Behind Shared e-Scooter Craze

On a recent evening, Xiaofeng Li followed her usual routine, heading to the beach near her Playa del Rey apartment for an after-dinner walk. Lee used to make the five-minute drive to the beach in her car, but when the motorized scooter craze reached her neighborhood, she decided to give it a try. The ease and convenience of a scooter for the short trip hooked her immediately. On this evening like most others, after coming home from her job as an office engineer in a construction company, she grabbed a shared e-scooter from the stand near her front door, hopped on,  and pointed it beachward.

This time, though, things went terribly wrong. As Li coasted downhill toward a busy intersection, she tried to engage the break but got no response. Instead the scooter continued to accelerate until she lost control, forcing her to leap off before colliding with traffic. Still in motion from the speed of the scooter, she tumbled to the asphalt, suffering gashes on her knees, arms and hands. The accident gave her a shock.

“I was desperate when the brake failed,” Li said, speaking in her native Mandarin Chinese. “The only thing I could do was jump. It was the first time I realized that the scooter is not safe.”

Since September of 2017, startups including Bird, Lime and Spin have introduced thousands of shared e-scooters to the streets in and around Los Angeles. The internet-connected scooters are managed through apps on smartphones and the steps are simple Download an app for a scooter company, use the map to locate the nearest scooter, enter the credit card information, upload driver’s license photo, scan a barcode to open a scooter and then you can ride it. Park the scooter and end the trip on the app.


Shared e-Scooters in Santa Monica | Photo by Yuming Fang

The scooter startups market their products as a cheap, easy and environmentally friendly way for riders to reach last-mile destinations in cities with traffic jams and gaps in public transportation. It costs a flat fee of $1 to ride a scooter plus 15 cents per minute using a pay-as-you-go financial model.

The shared e-scooters have been in people’s sights fewer than two years, but the safety problem has become one of the most serious issues that scooters encounter. Cities have limited the total that each operator can have on the streets. In Santa Monica, each operator is capped at 2,000. In L.A. the maximum number of e-bikes and e-scooters per vendor is 2,500. But even with these caps, critics say other problems with the scooters have not been addressed. Certain stretches of Santa Monica or L.A. can seem overwhelmed by scooters, which riders can simply deposit anywhere, and which often wind up scattered randomly on the sidewalks. And concerns are mounting that scooters present a range of unaddressed safety hazards, both in their regulation and design. Since Oct. 18, 2017, a total of 60 scooter related incidents in Santa Monica have required an Emergency Medical Services response, according to the Santa Monica Fire Department. Incidents included scooter rider and vehicle collisions, as well as pedestrians tripping and falling over abandoned scooters strewn on sidewalks.

“My opinion, get rid of them,” said Julian Zermeno, Santa Monica’s EMS paramedic coordinator, in an email. “We have been on many scooter medical calls due to the riders falling down, crashing into people and getting hit by other vehicles.”

In addition to the safety problem, critics say dockless scooters block sidewalks, disability access ramps and green spaces, and rampage through the streets, which affect both pedestrians and vehicle drivers. As scooters are dumped in public places, people who don’t like them have easy access to abuse them. An Instagram account “birdgraveyard” says it is “a place for people to show their frustration” with the scooters, and features images of scooters that have been vandalized and discarded in the ocean and in dumpsters and shopping carts.

Credit to @birdgraveyard

Now, a class-action lawsuit filed in Superior Court of California has accused Lime, Bird, Xiaomi as well as other scooter firms of “strict products liability”, “gross negligence” and “aiding and abetting assault.” The plaintiffs of the lawsuit include a scooter rider, a motorist with a disability who was unable to access a parking space because it was blocked by scooters, and seven pedestrians injured by electric scooters.

Lawsuit File | Photo by Yuming Fang

Also, Lime, one of the leading scooter startup, was reported that their scooters would break apart when using. However, the problems didn’t block their growing speed for the nature of capital to pursue profits. The scooter craze has captured the heart of Silicon Valley and attracted billions of dollars of investment from venture capitalists. According to Bloomberg, Bird’s evaluation has reached $2 billion in June at an astounding pace. And the new fundraising round of Lime in June has valued Lime at a $1.1 billion. There is no authoritative statistics to show how many scooters the startups have distributed to the streets. But statistics from Lime and Bird show that Bird has worked out to 98 markets while Lime has had 149 markets within one year. With the powerful push from capitals, scooters startups cannot slow down their pace but expand their scales and markets at home and abroad, thus resulting in negligence in product quality and operational management.

