Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Beer Transportation Software Technology

Ride-Hailing Apps Have Allowed More Binging and Increased Demand For Bartenders (economist.com) 110

Posted by BeauHD from the cause-and-effect dept.
A study published last week analyzed ridesharing's effects on binge drinking and found that it increased heavy drinking by around 20% and increased employment at bars and restaurants by an average of 2%. The Economist reports: A new study by three economists -- Jacob Burgdorf and Conor Lennon of the University of Louisville, and Keith Teltser of Georgia State University -- finds that the widespread availability of ride-sharing apps has indeed made it easier for the late-night crowd to binge. By matching data on Uber's availability with health surveys from America's Centers for Disease Control, the authors find that on average alcohol consumption rose by 3%, binge drinking -- where a person downs four or five drinks in two hours -- increased by 8%, and heavy drinking -- defined as three or more instances of binge drinking in a month -- surged by 9% within a couple of years of the ride-hailing company coming to town. Increases were even higher in cities without public transport, where the presence of Uber led average drinking to rise by 5% and instances of binge drinking to go up by around 20%. (Heavy drinking still rose by 9%.) Remarkably, excessive drinking was actually declining before Uber's appearance, giving further evidence that the firm's arrival affected behavior.

If people are likelier to drink a lot, but less likely to drive drunk, it is hard to say what the overall public-health impact of ride-hailing firms has been. That said, there is one group of individuals who clearly benefit from the presence of Uber, Lyft and others: bartenders. Messrs Burgdorf, Lennon and Teltser find that employment at bars and restaurants increases by an average of 2% whenever Uber enters the market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ride-Hailing Apps Have Allowed More Binging and Increased Demand For Bartenders More

Ride-Hailing Apps Have Allowed More Binging and Increased Demand For Bartenders

Comments Filter:

  • So what, its their body and its called freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Raisey-raison ( 850922 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @06:37AM (#59438438)
    Let's put aside whether this leads to less drinking and driving.

    If people want to binge drink more because they know they can safely get home, why should that be a reason for the rest of us to stop them. This explicitly is talking about when people are not driving drunk. Can't we just let people live their lives. If they want to do things we disapprove with their bodies, why can't we respect their autonomy.

    This is why the war on drugs is so awful. Why do we need to micromanage other people's lives. If they want to drink more alcohol, then let them. And why should the rest if us somehow have less access to ridesharing because other people binge drink more.

    What about all the people who use the service to go out who otherwise could not? Maybe they are disabled or maybe they live in an unsafe area and don't have a car. Maybe they are running late to work and it will get them to work on time. Why should the rest of us have to have our freedom constricted because of the decisions by some to drink more alcohol.

    If you must deal with alcohol, deal with it directly by raising taxes on it and then spending the money on the externalities like mental health. But don't hurt the rest of us and stop us getting around.

    • Well, it's true that free people will do what they want, and so they should.

      However, it's worth noting that there is a lot of historical evidence to show that, as a civilisation, we are all harmed when we allow self destructive behaviour to become normalised and widespread.

      No, I don't know how to balance those things, I just think it's worth acknowledging that it is a bit more complex than just declaring absolute freedom from regulation in the personal space as some inviolable principle.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Raisey-raison ( 850922 )
        Well first the basis of believing that abortion be legal is the belief in person space. And someone could argue that the behavior that leads to abortion is "self destructive". Others would argue that it's none of our business that a woman does with her body.

        There is no end to talking about how we can be harmed by other people's behavior in indirect ways. We are harmed when people are irresponsible with managing their money and take on too much debt. We are harmed when people go to bed too late. We are ha

        • It also seems strange that the great harms like homelessness, inequality, and unemployment are in many respects ignored

          A major factor in a lot of homelessness is excessive drinking.

          • I doubt that homeless people are the ones using Ubers.

          • A major factor in a lot of homelessness is excessive drinking.

