for great storytelling is apparent. The narrative flows from one conversation to the next as if those conversations occurred in a seamless marathon of Voice workers remembering the past in their favorite bar with the drinks on the house. Reading this book reminded me that the media isn’t what it used to be. And that’s too bad.

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. He has a new book, titled Nowhere Land: Journeys Through a Broken Nation coming out in Spring 2024.   He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com

State-Level Marijuana Legalization Has Been a Stunning Success


 
 APRIL 3, 2024
Facebook

Photo by Elsa Olofsson

It’s been over a decade since Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize marijuana for adults. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s fair to ask: Has this policy been successful?

Absolutely. A policy of legalization, regulation, and education is preferable to a policy of criminalization, stigmatization, and incarceration.

Let’s be clear. Legalization didn’t create or normalize the marijuana market in the United States. The market was already here.

But under a policy of prohibition, this market flourished underground — and those involved in it remained largely unaccountable. They didn’t pay taxes, they didn’t check IDs, and they didn’t test the purity of their products. Disputes that arose in the illicit marketplace were not adjudicated in courts of law.

By contrast, under regulation, cannabis products in many states are now available from licensed manufacturers at retail stores.

Cannabis is cultivated, and products are manufactured, in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Products are lab tested and labeled accordingly. And sales are taxed, with revenues being reinvested in the community. Since 2014, retail sales of adult-use cannabis products have generated more than $15 billion in tax revenue.

Most importantly, millions of Americans — many of them young adults — are no longer being arrested for possessing a substance that is objectively safer than either tobacco or alcohol.

According to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the annual number of marijuana-related arrests in the United States fell from 750,000 in 2012 to 227,000 in 2022, the last year for which data is available.

In short, these state-level policy changes have resulted in countless Americans being spared criminal records — and the lost opportunities that accompany them — in the past decade.

And contrary to opponents’ fears, cannabis use by teens has not risen in parallel with legalization.

According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high schoolers who use marijuana actually fell 30 percent over the past decade. Compliance check data from CaliforniaColoradoNevada, and other legal marijuana states show that licensed marijuana retailers do not sell products to underage patrons.

Also contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.

According to findings published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, rates of psychosis-related health care claims are no higher in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal than in those where it’s not. Stanford University researchers similarly reported last year that residents of states where cannabis is legal exhibit no higher levels of psychosis than those in non-legal states.

Legalization is also successfully disrupting the illicit marketplace. According to a 2023 survey, 52 percent of consumers residing in legal states said that they primarily sourced their cannabis products from brick-and-mortar establishments. By contrast, only 6 percent of respondents said that they primarily purchased cannabis from a “dealer.”

Many consumers in non-legal states also reported that they frequently traveled to neighboring legal states to purchase cannabis products rather than buying from illicit dealers in their own state.

Twelve years into states’ marijuana legalization experiment, public support for making marijuana legal nationwide has never been higher. To date, 24 states have legalized the adult-use market.

None of these states have ever repealed their legalization laws. That’s because these policies are working largely as voters and politicians intended — and because they’re preferable to cannabis criminalization.

After a century of failed policies and “canna-bigotry,” the verdict is in. Legalization is a success, and the end of cannabis prohibition can’t come soon enough.