The banana used to be a luxury good. Now it’s the most popular fruit in the U.S. and elsewhere. But the production efficiencies that made it so cheap have also made it vulnerable to a deadly fungus that may wipe out the one variety most of us eat. Scientists do have a way to save it — but will Big Banana let them?
Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.
* * *
In 1876, the city of Philadelphia commemorated 100 years of American independence with a Centennial Exposition.
Virginia Scott JENKINS: Well, it was a big trade fair. It was like a World’s Fair. And there was a horticultural exhibit, and they had a banana plant with bananas growing on it.
That’s Virginia Scott Jenkins. She’s a cultural historian and the author of Bananas: An American History.
JENKINS: And they had to put a guard on it because people wanted to pick a leaf, or poke at it. Because people hadn’t seen one of these things.
The banana plant— and yes, it’s a plant, technically, not a tree; and the banana is technically a berry — anyway, this banana plant had stiff competition for attention at the centennial expo. Also on display were the right arm and flame of the Statue of Liberty, which hadn’t yet been erected in New York Harbor. There were the first public demonstrations of the typewriter and of Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone. And: an appearance by the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant. Still, the humble banana plant caused a stir, thanks to its novelty.
JENKINS: They’re not native to the Americas, at all.
And in North America, bananas weren’t even possible.
JENKINS: Well, they take about 18 months from sprouting to fruit, and the climate in different ecological zones in the United States, you don’t get frost-free that long.
The banana was one of the first fruits cultivated by humans; the earliest written accounts go back to 500 B.C.E., in India. The Americas didn’t get the banana ‘til much later — although exactly when and how are, like much banana history, disputed facts. But it’s safe to say that in 1876 in Philadelphia, the banana was still exotic to most Americans.
JENKINS: In the first two-thirds or three-quarters of the 19th century, bananas might come in to an East Coast port on a sailing ship, and then they’d be sold at the port. But they weren’t generally commercially available anywhere. They were a luxury item. They were very expensive. I found some very interesting menus, for very fancy occasions, that might have bananas on the menu. But they were something that most people had never seen, most people had never tasted.
Even though bananas were by then being grown in Latin America, sailing ships couldn’t travel fast enough to reliably keep the fruit from overripening. But then came steamships and railroads.
JENKINS: They would just put huge pieces of ice at each end of a freight car to try to keep the bananas cool.
And by the 1920’s, trains started getting mechanical refrigeration; in the 1930’s came refrigerated trucks. This new technology had a huge impact on food distribution generally — it made possible the modern meat industry, for instance. It also allowed for the bulk importation of bananas to the United States. The variety that Americans came to know and love was the Gros Michel, also known as “Big Mike.”
JENKINS: And it was a large banana, and it had thick skin, so it didn’t bruise easily.
There are more than 1,000 banana varieties in the world. But, Jenkins says:
JENKINS: A lot of other banana varieties don’t travel well. Either they’re small, or they have thin skins, or for one reason or another didn’t grow well.
In 1900, Americans were eating 15 million bunches of bananas a year. Just a decade later: 40 million. So it was very bad news when a fungus emerged.
JENKINS: Devastating the plantations in Latin America.
This fungus came to be called Panama Disease. It was first noticed in the late 1800’s; by the 1950’s, it was wiping out the Gros Michel.
JENKINS: What the fruit companies did was, they’d move on to another country and buy up a lot more land, and grow bananas until the disease caught up with them and they had to move on.
But the disease couldn’t be outrun. The Gros Michel was doomed.
JENKINS: So they changed to a variety called the Cavendish banana.
The Cavendish was not susceptible to the disease that wiped out the Gros Michel. So the Cavendish is the banana most of us eat today. It accounts for 99 percent of the banana export market. The last Gros Michels in the U.S. were sold in 1965. So our banana is not the same banana our elders ate.
JENKINS: Well, I’ve never had a Gros Michel. I’m not old enough, so I’m not really sure how much difference there was.
Some people who did eat the Gros Michel say it was more delicious than the Cavendish. But the Cavendish has done very well, thank you. It is the most popular fruit in both the U.S. and Europe, even though the vast majority of them must be imported. The E.U. imports around six million tons of Cavendish bananas each year, or 110 bananas per person; the U.S., about 130 bananas per person. Canada beats us both, with 150 bananas. So you can imagine there would be a lot of unhappy people if the banana we all eat were, once again, under existential threat.
Douglas SOUTHGATE: Well, the doomsday scenario is that it wipes out the international banana trade.
That’s right: Panama Disease is back, and this time it’s come for the Cavendish. Today on Freakonomics Radio: sometimes a banana is just a banana but in this case, it’s also a symbol of commerce, of political discord, of scientific dilemmas — and of course, personal taste:
Andrew BILES: My preference is bananas as they are, or, curiously enough, bananas on toast.
* * *
Why are bananas so popular? Let us count the ways. And — full disclosure — I say this as someone who, personally, does not love bananas. But I do recognize how appealing they are. Sorry about that. But, seriously, the peel: it’s got to be part of it. First of all: it’s bright yellow; it’s basically an advertisement for itself. Also, Virginia Scott Jenkins notes that the banana first gained popularity around the time people were just starting to learn about germs and food hygiene. One early banana importer called it “a fruit in a germ-proof wrapper.”
JENKINS: This was something that you could eat on the street and not worry about getting sick from it.
There was also a new awareness around food and nutrition.
JENKINS: People were interested in calories, and this was a good way to get more nutrition and vitamins at the same time.
Still, if you know even a little bit about economics, you’d have to think that price must also have something to do with the banana being the most popular fruit in America. And this is where it gets interesting. Picture yourself in a grocery store: you see piles and piles of apples, all different varieties. About 95 percent of the apples eaten in the U.S. are grown in the U.S.; the imports usually just plug a hole at the end of the growing season.
Now check out the pile of bananas. First thing you notice: just the one variety, the Cavendish. And every one of them has been grown, picked, washed, and boxed in another country. Then they’re shipped, still green, in a temperature-controlled environment. At their destination, they’re put in special “ripening rooms” that provide, among other amenities, the release of gases that trick the banana into thinking it’s still back home in the tropics. At a temperature of 64 degrees, a banana can be ripened in as little as four days; at 58 degrees, it’ll take seven days.
Considering all this aftercare, and the fact that they’re all imported, you might expect a banana to be much more expensive than those very American apples. And yet they’re not: bananas are typically less than half the price of apples. In fact, they’re among the cheapest fruits around. How can this be? How did an imported luxury item become a cheap American staple? Well, let’s start here:
SOUTHGATE: It’s in part a story of economies of scale.
That’s the economist Douglas Southgate, an emeritus professor at Ohio State University. He started studying bananas because:
SOUTHGATE: Well, the short answer is that my wife is from Ecuador, which happens to be the leading exporter of bananas, and has been for the last 65 years. Even though the country is no larger than the state of Colorado.
Bananas are grown in many warm countries around the world, in the eastern and western hemispheres.
SOUTHGATE: Bananas are far and away the most widely traded fruit, fruit or vegetable.
Andrew BILES: Basically, there are 135 countries that grow bananas, and there are 145 million tons of bananas produced every year. That’s about 800 billion bananas.
And that’s Andrew Biles, who until recently worked at Chiquita, one of the world’s largest banana companies. His title at Chiquita was C.E.O. of bananas and pineapples — seriously, that’s the title. As for the bananas:
BILES: In the world, it’s the fourth most-important crop after rice, wheat, and corn. The economic value generated by the banana industry is some $52 billion. And there are some 400 million people that rely on bananas for a staple food or a staple source of income. There are many countries if they did not have bananas, they would go short of food.
The Cavendish banana accounts for just under 50 percent of global banana production but, again, almost 100 percent of exported bananas. And Ecuador alone accounts for more than a quarter of all Cavendish exports.
SOUTHGATE: If you produce something in very, very large numbers, then you bring down the per-unit or average cost.
For the early American banana companies, the transition from luxury fruit to mass import was a strategic move.
SOUTHGATE: The key to the strategy or to understanding the strategy was to realize that they made more money from having a smaller margin on a much larger volume than they would have had continuing to treat bananas as a luxury item.
And how did they accomplish this? Consider the history of Chiquita.
BILES: Chiquita started way back in the 1800’s and was a company that first went public, believe it or not, in 1903.
Back then, it was known as the United Fruit Company. And United Fruit happened to have:
SOUTHGATE: United Fruit happened to have the largest fleet of ships in the Western Hemisphere. Only the U.S. Navy had a larger fleet of ships.