            Well, if you're homeless...you gotta have something to do for entertainment, I mean, not a lot of quality TV or internet surfing to be enjoyed living out of that shopping cart.

          • They steal the fucking alcohol. I see it every day in my job. In cali, we made theft under $1k just a misdemeanor as well. Use to be $500. So we are encouraging thieves by being lax on the laws.

            We have decided we don't actually care about them at all. It's pathetic. We live in the richest state and yet have the biggest homeless problem. It's infuriating. Makes me really want to leave the state but not willing to divorce to leave.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gmack ( 197796 )

              Throwing them in jail is an expensive solution and doesn't actually solve any of the problems. The homeless are congregating in California thanks to the fact that they can live outside all year around without worrying about dying of heat in the summer or freezing to death in the winter.

              A proper fix would be to treat it like the mental health problem that it is. In some cases that means treatment for whatever mental illness they are struggling with and in other cases, the military needs to step up and start

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Bert64 ( 520050 )

              I imagine the climate has a lot to do with the levels of homelessness too... If you're going to live rough, best to do it somewhere where it doesn't get down to freezing temperatures.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          if we tolerated other people more and regulated things only when absolutely necessary. Yes that means strong anti monopoly laws and making sure the water has almost no lead. Yes it means not tolerating companies forcing complex EULAs down people's necks. But lets just try to minimize it. Otherwise by trying to regulate too much, we fail at the most important things.

          In other words the government should stop people from doing things I don't like but let me do whatever I want. How very hypocritical of you.

      • No, I don't know how to balance those things, I just think it's worth acknowledging that it is a bit more complex than just declaring absolute freedom from regulation in the personal space as some inviolable principle.

        The US has come a long way since the days of the Prohibitionist movement. The movement itself was a sign of the times, however. The social ills of an unregulated alcohol market were felt across the country. But Prohibition had its own social ills tied to it. The US then proceeded to adopt more or less sensible regulation of the industry and quietly adopted social norms around alcohol that have changed little in the past fifty. The change was as much cultural as it was legislative. I don't see increases in

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          People seem to forget that prohibition was NOT exactly a total failure. It was not until 1960 that per capita drinking returned to per-prohibition levels. As you say sensible regulation and other action in the proceeding years helped address a lot of the ills more effectively than an outright ban on alcohol consumption did but at the time Temperance movement people were right about some things.

          One of the things that gets left out in a lot of prohibition discussions is the incidence of domestic violence de

          • People seem to forget that prohibition was NOT exactly a total failure.

            True. Organized Crime found it a wonderful time, and was enabled to become firmly entrenched in the USA. A true American success story.

            It was not until 1960 that per capita drinking returned to per-prohibition levels. As you say sensible regulation and other action in the proceeding years helped address a lot of the ills more effectively than an outright ban on alcohol consumption did but at the time Temperance movement people were right about some things.

            One of the things that gets left out in a lot of prohibition discussions is the incidence of domestic violence decreased by 50% (considering how likely that was undreported in the era as compared to now the effect might have been bigger than that!). Prohibition probably save the lives of a lot women and children!

            So your thesis that alcohol leads to to men beating and killing women and children tells us that men would return to beating and killing women and children by 1960.

            Did it?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              So your thesis that alcohol leads to to men beating and killing women and children tells us that men would return to beating and killing women and children by 1960.

              To the first part:
              Yes excessive alcohol use does correlate highly with men abusing women and children.

              To the second part:
              No as stated "other actions in the proceeding years". Expansion of women's shelters, CPS where children are taken out of abusive homes, counseling and anti-addiction programs etc.. These things work at least to some degree.

              Prohibition worked kinda like how amputating an infected limb treated the patient, we have use antibiotics today mostly; except in extreme cases. Like removing a limb

              • So your thesis that alcohol leads to to men beating and killing women and children tells us that men would return to beating and killing women and children by 1960.

                To the first part: Yes excessive alcohol use does correlate highly with men abusing women and children.