Looking back the past three years, e-scooter is not the first shared micromobility launched for last-mile distance. From 2016, bike sharing took off in China’s cities, with lots of companies flooding the city streets with millions of shared-bikes. Time reports that around 60 companies have dumped between 16-18 million bicycles on Chinese streets. Similarly, shared-bikes can be unlocked when riders use the app to scan the barcode on bikes, charge riders with lossmaking low rental fees based on the time length per ride, and be parked at the roadside for the next customer. However, over the three years, China’s bike sharing project has experienced mania, then from bad to worse. What has happened to china’s shared bikes and will American’s shared scooters encounter the same experience?

According to People’s Daily, the state-run media in China, China has 400 million registered bike-sharing users and the daily number of riders peaks at 70 million. Also, Seventy-seven shared-bike companies have emerged in China over the last two-plus years, with a combined total of 23 million bikes distributed in China’s cities, towns, and even villages.

However, China’s bike fever has reached its saturation under unlimited blind competition. For the purpose of expansion, bike-sharing companies continuously purchased bikes from suppliers and distributed bikes on the streets. For one time, people can see eye-catching colorful bikes in every corner of the streets, resulting in an overcrowding of public spaces specifically in areas centered around public transportation such as sidewalks, metro stations, and bus stops. Also, without timely inspection and maintenance, dozens of bikes are broken and left casually in corners. In order to manage the situation, local municipalities have collected the bikes and dumped them in landfills. On the outskirts of leading Chinese cities, rows of brightly-colored bicycles are packed like trash in the tight formation after they are reclaimed. In August 2018, China’s national-level Ministry of Transportation issued a formal regulation, after which 30 Chinese cities passed regulations to guide shared bikes’ production, operation, and maintenance. The pace of bike production and distribution has slowed down and accordingly cooled down the cash-burning bike-sharing trend.

Shared Bikes Landfills in China | Source: Reuters

From June this year, several sharing-bike companies experienced capital chain rupture and stopped operation. Even Ofo, one of the two dominant dockless bike-sharing companies in China, got into trouble that it quitted overseas countries and cities from June and its domestic users could not get in-app deposit refunds because the refund button became grey and the customer service didn’t work. China’s media reported that “Ofo is getting into the capital chain problem and struggling for survival.”

According to the China Business Network, an employee of Ofo said the bike-sharing companies’ trouble is due to their lack of management. “It invested heavily in rapid market expansion, leaving less money for refined management, and operation and maintenance,” the employee said. Bike sharing companies should have focused on operation and maintenance details such as product optimization, scheduling and repair, and products’ revenue and costs. However, these companies didn’t stop to solve management problems but constantly asked for fundraising for speedy scale expansion. Also, the governments didn’t carry out regulations timely until they cannot ignore the problems shared bikes have brought to the society.

In comparison with shared bikes, e-scooters in the U.S. are experiencing similar situations. But we couldn’t conclude that the fate of shared e-scooters in the future would be similar to shared bikes in China. The lessons we could learn from shared bikes in China is that don’t let capital control the company’s development; in other words, scooter startups should focus more on user experience and products upgrading rather than pursue venture capitalists’ investment. Now, at first, the safety problem should be the top priority to resolve for scooter startups.

China’s Online-shopping Festival

China announced a 6.5 percent economic growth rate in the September quarter of 2018, the lowest rate since 2016. However, the decreased economic growth rate didn’t cool down the consumption enthusiasm on e-commerce platforms. Instead, the Chinese e-commerce companies made e-commerce history in November.

China GDP Growth Rate

The most representative e-commerce company would be the giant—Alibaba. This year, Alibaba reported that customers spent $30.8 billion online in 24 hours, a significant increase from $25.3 billion in gross merchandise volume in 2017. The number is almost five times than the total online sales on 2017 Cyber Monday reached $6.59 billion, the largest online sales day in the U.S. history, according to Adobe’s analysis.