In fact, the Navy would requisition some United ships during World War II. But in peacetime:
SOUTHGATE: Well, they used those fleets to move bananas to the United States very, very efficiently. And as is always the case, or practically always the case, the major beneficiaries of this efficiency were in fact consumers. Prices were slashed, and within a few years, bananas were no longer a luxury item. They were instead a fruit of poor people. The first food that a lot of poor babies ate after weaning were mashed bananas, in the days before canned baby food.
It would be hard to overstate here the role of the United Fruit Company.
BILES: What we have here is a company that did develop over time a significant business and actually created a banana industry.
SOUTHGATE: It was called the Octopus because it had a near-monopoly on production. United Fruit definitely had its tentacles wrapped around this industry.
Most of United’s bananas were grown in the Spanish-speaking countries to our south:
SOUTHGATE: Costa Rica, Honduras and other Central American nations happen to be an ideal setting for raising bananas for the U.S. market.
Ideal because of the climate, yes. But also because land and labor were both very, very cheap. So: American consumers were winning; United Fruit was really winning; and what about those Central American countries? Keep in mind they were largely undeveloped at the time.
SOUTHGATE: Foreign companies, led by United Fruit, were willing to make the investment to clear land, put in infrastructure and so forth to start producing bananas on a massive scale for the U.S. market. But only if they were awarded vast tracts of land and largely exempted from taxation. So that gave them the dominant position. That’s what led to “banana republics.”
Yes, before it was a clothing store, “banana republic” meant something very different — essentially, a fragile country whose economy and, often, political leadership, were propped up by an export crop. And when a banana republic acted against the interests of their banana overlords, things could get ugly. Consider the case of Guatemala in the early 1950’s. President Jacobo Arbenz, a former army colonel, was pursuing a land-reform program that would have reclaimed property from the banana companies.
SOUTHGATE: And this angered United Fruit. United Fruit definitely wanted to see Arbenz go.
United Fruit lobbied the U.S. Congress to act against Guatemala — and Arbenz was ultimately ousted in a coup led by the C.I.A.
SOUTHGATE: Drawing a simple line of causation — United Fruit, U.S. Government overthrow of Guatemala — doesn’t capture all of what was going on. The U.S. government had other reasons why it was alarmed at some of what Arbenz was doing, apart from the land reform.
Specifically: the American government was worried that Guatemala was sliding toward communism, and an alliance with the Soviet Union. This was a common theme of the Cold War era; we’re not talking only Guatemala here. In any case, the U.S. overthrow of Guatemala led to destabilization and decades of bloody civil war. United Fruit, meanwhile, continued to tangle with the governments in other banana republics — and, ultimately, the U.S. Government as well, which accused United Fruit of monopolistic behavior.
SOUTHGATE: They controlled production and also had an extensive, deep network for distributing bananas from U.S. ports inland. So United Fruit was very much the banana business.
In 1967, United Fruit agreed to reorganize and sell off some of its strategic assets. The Octopus was shrinking. The next blow came from Ecuador.
SOUTHGATE: That was the most important development that ended the Octopus’s time. Ecuador does not fit at all into the standard banana-republic narrative.
Land in Ecuador was owned by independent farmers, so it wasn’t susceptible to the political and economic exploitation that had worked elsewhere.
SOUTHGATE: By the time the major companies were taking a serious look in Ecuador, most of the good farmland, the prime farmland, was already owned by Ecuadorians. That meant that there were never going to be any extensive concessions and grants of tax exemptions, all those sorts of things.
In the late 1940s, Ecuador’s president, Galo Plaza, invested heavily in infrastructure and pest control that benefited the local banana growers.
SOUTHGATE: Here was this important source of supply that came online in a very big way, very quickly, after World War II, and it was a source of supply that was impossible for United Fruit to control. We learned from Ecuador something that’s more typical about the role of local entrepreneurs in agricultural trade and development, the contributions that they can make.
Today, no one company comes close to dominating the international banana trade like United Fruit once did. The three biggest banana companies — Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita, United’s successor — they share around 40 percent of the global export market. So there’s more competition than there used to be — which, economists would tell you, helps keep prices down. But there’s an even more powerful explanation for why bananas are so cheap: standardization.
BILES: So the advantage of having the Cavendish is that it is really a monoculture, that you can actually grow it consistently.
Andrew Biles again, formerly of Chiquita.
BILES: You know that it’s going to take eight to nine months to come to fruition. And you know how that banana is going to function when it’s transported in a refrigerated cargo. You know how it’s going to perform in the ripening rooms in the country of destination, and you know how it’s going to perform and hold up on the retail shelf.
And it’s not just that nearly every banana grown for export is a Cavendish; it’s that every Cavendish banana is genetically the same as the next Cavendish. From a business perspective, that’s ideal — the ultimate in quality control. From an agricultural perspective, however:
BILES: There’s no diversity, so there’s that, each plant is the same, each plant has the same resistance to disease as it spreads.
As you’ll recall, the Gros Michel banana was wiped out years ago by Panama Disease — or, technically, Fusarium wilt. It’s caused by a fungus that infects the plant’s roots and eventually kills the whole plant — and leaves the soil unfit for future banana growth. The strain of Panama Disease that killed off the Gros Michel was known as TR1, or Tropical Race 1. Now there’s a strain called TR4 that’s attacking the Cavendish.
BILES: So, indeed, it’s fallen victim to almost the same disease as the Gros Michel. So what we see is TR4 start apparently in Indonesia, it spread in the Philippines, it’s devastated crops there as farmers move to the Mekong Delta or to Myanmar.
And the banana industry is very worried that TR4 will make it to Latin America.
BILES: If you look at the map, it’s a disease that seems to be spreading west.
* * *
It may sound like a made-up name, but Humpty Doo is a real place — a small town in the Northern Territory of Australia. It’s hot, wet, and fairly rugged.
James DALE: When we first went onto the plantation, the plantation manager said, “You got to be a bit careful working around here. A girl was taken by a crocodile a couple of months ago.” We also have a real problem with wild buffalo. But we’ve managed to work there without losing any of our staff.
That’s James Dale. He’s a plant scientist.
DALE: I work at Queensland University of Technology, in Brisbane, in Australia. I work on bananas.
Dale’s first job out of grad school was working on a banana disease.
DALE: And it was a disease called bunchy top, and it had a long history in Australia.
Bunchy top was caused by a virus that scientists couldn’t find a way to control.
DALE: When the concept of genetic modification came along, and that was sort of, the late 1980’s, we said, “Wow, this is going to be absolutely perfect for bananas.” And the reason for that is that the bananas that we eat are primarily sterile.
Wild banana seeds are very hard, and so the Cavendish, like other banana varieties that people eat, has essentially been bred into a seedless, sterile condition.
DALE: So crops that don’t have any seeds are extremely difficult to breed conventionally. So the idea of being able to genetically modify them — that is, to add additional genes to Cavendish, for instance, which we are interested in, seemed really, really attractive.
Attractive and, for the global banana trade, important. Because the Cavendish, like the Gros Michel before it, has rare attributes.
DALE: They’re robust. They travel long distances. And there really isn’t anything else on the horizon that could now go and replace Cavendish. There is nothing that you could pull out and say, “This is going to do what Cavendish did after the last outbreak.”
The new strain of Panama Disease emerged in the 1990s.
DALE: And around about 2000, we decided that this disease, Tropical Race 4, was going to be a huge problem, so we set out to look for genes that provide resistance to the disease.
As part of this research, Dale had a former Ph.D. student out collecting wild bananas.
DALE: And this scientist was in Malaysia, and happened to see this patch of bananas, which were growing where everything else had died from Tropical Race 4. So she and her colleagues collected seeds of those bananas and they sent them back to Australia.
James Dale and his team began studying these bananas.
DALE: We said, “Okay, let’s go and look in the DNA of those resistant ones, and see if we can find the gene that would provide resistance.” And we came up with a number of candidates, genes that seemed to be working in the resistant seedlings, but not in the susceptible seedlings. And one of those looked really promising to us. So we took that gene. And by a process known as agrobacterium-mediated transformation, we put it into — another terminology — embryogenic cells, or embryogenic cell suspensions. And these are — we make these cells from Cavendish. They have the ability to regenerate an entire plant from a single cell.
And this leads us back to Humpty Doo, Australia, which had been a fertile site for banana production.
DALE: But because of the Tropical Race 4, it’s been wiped out.
Which made Humpty Doo the perfect place to hold the world’s first experiment to see whether genetically modified Cavendish bananas could survive Panama Disease. Remember: once Panama Disease has struck, the soil remains contaminated with the fungus.