                And yet, many men drink alcohol, yet do not. Explain how this is alcohol that make me - a man (apprently women are immune to alcohol's effects ?), beat my wife?

                Sorry, but just like courts do not accept the excuse that "alcohol made me do it", as a substanmce that lowers inhibition, you have to have a violent core to do such things.

                No as stated "other actions in the proceeding years". Expansion of women's shelters, CPS where children are taken out of abusive homes, counseling and anti-addiction programs etc.. These things work at least to some degree.

                Don't forget women's suffrage. Your examples probably had a much bigger impact than criminalizing alcohol consumption.

                Don't forget, criminalizing alcohol consumption in

          • People seem to forget that prohibition was NOT exactly a total failure.

            Not for everyone; among other things, it led to the creation of La Cosa Nostra as we know it.

          • Prohibition probably save the lives of a lot women and children!

            You haven't actually learned anything about Prohibition, I see.

        • The social ills of an unregulated alcohol market were felt across the country.

          And they paled compared to the social ills of "regulated"one. Do you have a point??

      • it's worth noting that there is a lot of historical evidence to show that, as a civilisation, we are all harmed when we allow self destructive behaviour to become normalised and widespread.

        There are all kinds of self-destructive behavior out there, some of which threaten civilization. Psychotic religious belief is an example, but competing with monopoly taxi companies, not so much.

    • The problem with drugs (alcohol included) is that they are really addictive, making the user want more and higher doses and especially doing anything for the next dose. I personally do not believe that the government or anyone should say what you can and cannot do with yourself, but when your actions put other people at risk then it becomes a problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        No, they *can* be addictive, and some are formulated specifically to increase addiction...

        But this is not necessarily always the case. I had a couple of beers at a social gathering several weeks ago, i've not had any since. I don't want more or higher doses and probably won't have any more until there's another social gathering of the right kind.

    • > If you must deal with alcohol, deal with it directly by raising taxes
      So if you don't binge drink but do like to drink, you're screwed now, because of the binge drinkers that cause the increased taxation. I live in Scotland. Drinking in parks in some cities at least is forbidden because people like to get wasted and make a fuss in the few sunny days of the year. If I want to have a drink at the park on a nice day, by law I'm prohibited to do so (even as I drink moderately), because of the fuckheads t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Well instead of blanket heavy taxation and controls, make alcohol consumption a privilege that is taken away if abused. Have stricter ID checks on all alcohol purchases, and deny sales to anyone who's recently been convicted of an alcohol related offense, where supplying alcohol to someone who's banned is also an offense.

    • Micomanaging becomes more of a problem with universal healthcare. Now your taxes are paying for a nation of people with failing livers and other complications. But I suppose the same argument can be made for private insurance.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Micomanaging becomes more of a problem with universal healthcare. Now your taxes are paying for a nation of people with failing livers and other complications. But I suppose the same argument can be made for private insurance.

        Not really, otherwise other countries would be full of alcoholics if it was a problem.

        The truth is, most people are adults and they'll be responsible. Some will binge every now and again, but that happens regardless. Same with people who drink to constant excess and harm their livers -

    • If they want to do things we disapprove with their bodies, why can't we respect their autonomy.

      Their autonomy should end when they start influencing others. I don't mind people who drink and leave others alone. Unfortunately there is a positive correlation between number of binge drinkers and number of drunken brawls, number of idiots stumbling onto the road drunk j-walking, number of angry idiots who abuse their family while drunk.

      Sure that is not going to be stopped by doing anything with Uber, but my comment is more general. Uber good because drink driving lower, but drinking overall still bad.

    • "If you must deal with alcohol"
      -1, off topic

      The article does not propose any response, let alone imply an obligation to carry out a response. You are trying to rebut a position nobody took.

    • Why should the rest of us have to have our freedom constricted because of the decisions by some to drink more alcohol....If you must deal with alcohol, deal with it directly by raising taxes on it...

