Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Last year, 5 economists published a research paper called "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers." The authors are 2 economists employed by Uber; 2 professors at Stanford University; and the chairman of the University of Chicago's economics department.
The findings were widely discussed, including on Steven Levitt and Stephen Duber's Freakonomics podcast (Episode 317). What's interesting about Uber's ridesharing data is that their compensation algorithm is believed to be entirely gender-blind.
The formula is pretty simple. It takes into account distance, time, and sometimes a surge multiplier when demand is spiking. Gender does not factor. And the same goes for the actual dispatching of rides. The software doesn't know who is male and who is female.
What they discovered is that on average male Uber drives earn about 7% more per hour compared to females. And that 50% of this wage gap can be (apparently) explained by one variable: Men tend to drive a little faster than women. So they complete more rides per hour.
It's also worth noting that across the US, only about 27% of Uber drivers are female (at least at the time the report was published). Women also have a higher 6-month attrition rate; 76% compared to 63% for men. In other words, more female drivers drop off the platform.
If you're interested in this topic, you should probably have a listen to the Freakonomics podcast. They deliberate on the above in a lot more detail. You can also download a full copy of the research paper, here.
Photo by Luke Stackpoole on Unsplash
CES is underway right now in Las Vegas. About 200,000 people are in attendance.
Since tech and mobility are today closely intertwined, the show has become an important platform for the automative industry.
Here is a video showcasing BMW’s new iNext concept (expected by 2021):
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-f3cALABk&w=560&h=315]
It is based on level 3 autonomy, which means the car will do mostly everything, but you need to be ready to take over at any time.
The video is interesting because it begins to show you what becomes possible when you no longer need to pay attention to the road. It is a bit like flying (but hopefully more enjoyable).
And here is a video of Bell’s new urban air taxi, which is called Nexus (expected by the mid-2020s):
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o4d8N-A1G8&w=560&h=315]
This is the company’s first concept. But they’ve been working with Uber since 2017 to develop a network of flying taxis for cities.
Finally, flying cars.
Last year, 5 economists published a research paper called "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers." The authors are 2 economists employed by Uber; 2 professors at Stanford University; and the chairman of the University of Chicago's economics department.
The findings were widely discussed, including on Steven Levitt and Stephen Duber's Freakonomics podcast (Episode 317). What's interesting about Uber's ridesharing data is that their compensation algorithm is believed to be entirely gender-blind.
The formula is pretty simple. It takes into account distance, time, and sometimes a surge multiplier when demand is spiking. Gender does not factor. And the same goes for the actual dispatching of rides. The software doesn't know who is male and who is female.
What they discovered is that on average male Uber drives earn about 7% more per hour compared to females. And that 50% of this wage gap can be (apparently) explained by one variable: Men tend to drive a little faster than women. So they complete more rides per hour.
It's also worth noting that across the US, only about 27% of Uber drivers are female (at least at the time the report was published). Women also have a higher 6-month attrition rate; 76% compared to 63% for men. In other words, more female drivers drop off the platform.
If you're interested in this topic, you should probably have a listen to the Freakonomics podcast. They deliberate on the above in a lot more detail. You can also download a full copy of the research paper, here.
Photo by Luke Stackpoole on Unsplash
CES is underway right now in Las Vegas. About 200,000 people are in attendance.
Since tech and mobility are today closely intertwined, the show has become an important platform for the automative industry.
Here is a video showcasing BMW’s new iNext concept (expected by 2021):
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-f3cALABk&w=560&h=315]
It is based on level 3 autonomy, which means the car will do mostly everything, but you need to be ready to take over at any time.
The video is interesting because it begins to show you what becomes possible when you no longer need to pay attention to the road. It is a bit like flying (but hopefully more enjoyable).
And here is a video of Bell’s new urban air taxi, which is called Nexus (expected by the mid-2020s):
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o4d8N-A1G8&w=560&h=315]
This is the company’s first concept. But they’ve been working with Uber since 2017 to develop a network of flying taxis for cities.
Finally, flying cars.
Fred Wilson wrote a great post on his blog today about New York City’s “transit mess.”
In it he talks about congestion pricing (which, as you all know, I support); the mess that is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); and this 37-page report on how to improve the MTA.
Here is an excerpt from his post that I liked, but that won’t be popular with everyone:
That is an idea [congestion pricing] that has been proposed a number of times over the years, most notably by Mayor Bloomberg during his tenure. It is a good idea and long overdue. A dense urban environment should have excellent mass transit and incentives to use it and should have disincentives to drive cars. Taxing cars in Manhattan and using the revenues to maintain and improve our subways seems like an obvious thing to do.
I would encourage you to give his post a read. The New York Times also reported on this topic (and the above recommendations) this week. They called it, 7 ways to fix the MTA (which needs a $60 billion overhaul).
Fred Wilson wrote a great post on his blog today about New York City’s “transit mess.”
In it he talks about congestion pricing (which, as you all know, I support); the mess that is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); and this 37-page report on how to improve the MTA.
Here is an excerpt from his post that I liked, but that won’t be popular with everyone:
That is an idea [congestion pricing] that has been proposed a number of times over the years, most notably by Mayor Bloomberg during his tenure. It is a good idea and long overdue. A dense urban environment should have excellent mass transit and incentives to use it and should have disincentives to drive cars. Taxing cars in Manhattan and using the revenues to maintain and improve our subways seems like an obvious thing to do.
I would encourage you to give his post a read. The New York Times also reported on this topic (and the above recommendations) this week. They called it, 7 ways to fix the MTA (which needs a $60 billion overhaul).
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