DALE: So we put this gene into these single cells and grew bananas back.
In 2012, they began field trials that would last a few years, planting both genetically modified and non-G.M. bananas in the Humpty Doo soil. What’d they find?
DALE: So what we found is — and we found a number of things — we found that the non-G.M. bananas were between 100 percent and around two-thirds of them were either dead or infected after three years. So the disease was having a pretty big impact.
Okay, that’s important to know — that Panama Disease was still in the soil. Which meant if a genetically-modified plant survived, it was surviving Panama Disease. So how did the genetically modified plants do? Dale and his team planted six different lines of G.M. Cavendish plants.
DALE: One of those, line three, the gene we put in was R.G.A. 2, so R.G.A. 2, line 3 — appeared to be completely immune. At the end of three years, none of the plants were infected at all. So essentially, what we’ve done is, we’ve taken a gene from a wild banana that is resistant to Tropical Race 4, and we’ve taken that one banana gene and we’ve gone and put it into Cavendish. And by doing that, we have generated resistance to the disease.
This was amazing banana news. R.G.A. 2, line 3 was a clear winner. Some of the other genetic modifications did well too.
DALE: Three of the other lines had relatively high levels of resistance, where there was 20 percent or less plants either infected or dead. Which was, to us, an incredible outcome. Rarely do you get that sort of percentage success in the sorts of things we do. So we were pretty excited about that.
And there was something else to be excited about.
DALE: The other really important thing we found was that the gene that we put in, this R.G.A. 2 gene, not only occurs in these wild bananas, but it also occurs in Cavendish. It just doesn’t work very well. That’s actually really, really important, because there’s a new technology known as gene editing. It’s different to gene modifications. Gene editing is where you can go into the D.N.A. and just tweak genes that are already there. So it’s very, very close to, sort of, natural processes. So that’s where we’re now starting to figure out how we can tweak the gene in Cavendish to make them resistant without actually adding any new genes at all.
This type of gene editing is made possible by something known as CRISPR— which, as I’m sure you know, stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” We spoke with one of CRISPR’s inventors, the biochemist Jennifer Doudna, back in 2017, for an episode called “Evolution, Accelerated.”
Jennifer DOUDNA: At its core, the CRISPR gene-editing technology is now giving human beings the opportunity to change the course of evolution. And human beings have been affecting evolution for a long time. But now there’s a technology that allows very specific changes to be made to DNA that gives us a new level of control.
DALE: CRISPR is terrific, so yes, we are using CRISPR at the moment.
So this would seem to be super-amazing banana news. There are potentially two ways to save the Cavendish from Panama Disease: by using CRISPR to tweak its genetic code or by introducing new, resistant genes from other bananas. Either way, the banana industry must be thrilled by the solutions that James Dale is proposing. Right? We asked Andrew Biles, former C.E.O. of bananas (and pineapples) at Chiquita:
BILES: James Dale, he is working on more of a GM approach, okay. That, of course, is not so acceptable societally. So some people will say, “yes, I don’t mind genetic modification.” Others will say they do.
Indeed, a sizeable fraction of consumers, in the U.S. and especially in Europe, consider genetically modified crops to be risky, despite assurances to the contrary from scientists like James Dale.
DALE: And that’s where we’ve failed. We really haven’t got the message across. This is one of the most incredibly highly-regulated technologies in the world. So the sorts of things that we go through to demonstrate safety is amazing.
The objection to G.M.O. crops is also curious in light of the fact that traditional plant breeding — without which many, many fewer of us would be alive — is itself a form of genetic modification. Jennifer Doudna again.
DOUDNA: It’s important for people to appreciate that, first of all, that humans have been modifying plants for a long time genetically —
DUBNER: Thank goodness.
DOUDNA: — for literally thousands of years. Exactly — thank goodness. And you realize, “Wow, I’m glad there’s plant breeding.” But the way that that’s been done traditionally is to use chemicals or even radiation to introduce genetic changes into seeds, and then plant breeders will select for plants that have traits that they want. The opportunity here with gene-editing in plants is to be able to make changes precisely. Not to drag along traits that you don’t want.
DALE: Really, the difference between what we’re doing, and conventional breeding is that they moved thousands of genes at one time, from one banana to another. We’re just moving one or two.
It’s worth noting nearly every technological advance is greeted with skepticism by at least a small segment of any population. And such skepticism may be magnified when it comes to something you’re going to put in your mouth.
SOUTHGATE: A great example for me is pasteurized milk.
The economist Douglas Southgate again.
SOUTHGATE: In the United States and other countries, lots of kids used to die from drinking raw milk — raw milk that had been exposed to flies or whatever. Pasteurization came along, that entire source of mortality went away, and yet there were people who swore up and down that they were never going to consume pasteurized milk. They claimed it didn’t have the same nutritional properties, didn’t taste the same, it was in one way or another undesirable.
There are still some raw-milk advocates; but most people, Southgate says:
SOUTHGATE: Most people ended up drinking pasteurized milk and I just have a hunch that if we produce a substitute for the Cavendish, or if we improve the Cavendish by moving in a gene from some other banana people will have a tough time telling the difference, and the product will win acceptance.
But big companies like Chiquita — or, to be fair, most big companies, in any industry, period — they’re pretty risk-averse. Honestly, they can’t afford to not be. But there’s another reason James Dale isn’t surprised at Chiquita’s resistance to his banana proposals.
DALE: The big banana companies, unfortunately, have had a history of not being terribly innovative. They are much more reactive. They don’t run big research and development divisions. Yeah, we talk to them, they take more of a “let’s just see what’s going to happen” reaction.
So how does Chiquita see a path forward for the endangered Cavendish banana?
BILES: We believe the path towards this is actually through improving breeding techniques. We feel that the logical first place for us as a leading branded premium quality banana to go is to try and go down, in a very sophisticated, in a very organized, in a very thorough way, the plant-breeding route.
And James Dale’s response to that?
DALE: There are some exceptionally good breeding programs going on in the world, but you don’t end up with Cavendish. You end up with something different to Cavendish. If we want to replace Cavendish with something probably very, very different, we’ll probably get that from the conventional breeding programs.
So if you want to have the Cavendish in the future?
DALE: Hey, if you want to have Cavendish in twenty years’ time, they’re probably going to be genetically modified, or they’re probably gonna be gene-edited.
That makes it sound as if the Cavendish as we know it may well be headed for extinction, depending on the banana companies’ decisions and the public’s response to genetic modification. So for the billions of people who eat trillions of bananas, a great many of them Cavendish, how panicked should they be?
BILES: We in the industry would say there’s no need to panic. The world is not going to run out of bananas.
But what about the Cavendish banana?
BILES: Okay, what we’re going to have to probably confront is actually having more varieties of bananas available in the future. As we protect the farming of bananas, we’re going to have to get used to how we can actually grow and commercialize and do the logistics for different bananas.
The prospect of exporting several different kinds of bananas would be an adjustment for the industry, of course. For consumers, less standardization might mean higher prices — but the prospect of finding several varieties of banana in a grocery store would hardly be unsettling, considering how many varieties of apples and grapes and citrus fruits are available. But in a world with so many options in most realms, there has been something nice, something unifying, about all of us eating the same banana. No matter how you eat it — straight out of the peel; cut up on cereal, if you’re feeling a little bit more ambitious. As you’ll recall, the banana historian Virginia Scott Jenkins told us about researching earlier banana recipes.
JENKINS: I found some very interesting menus, for very fancy occasions, that might have bananas on the menu.
Jenkins has a rather interesting banana recipe of her own, passed on from her mother.
JENKINS: You take a peeled banana, you put mustard on it. You wrap it in a slice of ham, and then you bake it in a cream sauce. And I’ve tried it on two husbands and neither of them could eat it. They thought that was just nasty.
* * *
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Greg Rosalsky and Matt Hickey. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Zack Lapinski, and Corinne Wallace. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra.You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:
Daniel Ek, a 23-year-old Swede who grew up on pirated music, made the record labels an offer they couldn’t refuse: a legal platform to stream all the world’s music. Spotify reversed the labels’ fortunes, made Ek rich, and thrilled millions of music fans. But what has it done for all those musicians stuck in the long tail?
For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.
* * *
Over the past year or two, we’ve done a couple special series of episodes. One was called “How to Be Creative”; the other was “The Secret Life of a C.E.O.” You wouldn’t think those two themes would intersect all that often. But today, they do — in a rare conversation with this man:
Daniel EK: My name is Daniel Ek and I’m the C.E.O. and founder of Spotify.