      And how exactly is raising taxes on all alcohol somehow not punishing everyone in order to deal with those who abuse it?

      Part of my freedoms is paying a reasonable price for products and services, not paying a 30% surcharge on it because of idiots who can't act sensibly.

      Unfortunately, your suggestion is the lesser of two evils, because today my tax dollars are paying for prisoners instead.

  • four or 5? (Score:3)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @06:39AM (#59438440) Homepage Journal

    What? surely more than 5 counts as well.

    also that's not a proper binge. thats under a six pack? one of the problems with alcohol stats and alcohol information is that the amounts normally put on as mega drinkers are so low that everyone is a mega drinker, so nobody pays any attention to it. binge drinking? four drinks? two hours? - what ? like, people don't even want to read the rest of any study like that since they're actually consuming 12+ units on a weekend night on regular basis and 24 units if it's a party.. 32 if it's midsummer.

    (been a non alcohol drinker for some 10 years myself, acute pancreatitis at under 30y.. )

    • Re:four or 5? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LostMyAccount ( 5587552 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @08:12AM (#59438536)

      Alcohol consumption numbers are so muddled by the units of measure.

      Except in the summer, I only drink liquor and IMHO, 4 liquor drinks served the way they make them around here in 2 hours and I'm kind of drunk. I'd wager this is around 8 ounces of liquor based on the comparative effects when I'm mixing and measuring myself.

      The people I've known who drink 6+ beers are often drinking American light beer, which is pretty low in alcohol content.

      FWIW, I do use Uber when dining out anymore partly because of the alcohol consumption, but really it's like 1 extra drink, maybe 3 tops. It's also due to the fucking parking being so awful as well.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • You are why we had prohibition. Or your attitude. Why don't we also add prescription drugs to your list of shit people can't do and leave the house. At the rate your going, we will have nearly everyone forced to stay home.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • My understanding is that Europe generally is much bigger on drink servings being standardized relative to alcohol content, or "units" so that you get the same units of alcohol across any beverage type.

          It mostly doesn't work that way here where I am in the US. There's a lot of variance on liquor pours between establishments. Most places seem to run around 1-2 ounces, but it's not automated. I've seen bartenders just pour out of the bottle into the serving glass, I've seen them use measures pretty exactly

  • More Binging? (Score:3)

    by cardpuncher ( 713057 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @06:55AM (#59438466)

    Microsoft's investment in Uber has finally worked out for them!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Did they Control for Politics? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    My one question is: did they control for the dipshit in the white house that makes everyone want to drink heavily?

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Um.. Be careful, your political bias is showing --- And you have toilet paper stuck to your shoes...

  • Socialize responsibly? (Score:3)

    by indytx ( 825419 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @07:43AM (#59438510)

    Utah went to a BAC level of .05 which is lower than the .08 mandated by the U.S., and I would not be surprised if this became a trend. That's two drinks for most people and one for smaller women. Good luck trying to decide if you're "legally impaired" at a .05 BAC, and say "goodbye" to splitting a bottle of wine. I think that alcohol consumption was going down because people are afraid of the stigma of a DWI arrest, and with that no longer being a fear, people are free to be themselves.

  • fewer drivers on the road impaired. More people working either part time or full time is a bad thing? And fewer people being killed or hurt due to having other means of getting places when they do drink is also bad?

    There has always been complaints about cab's. Rude drivers, dirty vehicles, never knowing when they would show up. These are all things that could have been known and easily correctable by the companies themselves. To complain that they have lost business without recognizing why seems to

    • "So there are posters unhappy there are more jobs & fewer drivers on the road impaired. "

      Literally no one is making this complaint.

      "And fewer people being killed or hurt due to having other means of getting places when they do drink is also bad?"

