Topic: Regulatory Studies

Celebrate the 81st Anniversary of Repeal Day at the Cato Institute

On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, ending our nation’s failed experiment with alcohol prohibition. Yet, 81 years later, modern-day prohibitionists continue to deny the laws of supply and demand, attempting to control what individuals can choose to put into their own bodies.

The War on Drugs is a glaring example of contemporary prohibitionism, but nanny-staters have even attempted to ban substances as innocuous as “too-large” sodas or gourmet cheeses.

This Friday, join the Cato Institute for a look at prohibition 81 years after the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

 

I will be moderating a panel featuring Cato Senior Fellow Walter Olson, editor of the nation’s oldest law blog Overlawyered.com; Stacia Cosner, Deputy Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy; and Michelle Minton, Fellow in Consumer Policy Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Panelists will discuss modern prohibitions—from the Drug War to blue laws, and from tobacco regulation to trans fats—drawing connections with their earlier antecedent.

Alcoholic beverages and other commonly restricted refreshments (bring on the trans fats!) will be served following the discussion.

What better place to celebrate the 81st anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition than the Cato Institute? Space is limited, so make sure to register for your chance to go home with a commemorative door prize.

Not in D.C.? The panel will be live-streamed and questions may be submitted via Twitter using #CatoDigital.

#CatoDigital (formerly #NewMediaLunch) is a regular event series at the Cato Institute highlighting the intersection of tech, social media, and the ideas of liberty. Email Kat Murti at kmurti [at] cato [dot] org to get future event updates and more.

How Predictable Is an UberX Income?

Some of the appeal of the so-called “sharing economy” is that it allows providers to earn money with assets that would otherwise not be used. Thanks to Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb, a car that would normally sit in the driveway and a spare bedroom can both be used to make some extra money with relative ease. According to Uber, the May median annual income for its full-time New York City rideshare drivers is $90,766 (although this figure has been contested), well above the New York City median income of $46,540. This figure may appeal to those who might want to be an Uber rideshare driver, even if only part-time. However, data released by Uber shows that in order to make a predictable income as an UberX driver in New York City you will have to work long hours.

Yesterday, Uber released the following graph: 

 

The graph is based on data gathered from what Uber described as “a randomly selected sample” of New York City UberX drivers during the week of November 3rd. The y-axis shows the drivers’ average hourly post-deduction wage and the x-axis shows the number of hours worked per week. 

Uber’s post highlights that the average hourly wage for New York City UberX drivers for the November 3rd week remained relatively constant regardless of the number of hours worked. According to Uber, “the average earnings per hour for a driver who’s online for 5 hours is roughly the same as the average for a driver who’s online for 65 hours.”

However, Uber’s data suggests that if UberX drivers want a reliable income they will have to work more hours. The second graph released by Uber shows how much the drivers shown in the first graph would earn in a year if they worked the same number of hours for 50 weeks. 

As Slate’s Alison Griswold has pointed out, this graph shows that the more hours you work as an UberX driver in New York City the more reliable your average hourly income becomes. For instance, New York City UberX drivers working more than 70 hours a week for 50 weeks can expect to earn between $70,000 and $90,000 per year. Yet, the graph also shows that if you are working as an UberX driver in New York City part-time (less than 40 hours a week), your income is much less predictable.

UberX is understandably an attractive option for those who want to earn some money in their spare time. But what Uber’s own data reveals is that part-time UberX drivers should not expect a more predictable income than those who rideshare on a full-time basis.

New Essays in Cato Growth Forum

Here are today’s new essays in the Cato Institute’s online forum on reviving growth:

1. Edward Glaeser targets land use restrictions – and five other barriers to growth.

2. Susan Dudley wants to reform the regulatory process.

3. James Pethokoukis takes aim at the crony capitalist alliance.

4. Andrew Kelly calls for better integration of school and work.

5. Bowman Cutter looks for a path to the “good economy.”

Cato’s Online Growth Forum

Here are today’s new essays in the Cato Institute’s special online forum on reviving growth:

1. Richard Florida says that cities are our future.

2. Megan McArdle takes aim at regulatory complexity.

3. Dane Stangler wants more immigration and better teachers.

4. Scott Winship focuses on expanding opportunity for the disadvantaged.

5. Michael Mandel calls for hacking the regulatory state.

6. Brad DeLong waves his magic wand three times.

Regulation Could Hamper Uber Privacy Reforms

UPDATE: Following the publication of this blog post I received an email from the deputy commissioner for public affairs at the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, who writes that there is no “TLC” regulation requiring that passenger information be included in trip data. The email reads (in part):

There is no such regulation.  We did, just this past week, approve a package of rules that will routinize the flow of required trip data, but it is—and always HAS been—limited to pick-up location, date/time, the dispatching base and affiliated base … no passenger information whatsoever.

——–

Original post:

Uber has not had a good month. In the wake of an Uber executive’s worrying remarks regarding a possible smear campaign against critical journalists, the company has been on the receiving end of unflattering reporting related to its privacy policy and what one commentator has referred to as its “[something stronger than “jerk”] problem.” While it is certainly the case that Uber does have legitimate privacy issues to address, it should not be forgotten that existing regulations could hamper some of the privacy reforms many Uber passengers would like to see implemented.

For many, Uber is more convenient than taxis because of its ease of use. Once a passenger creates an account a ride that is paid for automatically is only a push of a button away. Drivers and passengers are rated by each other, providing an incentive for both parties to behave well. However, while the Uber platform’s simplicity is a major attraction, there have been disturbing reports of Uber drivers accessing passengers’ information.