How does Daniel Ek define Spotify’s mission?
EK: So the way I think about our mission is to inspire human creativity by enabling a million artists to be able to live off of their art and a billion people to be able to enjoy and be inspired by it.
Spotify, if you don’t know, is a Swedish music-streaming service with roughly 100 million paid subscribers. Another 100-million-plus listen free on an ad-supported model. But it’s the subscribers that drive 90 percent of the company’s revenue. Ek co-founded the company in 2006, at age 23. It went public in 2018 and its market cap is now around $25 billion. For a company that doesn’t really make anything — other than making the connection between a beloved product and people who want to consume that product. The Spotify story is a singular story about the sudden transformation of an old, hidebound industry; it’s also a story about digital piracy, bandwidth, and of course about creativity; oh, also: it’s about the future of podcasting. In person, Daniel Ek is mild-mannered and unexcitable; he doesn’t sound like an anarchist. But don’t be fooled.
EK: I think we are in the process of creating a more fair and equal music industry than it’s ever been in the past.
* * *
Depending on your personal perspective, Spotify is either an idealized digital jukebox or, as Radiohead’s Thom Yorke once put it, “the last desperate fart of a dying corpse.” Yorke wasn’t the only musician to hate on Spotify, especially in its earlier years. The Beatles and Pink Floyd famously kept their music off Spotify, as did some younger musicians:
Today, Taylor Swift, Pink Floyd, the Beatles, and Radiohead can all be heard on Spotify. The barriers that might have made Spotify seem impossible have mostly been leveled. Primarily by one person: Daniel Ek. He grew up in a working-class neighborhood of Stockholm. These days, he spends about one week a month in New York, but he still lives in Stockholm.
EK: Yeah, and I have two very young kids, so one has just turned four and one is about to turn six.
DUBNER: You’re in the middle of it, aren’t you?
EK: I’m definitely in the middle of it.
One constant throughout Ek’s life has been music.
EK: My grandfather was an opera singer and my grandmother, she was an actress but also a jazz pianist. So, in my family learning music was almost an essential. It was probably more important than you going to college or university at that level. And in Sweden, we have public music education, so it almost costs nothing to get music education in Sweden and my cousin told me — he was way older than me — and was like, “You should learn how to play the guitar because that’s how you get girls.”
And I was four or five at the time and definitely didn’t realize why that was a big thing. But I really thought he was really cool. So I was like, “Okay, well, he must know something,” so I learned how to play the guitar. And then about the same time, I got my first computer. And that was a seminal inflection point because I had these two parallel interests that were both formed at a very, very young age.
For a time, Ek thought he might become a full-time musician. But the other interest began to win out.
EK: I think it was 1996 I got broadband Internet. It was like 10 megabits and when you think about it today — because it took until maybe two, three years ago until the average person in the U.S. even had that. But I had it in 1997 and—
DUBNER: And that was just a Swedish thing.
EK: That was just a Swedish thing, because the Swedes said, “Look, we believe everyone should have broadband. That’s going to be a big thing and by the way, we’ll subsidize your P.C. too, and it will cost $500 and you can get state-of-the-art P.C.” So I had this virtually new computer which was subsidized by the government. I had this broadband that was subsidized by the government. And I went on the internet obviously all the time. The problem was there wasn’t really a lot to do on the internet except reading stuff. So I read a lot of stuff, but it wasn’t like the internet had movies for streaming or music or any of that stuff. And on came Napster. And it was a pure epiphany for me because you can search for any kind of music in the world. And within 10, 15 minutes you could have the entire album and you can listen to it, which was amazing.
Napster, which launched in 1999, became the most prominent peer-to-peer file-sharing service. And by “peer-to-peer file-sharing service,” I mean a piece of software that let a user like Daniel Ek download music files directly from the hard drives of other Napster users all over the world. Which meant that if one person bought a C.D. and copied it onto their hard drive, and shared it on Napster, all of a sudden, an infinite number of people could own it. For free.
One problem: this is an infringement of copyright, and totally illegal. At least in most places. Sweden did not forbid the downloading of pirated content until 2005; the country became an international hub for illegal downloads and even gave rise to a political party, the Pirate Party, that won seats in the European Parliament. I asked Ek whether he had thought about the legality of music piracy.
EK: Yeah, I thought about it. But I was 14. It wasn’t like it was a big thing. And since it was so easy to access and the alternative was for me to go out and buy a record with money I didn’t have, it was like the only option. So it was this weird thing where you start off with something and all of a sudden, maybe I wanted to listen to Metallica and all of a sudden realized that this person also had King Crimson. Which was like, “Oh, holy shit, I didn’t know that Metallica was inspired by those guys.” And Led Zeppelin and Beatles and all the seminal ones that all of a sudden you start listening to. Or prog music or Jimi Hendrix’s entire discography.
It brought me this weird sense of very broad music education and quite eclectic taste, which in turn got me even further into music. I mean, I don’t think I would have been that interested in music if it weren’t for piracy, to be honest, because I come from a working-class family. We couldn’t afford all the records that I wanted.
Napster became very large very fast. You might have thought the music industry would see this growth as a natural expression of demand for their product, and try to find a way to exploit that demand. But they didn’t see it that way. They saw piracy as nothing but theft. And as the music industry began to go the way of many fading 20th-century industries, they blamed their decline on piracy.
A pair of economists wrote a research paper at the time which found that illegal downloads in fact did almost nothing to affect music sales. They wrote: “Our estimates are inconsistent with claims that file-sharing is the primary reason for the decline in music sales.” The idea here was that the kind of people who illegally downloaded music weren’t the kind of people who were going to pay $15 for a C.D. anyway. Daniel Ek certainly wasn’t going to pay $15 for one C.D. What he found ludicrous was that the only choice the music industry gave you was $15 for one C.D. versus $0 for all the music in the world.
EK: My view is that the music industry has always been excluding the vast majority of its potential. And what do I mean by that? Well, at the peak of the recorded-music industry, 2001, it was about 200 million people who were participating in the economy, who bought records. So was it 200 million people who were listening to music? No, of course not. That number was in the billions. So, what the music industry did fairly well was they priced a product at a premium for an audience that was willing to pay for it.
But it only captured a very, very small portion of the revenues. What was obvious to me as I started using Napster back in the day, it was just, this is a way better product than going to a record store, there ought to be a way where you can give consumers what they want and at the same time make it work for artists.
DUBNER: As you got to know the record labels over time, years after Napster started, do you think they regretted not having partnered with Napster earlier?
EK: I definitely think so. I mean, in hindsight they probably realized that it was the wrong thing, but they thought by shutting it down that they’ve contained the problem and didn’t realize that it would just create seven new ones.
The music industry did get Napster shut down, but it had to keep playing whack-a-mole with a bunch of new pirated-music services.
EK: If you think about piracy for music, what it really forced in this first incarnation was the unbundling of the album.
Unbundling the album, that is, into single songs.
EK: So Apple then created a business of that by selling songs for 99 cents.
Apple, by way of iTunes, introduced the world to legal music downloading. It had taken Apple a while, but they finally succeeded in negotiating the rights with record labels. Daniel Ek, meanwhile, was having a lot of success himself.
EK: I started web-design companies, web-hosting companies, and a bunch of different companies.
He actually started doing this work when he was 14. By the time he was 18, he had a couple dozen programmers working for him. He enrolled at the Royal Institute for Technology but only lasted a couple months. Starting and selling internet companies was more fun. Ek was a millionaire by the time he was 23, and he started living like one: a fancy apartment, nightclubs, a red Ferrari.
All this left him flat, and depressed. As he’d later tell Forbes magazine: “I was deeply uncertain of who I was and who I wanted to be. I really thought I wanted to be a much cooler guy than I was.” He moved into a cabin in the woods, back near his family; he played guitar, meditated, and over time thought up the idea for Spotify.
It was very simple, really: an essentially infinite library of all the music in the world, available instantaneously, to anyone with an internet connection. How hard could that be? Ek and his co-founder, Martin Lorentzon, had two fundamental problems to solve: building the technology to allow for the instantaneous streaming of music; and persuading the rights-holders of all the music in the world to go into business with a brand-new company from Sweden — a country famous for its music piracy — and headed by a man who’d grown up on pirated music.
EK: There’s many different pirates, we would put it. There’s the pirates who just religiously feel like everything should be free. We were never that. Sean Parker definitely was never that either.
Sean Parker as in the co-founder of Napster; Parker later provided some venture capital to Spotify.