      Fewer people being killed or hurt due to one method does not mean fewer people killed or hurt overall. The anecdotal effect is that the sober driver also helped restrain the drinkers when not in the car, so now with a lower ratio of sober people there is more co

      • You quite obviously missed the comments where posters called Uber, Lyft, and companies just like them as evil. yes, people are unhappy that there are more jobs. They see nothing positive in this happening due to their hatred of the companies. It really isn't that hard to understand.

        Ever talked to a lyft/uber driver? Asked them if it was a full time job?

      • "So there are posters unhappy there are more jobs & fewer drivers on the road impaired. "

        Literally no one is making this complaint.

        Maybe you posted too soon. The WCTU never went away. And we've picked up MADD.

        There are plenty of people that are pissed off that one of their biggest tools in prohibition has been sidestepped.

        A sort of similar situation to conservative christians claiming that the HPV vaccines somehow encourge children to have premarital sex.

        Prohibitionists want to make alcohol illegal, and conservative christians..... well, they are just weird.

  • Better Career Option 2019:http://bit.ly/2l1NnZI
  • Computer Career Option : http://bit.ly/2l1NnZI [bit.ly]

  • Binging? Like... Googling? (Score:3)

    by Musical_Joe ( 1565075 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @09:46AM (#59438726)

    What is Binging? Is it the verb related to the search engine Bing, like Googling is to Google?

    Or do you mean bingeing, i.e. relating to the verb 'to binge'?

    Sure, go ahead, send me a link to a dictionary that says "actually, both are acceptable. Nope, you're wrong and so is the damn dictionary!

    • What is Binging? Is it the verb related to the search engine Bing, like Googling is to Google?

      Or do you mean bingeing, i.e. relating to the verb 'to binge'?

      Sure, go ahead, send me a link to a dictionary that says "actually, both are acceptable. Nope, you're wrong and so is the damn dictionary!

      Binging is using Microsoft's search engine, you insensitive clod!

  • When someone wants to drink and has reasonable options for avoiding driving while intoxicated of course they will relax and enjoy. I say get them off the street and consider this a net benefit.

    As far as the issues with drinking, higher domestic violence and the other non-self destructive consequences of drinking, i agree with Raisey-raison's comments posted earlier. Deal with things like "...on the externalities like mental health"
  • Obviously you'd have to be impaired to use Bing. Everyone else uses Duck Duck Go.
  • I read that as bing-ing as in googling and thought, right this has gone too far now. Turns out it's just alcohol abuse so, as you were.

  • "If people are likelier to drink a lot, but less likely to drive drunk, it is hard to say what the overall public-health impact of ride-hailing firms has been."

    The major public health concern isn't the DWI crashes or the falling-down sleeping-in-the-alley alcoholics...it's things that encourage an already high level of drinking to go higher. The UK has a reputation for high levels of "functional" binge drinking. It's not so much that people are disabled or unable to work -- people just drink more overall th

  • The driver of increased drinking is generally misery. Ride-sharing may enable, but rising dystopia and corrupt fascist political occupations of once-free peoples has outright encouraged escape in all forms possible, including alcoholism.

  • And never ever binge alcohol or vape stuff, it's bad.

    This message brought to you by the Speling is Gud and Stuff Counsel

  • If people are likelier to drink a lot, but less likely to drive drunk, it is hard to say what the overall public-health impact of ride-hailing firms has been.

    Converting the infliction of harm on unwilling third parties (other road users) into merely voluntarily undertaken health risks to self, is *clearly* a win.

    If you’re so caught up in authoritarian health paternalism that you can’t see that, there’s clearly something wrong with your moral compass.

    • The tendency is that when heavy drinking goes down so does (domestic) violence. When drinking goes up...

      Not here by saying that one thing leads to the other, I lean towards the idea that both are symptoms of something else.

  • . . . but not so drunk that I've started Binging instead of Googling.

  • I can remember the 1970s. People would go to parties and get stewed. I mean fricking drunk to the point they could barely walk to the car and then they'd drive away like that. They usually made it home.

    I don't see that any more. Maybe it's happening, just not at the parties I'm at.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close