Singles Day (Nov.11) was originally created by Chinese university students to celebrate their single status. In 2019, Alibaba created its first shopping day on Singles Day with about $7.1 million in gross merchandise volume and turned it into a nationwide shopping festival. And now it’s the world’s largest online-shopping festival, according to Bloomberg.

Source: Statista

When the creative marketing strategy created by accident has become a profitable business model, Alibaba is not the only company who participates in the festival. While Alibaba calls its shopping festival as “Double 11”, JD.com, the most competitive rivalry of Alibaba, names its shopping festival as “11.11” and extends its sales time from Nov.1 – Nov.11. During the period, JD.com saw about $22.8 billion in transactions, a 25.7 percent increase compared to the gross merchandise volume of the same period in 2017. JD.com also has its own shoppers’ holiday in mid-June (6.18). This year, JD.com has sold $24.7 billion worth of goods on that day.

Plus, other popular local platforms performed well in this Singles Day, for example, Suning, VIP.com, Vmall.com and Kaola.com, all of which are popular e-commerce companies in China.

Based on the whopping numbers, China’s media show their confidence in Chinese customers’ purchasing power. According to people.cn, an authoritative media in China say that the development of shopping festivals over the ten years has shown the increase in China’s economic growth and witnessed the consumption power of domestic economic growth. In the past ten years, the items customer buy online have changed from everyday necessities to high-quality commodities, such as big-screen televisions, smartphones and imported products. Also, an increased number of rural residents are taking part in the shopping festival, for example, the number has reached 241 million in western rural areas, which can show huge potential possibilities for the e-commerce industry. China is welcoming “consumption upgrading”, China’s media say.

However, the opposite points came out that the numbers “ suggest China’s economy is cooling down”, according to Business Insider. Although the gross merchandise volume has been increasing over the past ten years, the GMV annual growth rate is not the case. This year, the GMV annual growth rate of Alibaba has dropped from 39% to 27%. Also, the upstart e-commerce company Pinduoduo, featuring to sell unknown-brand, cheap, low-quality products but low-price products, has won many shoppers in China this year. The phenomenon was heatedly discussed that Chinese people are facing “consumption degrading”.

The 2018 shopping festival in China has come to a close. What is the status quo behind the hilarious shopping carnival? Maybe the consumers can tell.  

Trump Brings Anxiety to Birth Tourism Industry

In the final days of October, news came out that President Trump wanted to use executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. In an interview with Axios, President Trump said the United States is “the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits”. Sticking to “America First”, he has been pushing hardline immigration policies to immigration issues.  

Although the news has aroused controversy in the U.S. and critics say President Trump has no rights to end birthright citizenship supported by the 14th Amendment, the news has still brought an anxiety to a group of people related to “birth tourism”.

Birth tourism gives pregnant women an opportunity traveling to and giving birth in another country for the purpose of obtaining citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship. The United States is a popular destination for birth tourists. As long as pregnant women don’t lie on immigration or insurance paperwork, this practice is legal and protected by the 14th Amendment, which says anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. According to the Migration Policy Institute, more than 4 million children have the citizenship of the U.S. at birth.

Chinese pregnant women account for the majority of birth tourism group. According to Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Data, the total number of birth tourists from around the world to be about 36,000 per year, while other sources indicate the annual number of Chinese birth tourists to be around 20,000. Estimates by All America Mother Services Management Center in 2013 projected 60,000 Chinese births in 2016, more than 14 times as many as 2008, the first year Chinese people could apply for a U.S. Visitor Visa for tourism. the number of pregnant women coming to the U.S. has reached over 80,000, according to a Chinese research institution.

The reason that Chinese pregnant women choose to give birth in the U.S. has in common. The U.S. citizenship can allow their babies to enjoy advanced medical technology, good environment with clean air and water, advanced education resources and less-pressured course pressure. However, without the birthright citizenship supported by the U.S. Constitution, they would lose a way to give their babies a better life. There is no doubt that Trump’s opposition to birthright citizenship has brought them much anxiety.