EK: There’s the other group who just looks at it like, this is the kind of consumer experience that makes sense and that’s how the world will look at it.
DUBNER: So then how professional of a pirate were you? What was the highest level of professionalism of piracy you ever accomplished? It was uTorrent, was that the name of the company?
EK: So actually this is probably an unknown part of the story. I wasn’t very much at all a professional pirate. At the time as I was thinking about starting Spotify, my co-founder, who’s not very technical, said to me, “Hey, there’s my friend who’s asking me about this programmer and he needs some advice.” And I was kind of dismissive about the whole idea and then he told me the name of this programmer and this guy was the founder of uTorrent.
This guy was Ludvig Strigeus, and uTorrent was a piece of file-sharing software that was particularly useful for digital piracy.
EK: And he’s a legendary engineer and I knew about him from engineering circles as being one of those persons who wins a lot of competitions for being great engineers. And I was like, “I have to meet this person.” And he had started this thing, just a fun side project, and it was uTorrent and it was growing very massively. We were actually trying to recruit him to come to Spotify. And he was like, “Well, I got this thing, uTorrent, and I don’t really know what to do with it.” So we persuaded him to sell uTorrent to us instead. And the whole idea from the beginning was actually to fold it because we didn’t really care about it.
DUBNER: Because by then you’re saying you already had a vision of how to make this the legit model work?
Spotify did install Strigeus as a top engineer at Spotify; and they didn’t shut down uTorrent — they sold it, to BitTorrent, the huge peer-to-peer protocol. I asked Daniel Ek which early task had been harder: building out Spotify’s technology or persuading the record companies to let him stream their music.
EK: Well, it’s hard at different stages. So first, you need to have a really good idea of what it is that you’re trying to solve. And in our case it wasn’t necessarily that the technology had a worth in and on itself. It was more around, how do we solve a real problem? And I think the problem that we were trying to solve was it needs to feel like you have all your music on your hard drive. So, if you think about that, that means instantaneous. So we probably have to solve that.
It probably means also all the world’s music. Okay, well you have to solve all the rights issues and all of those different things all encompassed in this one thing. So, it was very clear to me that if we could deliver something that felt like you had all the world’s music on your hard drive, it would likely be way better than piracy, which was the dominant force of music consumption at the time.
From the outset, Spotify partnered with the record companies, first in Europe and eventually the U.S. What enticed the labels to participate? Actually, they would have been fools not to. Remember, the music industry was in steep decline thanks to changes in technology, economics, and consumer preferences. As Ek noted earlier, the industry’s model had always been inefficient: charging relatively high prices to capture only the top layer of the listening market. Most people got most of their music on the radio, which was free.
Now, before you start feeling too sorry for the record labels, let me say this: in the history of the creative arts, and in the modern history of business generally, it would be hard to find an industry that was sleazier, more exploitative, and more deserving of its comeuppance than the music industry. Through means legal and illegal, from sham contracts and bribes to strong-arming and collusion, the industry had for decades stayed fat by making relatively skinny payments to the people who actually made the music. Their royalty statements were masterpieces of creative accounting. Yes, they did provide venture capital to thousands of musicians with no money, but on the rare occasion when one of those musicians recorded a smash hit, the label made sure to capture most of the profits.
What about the industry’s role in discovering new talent? That’s a bit of a myth — like saying that publishers “discover” great authors or NFL coaches “discover” great quarterbacks. They mainly cherry-pick the talented people who’ve already worked their way up, and then squeeze out as much juice as possible for their own use. Many industries exploit their labor force, but few had done so with as much vigor as the music industry.
Now that they were starting to go under, Spotify was offering a lifeboat — and a fairly luxurious one: 70 percent of streaming revenues and an equity stake in the company. The big record labels — Sony, Universal, and Warner — were reportedly each given between 4 and 6 percent of Spotify’s shares, with a consortium of independent labels getting another 1 percent. When Spotify went public, in 2018, these stakes would be worth billions. The labels would also get to keep drawing down 70 percent of Spotify’s revenues, and distributing it to their artists according to their own royalty formulas.
DUBNER: So that 70 percent flows then to the rights-holders , which are primarily still the three big music labels.
DUBNER: But in terms of the money flowing to the actual creators of the content, that’s complicated and problematic. So can you talk about your views on that and how actually involved you are or can be or want to be?
EK: Yeah, sure. Music copyrights generally is probably one of the more complicated areas of both law, just because of how copyright law is treated by society, and then just how it actually works and how it flows down. It’s pretty complicated for a lay person to understand. But the best way to start is just taking two steps back.
So, the birth of the music industry, and if you think about the role that everyone had, a record company was both — it used to cost a lot of money to make music. A record company could help you by paying for the studio, the studio engineers, all the people to help you record your music. So, that was a pretty big value-add.
The next thing that ended up being a big problem was getting promoted in the U.S. onto thousands of different radio stations. And internationally it was multiplied by 10 times. It was a pretty big thing. And then distribution ended up being very expensive. So why we have major record companies — it ended up being easier for them to aggregate around distribution. And that’s how they were formed. That’s how they grew to power.
If you look at it right now, some of those things have obviously shifted. So the recording of music ends up becoming fairly cheap today in most instances because anyone can record if they have a laptop and a mic. Distribution also ends up becoming fairly cheap because you can just put your music on Spotify or Apple Music or any other service virtually free and get distributed.
Now, the flip side of that is the problem of then getting heard ends up becoming harder than ever before.
DUBNER: Because the supply is so much greater.
EK: Yeah. The supply is infinite, so in order to stand out you have to do quite a lot more. And where we have been as an industry just a few years ago was that you couldn’t rely on one income stream alone. So even if you felt, “Okay, this is digital distribution or streaming and I kind of get that,” the truth of the matter is radio certainly here in the U.S. is still a massive, massive force. So you needed to do a lot of radio both for promotion but just generally distribution and even how you did royalty accounting and all those different things was a massive thing. And then physical still matters greatly. Certainly in the middle of the country. So the value-add by record companies is fairly great and is very important certainly as you’re thinking about how to get this out.
Now the roles going forward is changing quite dramatically. You’re finding that there are a lot more younger record companies coming out that are formed by maybe being specialists in a certain genre. They’re now finding equal opportunities to get their music heard. So they’re being distributed via indie labels or they may even go and distribute their record companies through one of the major record companies in order to get the support that they’re getting.
So, the industry is really changing. And we’re obviously a huge part not so much in the change but just being a participant in that dialogue about where it’s going, what is the role of a manager, what’s the role of a label, what’s the role of an agent, what’s the role of a publisher. Because all of those roles are now moving along as the industry is becoming more and more digital.
DUBNER: Right. But from what I gather Spotify has little leverage or maybe even interest in, once you turn over the royalty share, in how they distribute it to their artists, correct? You have nothing to do with that, I assume.
EK: We have nothing to do with that. What we are trying to do, however, because this is such a dramatic shift in an economic model for artists, one of the big things was just how do we educate people about this. Because really even the iTunes model was fairly simple. Because I’m selling my goods and I’m getting X for it. We can argue what X should be, but it’s really that.
Here with streaming it’s like I’m getting a revenue share of something, and it’s streaming, and it looks like it’s a very small number per stream. But what is a million streams? Is a million streams a lot? Is it a little? Is it — how should I think about it? That ended up being a very big shift.
DUBNER: Are you saying that independent artists are over time via Spotify gaining leverage in the revenue ecosystem or not really? Because the common complaint is this: Spotify is great for customers.
DUBNER: Spotify has turned out to be a life-saver for labels. Spotify has been great for Spotify, and for you. And it’s been great for some musicians. But then there are others who feel that they’re worse off than they would have been. Now, every case is a little bit different. But to those who feel like, “Great, I’m glad all music is available to everybody all the time and I’m glad everybody else is making out well” — what do you say to those artists, or maybe what do you say to someone who’s starting in music now? Can it be a sustainable future for them?
EK: I think we are in the process of creating a more fair and equal music industry than it’s ever been in the past. I’ll take an example, back in 2000, 2001, at the very, very peak of the music industry, peak of C.D., all of those different things. Our estimate is that there were about 20- to maybe 30,000 artists that could live on being recorded music artists. Now, they could be touring, they could be doing other things, and the number could be far greater than that. But there were only 20- or 30,000 that could sustain themselves being that.
Why? Well, because, again the distribution cost so much, which ended up being that there’s very few artists that could even get distributed to begin with. And because the costs were fairly high for a person buying the music, you ended up going with what you knew and wouldn’t take that much risk on unknown artists.