In March of this year, Olivia Nuzzi, a reporter for The Daily Beast, wrote about two creepy interactions with Uber drivers in New York City. In her writing about the first incident, Nuzzi describes her driver showing her a photo he had taken of her before the ride began. Nuzzi was understandably upset and rated the driver poorly. Uber deactivated the driver, who later emailed Nuzzi, The Daily Beast, and a journalist who had written about Nuzzi. After this incident Nuzzi was told by an Uber employee there was no way the Uber driver could have accessed her full name and that he must have recognized her. 

Yet the second incident reveals that Uber drivers can discover the full names of their passengers, thereby making them easier targets for stalking. Months after Nuzzi’s first disturbing incident, one of her friends was contacted by an Uber driver over Facebook. The driver asked whether Nuzzi was single. When Nuzzi asked an Uber spokeswoman for comment regarding this incident she was informed that Uber drivers could in fact access the full names of their passengers. The Uber spokeswoman went on to explain that this data collection is possible because:

The New York City and Limousine commission, along with the vast majority of jurisdictions across the country, do require first and last names on what is commonly called a waybill or trip record. It’s intended to prevent gypsy cabbing in the taxi and livery industry… So Uber does provide trip sheets to drivers so that they can comply with those regulations that exist in most cities. 

Some readers might be wondering why Uber cannot simply anonymize passenger information in order to prevent the sort of stalking Nuzzi endured. The reason that passenger names are not made anonymous is that New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) regulations prevent such information from being hidden, as Polly Mosendz explained this month in Newsweek:

While a user’s Uber profile only shows the first name and a small picture, the driver does have access to the full name as soon as the ride is ordered. Showing the full name opens up a number of issues, such as drivers Facebook messaging their riders or finding their homes, but Uber is unable to anonymize this unless the TLC changes its regulations.

In New York City, it seems that Uber must find a way to tackle TLC regulations in order to prevent the sort of awful behavior Nuzzi reported.

Of course, there are other complaints related to Uber and privacy, such as the tracking of journalists and “known people.” Uber is investigating the improper use of its so-called “God View” tool, which allows corporate employees to view the current location of Uber cars and users looking for rides. According to Uber, a New York executive’s use of “God View” to track a journalist on her way to Uber’s New York headquarters was in violation of the company’s privacy policy.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Uber announced last week that it was working with the law firm Hogan Lovells in order to strengthen its privacy policy. It is welcome news that Uber is addressing the legitimate privacy concerns that have been raised by some passengers, but those watching Uber’s attempts to reform its privacy policy should keep in mind that regulations make that task considerably more difficult.

Just in Time for Thanksgiving, Another Turkey from the Obama Administration

The shameful Obama Administration practice of proposing dreadful environmental regulations on or near national holidays continues. Last year they were on global warming, and this year it’s low-level ozone. Neither regulation will have a detectable “benefit,” but both impose enormous costs. Perhaps President Obama’s placing this announcement in the news cycle just before Thanksgiving and Black Friday is indicative of how popular he thinks these regulations will be.

So it goes. The lessons of November 4 remain unlearned, with the administration doubling down in the service of all of its green friends that didn’t vote. The fact is that the ground zero of the thermonuclear electoral explosion three weeks ago was in the coal mining areas of Kentucky and West Virginia. In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell was supposedly in a close race with Alison Grimes and instead won by a whopping 18 points. Nick Rahall, a 19-term (!) Democratic congressman from West Virginia saw a similar swing: he won his seat by eight points in 2012 and lost by 10 in 2014, with the net change in two years totaling 18. 

The proposed ozone rules are yet another example of what happens when good ideas go bad. Pretty much everyone agrees that EPA, along with the states, have done a remarkable job in cleaning up our air. The eye-stinging smogs of Los Angeles are history. Pittsburgh was once so dirty that masonry turned black, causing people to wonder what was happening in their lungs. We have done great things and enjoy air that is cleaner than that of any economic superpower in the history of this planet.

Environmental protection is what systems engineers call a “heuristic device,” defined as “a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal, but is good enough for a given set of goals.” The problem, of course, is that heuristic devices don’t tell you when to stop. Instead they keep being applied, in this case by the bureaucracy-for-life known as the Environmental Protection Agency, producing massively diminishing returns for massively increased costs. And, at President Obama’s urging, it will never hear the word “stop.”

Millions of people are increasingly disenchanted with the administration’s high-handed approach to command-and-control regulations imposed when we aren’t supposed to be looking.  If enough people remain grumpy about this, Barack Obama may yet again stand in the way of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

SCOTUS to Hear Case on EPA Power Plant Rule

Today the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on EPA’s 2012 ruling, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. This ruling, projected in 2012 to result  in the closing of 68 power plants supplying electricity to 22 million homes, is EPA’s version of swatting a gnat with an atomic bomb. Here’s some sobering numbers, from a 2010 article in the refereed scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions:

Total emissions of mercury (in metric tons):

  • From natural sources (mainly volcanoes and forest fires): 5200 tons
  • From human activity: 2320 tons
  • Total, natural and human: ~7500 tons
  • Human activity in the US: 117 tons, or about 1.6% of global emissions
  • From coal-fired electrical generation in the US: 48 tons, or about 0.6% of global emissions
  • Amount that actually falls on our soil from our power plants: 12 tons, or about 0.2% of global emissions.

Mercury can reside in the atmosphere for up to two years, unless it is rained out as “wet deposition,” which means that a lot of what comes out of the volcanoes of the Pacific Rim and wildfires winds up here.

If EPA was really serious about Mercury it would issue regulations capping volcanoes and outlawing wildfires.