Other than chinses pregnant women who want to give birth in the U.S., Trump’s proposition will also affect maternity hotel owners, who have been living in the U.S.

Maternity hotels sprang up over 30 years ago when Taiwanese chose to give birth in America to protect their children from mandatory military service. At first, these pregnant women lived with their relatives or friends waiting to give birth. However, as increasing numbers of pregnant Taiwanese women followed, the experienced in housing pregnant women sensed a fortune could be made. To accommodate the increasing number of pregnant women flocking to the U.S., maternity hotels offering comprehensive services for pregnant women sprang up. Los Angeles is the most popular destination for them. And when the U.S. Visitor Visa for tourism opened to Chinese citizens in 2008, the industry began an unprecedented boom.

Maternity hotels’ services include housing, cooking meals, appointing obstetricians, personal care by matrons, and driving. A large number of maternity hotels can produce many job opportunities and positions, for example, housekeepers, drivers, matrons, babysitters and obstetricians. According to a report of All America Mother Services Management Center, the maternity hotel industry chain in Los Angeles can support almost 10,000 people to make a living. However, if Trump succeeds in ending birthright citizenship, the whole industry will be affected.

While no one can predict the policy in immigration policies, the birth tourism and maternity hotel industry have an unsure future. The settled part is that Trump’s hardline attitudes toward immigration issues may have cracked down the industry.

The Minimum Wage Trap

When Stacey Li heard that her hourly wage would be increased from $10.5 to $15 from her manager, she couldn’t help texting the exciting news to her friends immediately. Walking out of the manager’s office, she rushed to and hugged her friends who were waiting out of the building she worked.

“I was really excited. At first, I thought I got it because I worked hard,” Lee said. “ But I was still very happy after I knew L.A. increased its new minimum wage.”

Stacey Li

Li, a student worker at USC FMS, received her first increased payroll in August. She said she had more extra money to buy clothes and bags. When asked her opinion of increasing minimum wages, she said: “It’s definitely good to minimum-wage earners, such as me. ” However, is it really good to artificially set an increased mandated minimum wage? Maybe not.

On July 1, the City of Los Angeles increased its minimum wage to $13.25 for large employers who have more than 25 employees, up from $12. Smaller employers with 25 and fewer employees saw a $1.5 increase to $12.

Wages will continue to rise incrementally over the next several years. By 2022, the minimum wage of Los Angeles will be heading toward $15 an hour. California is also heading towards $15, but won’t be there until 2023.

Source: wagesla.lacity.org

In passing the bill of higher wages, the well-intended government hoped that mandated higher wages could help the lowest-paid who are really struggling. However, the effects of increasing minimum wages are still under discussion. Two-side voices to debate about the wage floor have been appearing for decades years.

Early in the 1960s, the economist Milton Friedman pointed that the mandated minimum wage is “a monument to the power of superficial thinking”. He thought the low-paid and the unskilled would be hurt because the mandated minimum-wage law induced employers to dismiss a portion of employees.

Also, if you learned Introduction to Microeconomics, you would be familiar with a concept: price equilibrium, a center point where supply and demand are lines that cross at the same time. In a totally competitive market, the price equilibrium point is the wage where the number of workers matches the number of jobs at that price. When we artificially set a mandated minimum wage higher than the market-determined spot, the deadweight loss appears. Under the situation, some workers are out of work. All in all, minimum wages create unemployment: While they draw more people into the labor market, they reduce the number of labor companies wish to hire.

Source: The Effects of Minimum Wage

The Employment Policies Institute published a study in December 2017 about the statistically negative effects of California minimum wage increases on employment growth-particularly in low-wage industries, from 1990 to the present. The study shows that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would lead to a 4.5% reduction in employment in an industry if one-half of its workers earn low-wages. The study also estimates 400,000 jobs will be lost if California minimum wage is increased to $15 in 2022.

How does the higher minimum wage hurt the low-paid and the unskilled? For example, the wage increase of  $1.5 an hour in Los Angeles will translate to almost $60,000 in annual costs for a business with 20 minimum-wage employees. Businesses need to find ways to increase sales and generate profits to make up for the costs. When businesses cannot pay the costs with increased sales, they will choose other ways to control costs, for example, eliminate jobs, reduce work hours, or hire higher-skilled employees whose productivity can match their salaries.