So, in the world with streaming, what’s really interesting is the alternative cost for you to listen to something new is virtually zero. It’s just your time. And because of that, you do listen to a lot more music than you did before and you listen to a bigger diversity of artists than you did before which in turn then grows the music industry.
DUBNER: You were saying there were 20, to 30,000 artists that could be supported. Do you know what that number is now?
EK: I don’t know what the number is now but it’s far greater. Even on Spotify itself, it’s far greater than that.
The economist Alan Krueger taught for years at Princeton and worked in both the Clinton and Obama White Houses. He was also fascinated by the economics of the music industry. Krueger once gave a speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame comparing the music industry to the modern economy at large. In both cases, he argued, most of the earnings were going to fewer and fewer people at the top of the pyramid. It’s what some people call a tournament model, where the winners get most, if not all, of the profits.
Krueger died recently at age 58 — by suicide. He left behind a book, to be published soon, called Rockonomics. In it, he writes that there are roughly 200,000 professional musicians in the U.S. today, accounting for 0.13 percent of all U.S. workers. That percent has stayed about the same since 1970.And what’s the median annual income for these musicians? $20,000.
The argument Daniel Ek is making sounds good in theory — that digital distribution should make it easier for lesser-known artists to find listeners and get paid. Remember how Ek defines the Spotify mission:
EK: To inspire human creativity by enabling a million artists to be able to live off of their art.
This was one of the great promises of the digital era — that you wouldn’t have to be a superstar to make a living. In 2006, the journalist Chris Anderson published an influential book called The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. Daniel Ek, in a 2010 interview, called The Long Tail his favorite book.
But Alan Krueger’s findings don’t support the long-tail promise. Social media and algorithm-driven recommendations — including Spotify’s own playlists — seem to magnify the bandwagon effect, whereby popular songs become even more popular by virtue of their popularity. In 2018, Spotify’s most-streamed artist was Drake, with 8.2 billion streams. Assuming a typical streaming royalty rate of 0.4 cents per play, that’s nearly $33 million going to Drake’s camp. But the pyramid is sharp, and things fall off really fast once you go beneath the top. Alan Krueger cites an industry survey which found that just 28 percent of artists earned money from streaming in 2018, with the median amount just $100.
So if you think about the streaming-music revolution as a sort of tournament, let’s think about how the various constituencies are making out. Spotify and Daniel Ek are doing very well; so are the company’s original funders, who got a huge return on their investment. The record labels have also been big winners: not only did Spotify reinvigorate their industry but it seems to have substantially improved their overall valuations. The Universal Music Group, for instance, which is currently for sale, has recently been valued at more than $30 billion; in 2013, its valuation was just $8.4 billion. Other winners in the Spotify tournament are customers, who get much more music than they used to get for much less money; and the most popular musicians are also winning big.
One constituency that’s not obviously sharing in the winnings: the long-tail artists, of which there are many.
DUBNER: So if you weren’t you, and you were looking at this revolution from the outside, what would you say about the fact that a company like Spotify, which doesn’t produce content — well, it’s starting to, more — but is essentially a friction-remover and a distributor, is worth more than the entire music industry was about the time of its creation?
EK: Well, I mean I don’t want to — I’m actually very little focused on what a company is worth or isn’t, or if that’s fair. There’s something called a Wall Street which is really focused on that instead. I don’t really focus on that. We at Spotify are interested in is how do we get a music industry which actually participates in all of the income streams?
* * *
Daniel Ek was a teenage entrepreneur; a millionaire in his early twenties; and now, at 36, a billionaire, having built Spotify into a streaming juggernaut that is now worth more than the entire music industry was at the time of Spotify’s founding. Spotify is in the news pretty much constantly these days: launching their service in India, filing an antitrust lawsuit in Europe against Apple, claiming that Apple’s App Store is unfairly favoring its own Apple Music over Spotify. For Ek, the biggest challenge at the moment would seem to be figuring out a way to derive more value — more revenue — from the massive, sprawling ecosystem of recorded music, an ecosystem whose business evolution has been very slow.
EK: So if you look at say the video industry — I say video and I really encompass the entire TV industry, the movie industry, all in video. What I find fascinating is it used to be a conversation where it started off only as paid. Then it added advertising as a component. And then there was a bunch of firms that were only focused on the advertising part of it and then a bunch of firms that were only focused on the subscription income. So, most notable, you had CBS on one end, on the advertising end of the spectrum. You had HBO on the other end of this spectrum, asking for subscription income. And then if you look at it today, the truth of the matter is CBS is about 50/50. So it focuses as much on subscription income as it does on advertising. And HBO still is paid-only. But as an industry, it’s moving that both of these revenue models are equally important.
And that’s my point with the music industry too. My point it’s like, what would happen to the music industry if you all of a sudden combined the the power of advertising as a revenue model, the power of subscription as a revenue model, the power of a la carte on top of that as a revenue model. The three of them on a base of the three billion people around the world that are interested in music easily, just by virtue of looking at how much time people spend listening to music, ought to be at least multiples greater than what the current music industry is and probably larger than the music industry’s ever been.
DUBNER: And you just added 1.3 billion or so in India, yes, potentially?
EK: The Indian music market, what’s fascinating to me, is 90 percent of that market is about Bollywood films. And they are throwing off music and that’s what’s selling in India.
DUBNER: Is it being well-monetized still? I mean people buy it—
EK: It’s not well-monetized. But the music industry is essentially a byproduct to the film industry, which for me tells a very interesting story, that there’s so much development left to do. What would happen if the ecosystem there was healthy? Then people wouldn’t think about making music just for movies.
DUBNER: So the India Spotify story could turn out to be exactly the opposite in a way of the American Spotify story, where some people feel here small artists are getting — the long tail is so skinny that you can’t make a living. And theoretically it may disincentive some people from creating. Maybe there’s incentives to join, even the middle of the long tail there would be a step up, yeah?
EK: Yeah. Well, I mean it’s virtually non-existent. So it’s in a much earlier development stage than the U.S. music economy.
DUBNER: Let me ask you about consumer surplus, which is something economists love to talk about — those rare cases where you get something for much less than you’d be willing to pay. So Spotify is, relatively, super cheap, $10 a month for all the music I want. And that $10 would buy two-thirds of one downloaded album. So if you like music enough to buy two-thirds of one album per month, then to get all the music in the world essentially for that same price is ridiculously cheap.
So, I’m curious to know two things. What do you know about willingness to pay more? And what do you know, if anything, about the disposable income that’s now been captured by consumers by not having to spend more than $10 to consume the universe of music — where that disposable income goes, I’m curious to have any data on that.
EK: Well, I mean, obviously we agree. We think $10 a month is a very, very cheap and an amazing proposition. But the amount of people who wake up in the morning thinking, “Hey, I want to pay $10 a month for music,” isn’t as great as most people would believe. And we believe that is because not only did piracy exist in a big way just a few years ago, but there are all of these other sources where you can access music very cheaply. Mostly free.
You can go on radio and listen to it, but you can also go on YouTube and you can find the entire archive of music, including all the bootlegs and videos and you can listen to that entirely for free. That’s what we’re competing against. So in order to do that, you can imagine then it’s a free product versus one that’s $10 a month. That’s a pretty big stretch, certainly, since all of these other things may have other things like convenience — in the case of radio, works in your car, works in all those different things. And then, in the case of YouTube, it’s just, it’s everything. It’s even greater than what Spotify’s library is.
So that’s where we’re, from a competitive set, wrestling with. Now obviously as cars get more and more connected, I do think streaming service is a way better user proposition.
DUBNER: Although I did wonder with autonomous vehicles theoretically coming maybe relatively soon.
DUBNER: It does strike me that listening to music in a car is a perfect complementary activity. Because you need to drive, you need to keep your eyes on the road, but your ears are free. I do wonder with autonomous vehicles whether it may actually be harmful to streaming music because now my eyes are free to something that might be more interactive.
EK: Right. I mean, you may be right. I don’t know. I think that what’s really interesting, however, is that countercultural force right now from people looking into their phones is all of these well-being things, both Google and Apple released “screen time,” which is supposed to restrict your screen time. And we have the Alexa in your home, which is another device which you’re not supposed to look at, which are all great countercultural reactions to this, watching a screen, which we wouldn’t probably have imagined just a few years ago.
DUBNER: Do you have those kind of aspirations for Spotify to get into, health and wellness and hand-holding of various sorts?
EK: Not directly. To the extent that we do something like that, we’re already very big in terms of meditational music, wellness music, sleep, pink noise, white noise, everything on the spectrum. And now with podcasts obviously on the service too, there’s a lot of people who are focused on those things, which I’m very excited about.
Spotify has been streaming podcasts for years. But it made news recently by spending a few hundred million dollars to acquire two podcast-production companies, Gimlet and Parcast, and a firm called Anchor that’s primarily a podcast technology platform.
DUBNER: So, that really changes things in a number of ways. Because you have been successful not being a content creator or producer — too much, at least. I guess first question is why, and then the second question is, how will it unfurl?
EK: Right. Well, in the future, I don’t think people will make a choice whether they’re subscribing to a music service. We think that they’re making a choice whether they will have an audio service of their choice. It wasn’t this well-thought-out master plan. “Hey, we need an adjacent business, and we don’t know which one it is.” It wasn’t like that at all.
What actually happened, because Spotify is a platform, was we started seeing in my home country Sweden actually, we started seeing record companies buying podcasts and uploading them to the platform as another revenue opportunity for them to grow. And it resonated really well with listeners. And that was the first step.
And then in Germany, record companies there had massive amounts of rights to audio books, which I wasn’t aware of. And they started uploading that to the service and very quickly, we went from no listening to that and now we’re probably if not the biggest, the second-biggest audio book service in Germany. And this is without our involvement. This just happened by proxy of us being a platform.
So we started seeing it resonating really well into people’s lives, and they thought of Spotify not just as a music service but as a service where they can find audio. And it played really well into our strategy of ubiquity — i.e., being on all of these different devices in your home, whether it’s the Alexas or TV screens or in your cars or whatever as just another source where you could play your audio.
DUBNER: But why do you want to go to the trouble to pay a couple hundred million to buy a firm that’s creating it when almost everybody making podcasts would probably willingly have their content on Spotify?
EK: Yeah. Well, the reason why is really twofold. So one is that the format of podcasts, we’re still very early on into what it will be. If you really think about it, for most people, there’s all of these basic things for creators that haven’t been solved, like how well am I doing. It’s not that easy to find out. How am I monetizing the show and the value for advertisers, it’s just not that easy to find out. And thirdly, what are people saying about my show, feedback. Those are three very elemental things that if you think about it almost all other formats, if you’re a journalist today and writing in text, there’s ways to solve all three of them. We can already—
DUBNER: I mean what you’re describing does exist to some degree on Apple Podcasts, which I realize Spotify has a complicated relationship with. But that’s also, like Spotify, it’s a closed ecosystem. It’s not part of the web, quite. So if Apple Podcasts data existed in a non-closed environment would that have been enough for Spotify to not need to buy its own firm?
EK: Probably. I mean, in the end I mean it’s all about solving needs that creators or consumers are having. That’s what we’re focused on. And if someone had solved that need then obviously there would be less of a reason for us to do anything about it. And you know the same thing, if there was massive amounts of audio-book services in Germany I’m sure we wouldn’t have been successful.
DUBNER: Can you talk about Spotify customer data? What do you have and what do you do with it?
EK: Well, what we do with it now is very tightly regulated because we’re originally a European company and in Europe, I believe, five or six years ago there was a new initiative called G.D.P.R. that officially became a law some time April, May I believe last year. And obviously we’re complying with that. And what it basically says is that all the data that we have around you as a customer, you need to be able to ask us for it and we need to deliver it back to you. You need to have an opportunity for it getting deleted by us.
DUBNER: What are your abilities to monetize that data, though, to third parties?
EK: Well, our ability to monetize it is obviously based on the contract that we have with our users, so obvious things that would be what genre of music are you listening to, what’s your age, what’s your demographics. And those are things that advertisers can target against.
DUBNER: Right. And how well do you monetize that currently?
EK: You mean if we do monetize it?
DUBNER: Yes. If you do monetize it how well do you—
EK: We monetize some of those aspects, of course, like any normal ad platform. It’s very important though to note that we’re not selling any customer data.
DUBNER: That’s what I’m asking. So there’s ads on the Spotify platform.
DUBNER: You’d be fools not to target those to listeners based on their demographics and their listening tendencies.
EK: Of course.
DUBNER: But you do have a lot of data that would be valuable to third parties.
EK: Oh yeah, massive amounts, but not even just for other advertisers. But you can imagine even for the music industry, there’s tons of data about how their songs are performing or other people’s songs might be performing that could inform them about what they’re doing. We’ve taken the stance that we don’t monetize the data itself at all. We don’t sell the data.
EK: Well, it’s an important one for us that users should be able to rely on us — my fundamental view is, it’s their data. If we can use the data in order to make the Spotify experience better, then all good and great. And I think many users would say, “Yeah, I agree with that.” But because now of G.D.P.R., which I do think is the right step, we can argue about like was it the right implementation of it and all those things. But I do think it’s great for customers that there’s something like G.D.P.R. there. And you can delete the data. You can also say opt out of specific things that we are gathering about you and say, hey I don’t want you to know X or Y.
DUBNER: I’ve read that you operate your life in a series of five-year commitments. I don’t know how finite or real that is, but if it is real—
DUBNER: Where are you now in the five-year cycle, and what happens next?
EK: It’s not always been five years, by the way. So, when I started the company, it was a five-year commitment because being 23 at the time, having started lots of different companies before I really wanted to see what would happen if I applied myself to one thing and only one thing and do it for a meaningful amount of time, how far I could get on that problem. And the longest I could imagine spending on anything was five years. So that’s how it ended up being five years.
And then when the five years passed, I was 28 so I said, well when 30 — so it was a two-year increment. And now I said to myself, just before going public last year, is this what I want to do? And what would happen if I made a 10-year commitment? which felt pretty daunting, and what is it that we would have to do, what does the company have to look like for me to be interested to do this for another 10 years? Well what would my role have to look like in order for me to be interested?
DUBNER: Is that a key component, how interested you can remain — I mean it needs to be constantly challenging to you?
EK: Yeah, definitely so. I mean, to be honest, because otherwise if you don’t have that passion and you don’t feel like you’re growing and challenging yourself, someone else will probably do a much better job.
DUBNER: So, where are you right now?
EK: I’m in year two now of a 10-year commitment.
DUBNER: So, what did you see in the future of Spotify that you thought was going to be so amazingly, excitingly challenging for 10 years?
EK: Well, there’s really two things. The first and more important one is really from the inception of Spotify, the assumption was that we would solve the user problem. I.e., get people to listen in a much better way and then they’ll contribute back to the music industry. The core assumption was that the music industry would take care of all the other things — how people get signed, how they get heard. And I realized that that just didn’t happen.
So, we’re largely doing business the same way as we were doing 10 years ago. There’s been some evolution of that. But I want to work with the music industry. I was never a disrupter. That’s the big misunderstanding about me. I’ve — I believe the record companies are important and will be important in the future. But we believe we can be the R&D arm for the music industry, that we can develop better tools and technology to allow them to be more efficient and thereby creating more, better solutions for them and for artists.
DUBNER: Can you give an example of how the efficiency happens?
EK: Well, one of the hardest problems right now for an artist is to get heard. One of the biggest platforms to be heard at would be Spotify, right? Today the primary tool that an artist has to get heard on Spotify besides putting the music on there is getting known by one of our editors. So in a weird way, while we want to democratize music, we’ve become gatekeepers as well.
So the question is: can we develop tools that enables artists to promote their music more efficiently just by themselves on the platform? And that could be in the form of being able to talk to their existing super fans that are on the platform. It could be in the form of better promotional tools for record companies in how they pitch music and get the music out there.
Spotify having become a gatekeeper — whether inadvertently or not — is an important point. A song that Spotify adds to one of its playlists will get many more streams than one that doesn’t. And streams translate into money for the rights-holders. So having that power is important, especially from a profit-maximizing perspective. If Spotify were primarily concerned with profit-maximizing, it might promote content that is cheaper for Spotify to stream. Maybe it’s content they produce themselves; or just content that comes with a lower payment rate than others. It may not sound like a big difference to pay a rights-holder 0.4 cents per stream versus 0.3 cents, but if you’re talking hundreds of millions or billions of streams, it adds up.
DUBNER: What do you listen to these days?
EK: Music-wise or podcast—
DUBNER: Well, both.
EK: So, music-wise I’ve been really interested in African music lately. Particularly West African dancehall music has been something that’s been pretty cool. We launched in South Africa a year ago. So all of those playlists started bubbling up and there’s been a lot of really cool—
DUBNER: It must be so cool to launch in a new place as a means for you guys to discover what’s the music—
EK: Oh yeah, for sure, and there’s a lot of things that you just don’t even know about. So that’s been for me the biggest thing over the last year that’s been really interesting.