For example, one of the recent breaking news would be that Amazon’s decision to raise its minimum wage to $15 apply to more than 250,000 Amazon employees and 100,000 seasonal workers, according to the company. However, in order to control the costs, Amazon also decided to end grants of valuable Amazon shares and monthly attendance and productivity bonuses. Some Amazon employees think their yearly total compensation, on the contrary, will shrink and they may end up making thousands of dollars less a year.

However, the other voice says mandated minimum wages don’t necessarily result in job losses; instead, they have little or no effects on employment. In 2017, two universities studied the effects of Seattle minimum wages and came to two different conclusions. The University of Washinton concluded that Seatle’s minimum wage is costing jobs, while the Univerisity of California, Berkeley pointed it hasn’t cut jobs. The University of California, Berkeley’s study focused on the Seattle food services industry, which is an intense user of minimum wage workers. They found no evidence of job loss in the city’s restaurant industry.

In 2013, Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” studied by John Schmitt. The study’s conclusion is that little or no employment effects respond to modest increases in the minimum wage. But this doesn’t mean there is no deadweight loss in setting a mandated minimum wage. The study shows that businesses can make use of adjustments to decrease the effect in employment. These possible adjustments include “higher prices to consumers, reductions in non-wage benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans, reductions in training, and shifts in the composition of employment, improvements in business’s proficiency, cutting the earnings of higher-wage workers, and accepting reduction in profits”. In other words, if consumers, higher-paid employees, and businesses can help to pay the extra costs, the low-paid employment won’t be affected. But why do they have to help to pay?

When we discuss the effects of increasing minimum wages, we don’t only talk about the effects on employment but also on consumers, employees and employers. Based on John Schmitt’s report and Amazon’s actions to increase minimum wages, it’s hard to conclude that a wage hike is a really good thing. True, it can benefit a small portion of low-income employees. However, it a large group of people will suffer losses.

Before the first minimum wage came out, economists had predicted the negative effects of setting mandated minimum wages. Now that the governments already knew the possible consequences, why do they still persist the minimum wages?

One of the possible reasons is inflation. According to the interactive graphic, the buying power of minimum wage peaked in 1968, reaching almost $11, although the absolute minimum wage has been increasing over the past decades. If the governments don’t push the increase in minimum wage, the buying power may go down after taking inflation rate into account.

Source: CNN—Minimum Wage since 1938

Also, instead of considering the long-term suffering consequences brought by the minimum wage, the government may focus more on short-term benefits it can bring to low-income workers: from going hungry to having food. For governments, increasing the minimum wage is an easy way to gain support from people because the action shows their humanitarian. Possibly, when economists consider economic and social progress as a whole, the government pay more attention to the interests of certain groups and individuals only care about themselves. Thus, increasing the minimum wage becomes a correct action.

Why is Free Trade Good?

        Image Source: The Wall Street Journal

On Sep. 24, the United States will begin imposing tariffs of 10 percent on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. That tariff rate will rise to 25 percent beginning Jan.1. Subsequently, China retaliated as promised on Tuesday that it would enact tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. goods from aircraft to liquified natural gas.

From July this year, the trade battle between the United States and China started that the U.S. imposed 25 percent tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods as part of President Trump’s tariffs policy. As the trade war escalates over time, an unavoidable question occurs to me: what’s the meaning of the continuously escalating trade war with retaliation?

When searching “trade war” on the internet, the headlines like “Will tariffs hit American more than China?”, “What’s at stake for the U.S.?”, or “China once looked tough on trade. Now its options are dwindling.” popped up on the screen. Now that the negative effects of the trade war with retaliated tariffs can be realized by both sides, why not negotiate a peace treaty? A free trade is better than retaliated tariffs.

Early in 18th century, an economist Adam Smith wrote in his book The Wealth of Nations: “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.” This is the core of free trade: businesses concentrate on services or goods where they have a distinct competitive advantage so that they could swap something with lower cost and all profit by doing so. However, a free market is being devalued and tariff is becoming a weapon for the state’s rivalry.

Generally, tariffs opposing free trade can be used for five reasons: protecting domestic employment, protecting consumers, protecting infant industries, national security, and retaliation. As President Trump claimed that US jobs got “stolen” by China and increased tariff on imported goods can boost American business interests, he enacted tariffs for protecting domestic employment, businesses, and consumers.

In terms of employment and businesses, it is true that jobs have been lost in America due to cheaper foreign imports under free trade. However, protectionism will destroy more jobs than it can create. The economist Milton Friedman famous for his support for free market wrote in his book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (1980, p41): “our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs—jobs that mean more goods and services to consume.” Increased tariffs do retrieve some labor-intensive manufacturing industries, but jobs provided by them will lead to increased producer costs, increased producer costs will lead to increased products costs, increased products costs will lead to fewer sales and fewer tax recipients, fewer sales will result in fewer jobs and fewer profits.

As for consumers, increased imported tariffs will limit consumers’ freedom to choose products and force consumers to pay more for products while free trade can increase the number of goods that domestic consumers can choose from and decrease the cost of those goods through increased competition. In the long run, the living standard and quality of consumers will be negatively affected by trade barriers. Also, the government has to spend more subsidies on an increased demand for public services because of increased living costs.

In addition to the US, China will also be negatively affected by the trade war in the same way although Chinese policymakers think they have a prudent financial and monetary policy to face the pressure from Washington. China’s economy is always much more vulnerable to exports than America’s economy and China is still trying to shift its growth model to one relying more on consumption and less on investment and exports. Thus, it could take a bigger hit from the escalating trade war.

The free market with free trade is not perfect but it can correct itself better than state, because sometimes government regulations will be used for political rivalry regardless of long-run losses, for example, the current trade war.

China’s Population Anxiety

Recently, two academics from China’s universities proposed to tax all working adults under 40 to build a “reproduction fund”. The proposal aims at alleviating the costs of childbirth and raising fertility. When families give birth to the second child, they could withdraw money from the fund. However, those couples who don’t have the second child cannot withdraw any money until they are retired.

For decades, China has restrictively controlled the number of babies women could have. The one-child policy has been requiring families to have only a child. Those women who violate the policy will be forced to stop pregnancy and undergo sterilization operations by the country’s “family planning” offices. But decades later, the one-child policy has caused a looming demographic crisis that officials begin to realize that it could imperil economic growth and to be anxious for a baby boom.

The one-child policy was eased three years ago. But the damage to China’s population growth had been done and the fertility willingness could not be rebounded anymore. Now the country is dealing with a demographic time bomb, which features an increase in the number of elderly people and a falling birth rate.

As of 2017, people aged 60 and above accounted for about 16.2 percent of China’s population, compared to 7.4 percent in 1950, according to the UN Population Division. The global percentage of people over 60 sits at 12.7 percent. Also, according to the State Council, the population is graying quickly. about a quarter of China’s population will be 60 or older by 2030, up from 13.3 percent in the 2010 census.

The increasing number of aging population means more retirement pension should be provided for the increasing number of retirees. However, China faces a widening shortfall of the financial support. In 2017, China’s pension funds collected 3.3 trillion yuan ($515 billion) and handed out 2.9 trillion yuan in payments. According to Reuters, thirteen pension funds in regions and administrative units around China can only cover less than one year’s worth of pensions.

Moreover, ending China’s decades-old one-child policy has not raised birth rates as high living costs deter larger families. As Bloomberg notes, “High living costs, long work hours and surging child-care expenses mean that many couples feel that they can only afford to have one child — or none.” Although the number of births in China did welcome a rise of nearly 8 percent in 2016 after the government eased one-child policy and allowed a two-child policy in 2015, the rise did not last long and the number of births then fell 3.5 percent in 2017, from 18.5 million in 2016 to 17.2 million.

This does not bode well for China’s economic growth. During the past four decades, China has enjoyed its demographic dividend to boost the economy. With one-child policy, China artificially adjusted its demographic structure to a good one with the ratio of those too old or too young to work to the working-age population dropping below 50 percent. But these days are over. Now, China is still finding a way to regain demographic dividend with its population anxiety.