And then on the podcast side, it’s such a fascinating format to me. There’s obviously people who can listen to Crimetown or whatever it may be, just to get entertained. For me it’s more the educational part of it. So it could be a Freakonomics Radio. There’s one called Invest Like the Best that’s quite interesting and thoughtful about investments and how you do that. I do listen to quite a lot of history podcasts as well. Just to get an hour uninterrupted about a subject. There’s no other format that goes to the same depth as I find that podcasting does.
DUBNER: Are there still holes in the Spotify music library that you really want to fix?
EK: There are. But obviously by now the holes that we have are probably more regional holes than the fact of the big ones. I’m sure that there are — Garth Brooks being probably the best-known example right now. But most of it is really about old music, getting the archives up. I’m very proud that we did that deal with the BBC a few years ago where we’re now bringing the entire archive onto streaming. Same with Deutsche Grammophon, the German equivalents as well.
DUBNER: Would you ever consider in a case like Garth Brooks — I mean, I’m sure you’re going to say no to this, because it would be illegal — but would you ever consider saying, “Look, we’re Spotify, we’re just going to put the music there,” and then he will see how well it does. And then the first check gets written. And then that will bring him to the table in a proper way. Would you or did you ever do that?
EK: No. We’ve never done that. It goes against the ethos of what it is we’re trying to do. I mean, again, when we started, that was the modus operandi. There was all these—
DUBNER: A sort of terrorism in a way, yeah?
EK: Yeah, a lot of these services, where people just uploaded all the music and then they figured out the problem later on. That was never the approach that we took.
DUBNER: And why was that? I mean, do you consider yourself a particularly ethical person? Is that the way Swedish business is done? Because to be fair, Uber pretty much did that. They would go into cities where they knew that local authorities wouldn’t allow them to operate.
EK: Right. Well I don’t like to say that we’re more ethical than other people. It just felt like the right thing to do. And I believed that the problem for the music industry with the past had been just that fact, that it always felt like it was people who wanted to disrupt the existing music industry. I don’t believe that the music industry has to be disrupted. I believe it has to be evolved. So we like to work with them as partners. That’s always been our approach. There isn’t music on Spotify that the copyright owners haven’t authorized us.
DUBNER: I have one last question. If you weren’t doing this now — let’s just pretend Spotify really hadn’t worked, that either the technology or the rights-gathering proved impossible. You’d be doing what now, and where?
EK: If I weren’t doing this, I would probably do something in health care. And it’s a weird revelation, if you asked me 10 years ago, I wouldn’t have said that. But right now it’s like I came to that realization because people always said, “Oh, Spotify is so amazing,” and my response was always, “Well, it’s not saving lives, but it’s good.”
A few years ago I was thinking to myself, “Why am I not saving lives, and what would I do if I did that?” And I talked about these technology currents, and I think in healthcare a lot of those technology currents are starting to play out. And it’s not just about the sort of digital part of these things. It’s just the advancement in biotech overall, CRISPR, proactive medicine. It’s going to be the next decade or two decades, we’re fundamentally moving from a place where we will look at doctors or the way we treated people like it’s almost witchcraft two decades from now. We’ll just know a lot more. And that’s fascinating, to think about the implications that that will have economically, because I believe in the end it means that we can spend a lot less of our GDP on healthcare and as a consequence hopefully treat a lot more people.
So yeah, I’m really interested in that part, and what’s going to happen in that space.
DUBNER: Do you think you will do that, I mean, in eight years? At the end of this 10-year, “commitment,” you’ll be only 44.
DUBNER: Do you think you will try something radically different for you like that?
EK: I hope so. My interests — I love music. It’s been a passion really since the beginning of my life. And that will always be a passion and always be something that I’ll do in some shape or form. But we’re here a very, very short period of time on Earth. And I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility having — you know, it’s insane that I’m 30-plus years old and having had as much fortune as I’ve had, so I feel like I need to do a lot more than what I’m doing to leave the world a better place than what I entered it.
If you want to learn more about Spotify — including how a team of Swedish social scientists tried to reverse-engineer it to see how the platform really works — check out a new book called Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music.
* * *
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Matt Frassica. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Zack Lapinski, Matt Hickey, and Corinne Wallace. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:
As cities become ever-more expensive, politicians and housing advocates keep calling for rent control. Economists think that’s a terrible idea. They say it helps a small (albeit noisy) group of renters, but keeps overall rents artificially high by disincentivizing new construction. So what happens next?
For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.
* * *
I’m sure you know this already, but let me say it anyway: cities have become really popular, all over the world. An ever-larger share of the U.S. and global population lives in cities, and that large share is expected to get even larger. As demand for city living grows, the supply of housing often can’t keep up. Which results in — and you know this too — a rise in prices. In the U.S., median rent has doubled since the 1990’s, outpacing inflation by quite a bit. In many cities, this makes it hard for people who already live there to stay, and hard for people who’d like to move there. I’m sure you’ve heard the horror stories about rents in cities like London and Hong Kong; Seattle and San Francisco, where the median one-bedroom apartment costs about $3,700 a month. The problem is so bad in New York City that it inspired a new political party.
Jimmy McMILLAN: I represent the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. People are working eight hours a day and forty hours a week and some a third job.
New York, like many cities, has over time put in place various affordable-housing policies. One time-honored tradition is some form of rent control. That might mean setting a price cap on what a landlord can charge or limiting the amount the rent can be raised. Here’s the Stanford economist Rebecca Diamond.
Rebecca DIAMOND: From an economics point of view, it provides insurance against getting priced out of your neighborhood.
And rent control seems to be having a moment. It already exists in a number of places.
DIAMOND: The most expensive cities in the U.S., they almost all have rent control.
And the appetite is spreading.
DIAMOND: You see rent control popping up politically when housing prices and rents are going up.
Among the cities currently considering some form of rent control are Chicago, Philadelphia, Providence, and Denver. Oregon recently became the first state to pass a rent-control bill. A statewide proposition in California failed, but some cities there are moving ahead on their own. A recent report by a consortium of affordable-housing advocates says that if all the proposed rent-control legislation were to pass, nearly one in three American tenants would have some kind of rent protection.
* * *
Most economists say that rent control is a bad idea, as is just about any form of price control. They believe that markets work best when supply and demand are allowed to find a natural equilibrium, with price acting as the referee. Here’s one such economist.
GLAESER: My name is Ed Glaeser and I am the Fred and Eleanor Glimp professor of economics at Harvard, where I teach both microeconomic theory and the economics of cities.
DUBNER: Ed, you have one minute to convince someone that rent control is a terrible idea. Go.
GLAESER: All right. So, I’ve already squandered five of my seconds. It’s not particularly fair. It’s not a good way of allocating scarce space. It’s not a good way of helping the downtrodden. It’s a way that freezes a city and stops it from adjusting to changes, a way that freezes people in apartments and stops the motion that is inherent in cities.
So that’s a baseline economic take, at least. Let’s try to unravel this issue, starting with a brief history of rent control.
GLAESER: Rent controls really became ubiquitous in World War II, and the idea here was, the nation was laying down its life to try and bring freedom to the world, and it seemed wrong that some people who were well-placed should earn some form of extra bonuses by being able to raise up rents on people, maybe whose sons and daughters were off fighting for the U.S. elsewhere. And rent control was seen as being a way of, somehow or other, trying to keep America being a bit fairer during World War II. Now, lots of places introduced rent control during this period. After the war, most of them got rid of it because that cause seemed to be a little bit less pressing. But, some cities kept it, and New York, of course, is the most famous place that still has it.
Glaeser himself grew up in New York.
GLAESER: I lived in a rent-stabilized unit for the first ten years of my life. I mean something like 72, 74 percent of New York City’s households were renters in those days. And indeed, the mid-1970s was an era in which New York’s housing didn’t seem that expensive, affordability just wasn’t the same issue that it was today. Now, flash forward 30 years, the cities have been enormously successful they haven’t built enough to accommodate the new demand. They risk becoming boutique towns affordable only to the wealthy, and people are desperate to see that those cities don’t push out every poor resident, that they don’t become monocultures built around the privileged and the rich, and rent control appears to be at least one avenue for doing it. But it’s a very blunt instrument.
Just how blunt? There are decades’ worth of economic research describing the downsides of rent control. The first major paper was written in 1946 by Milton Friedman and George Stigler; here’s Friedman:
Milton FRIEDMAN: Rent control is a law that supposedly is passed to help the people who are in housing. And it does help those who are in current housing. But the effect of rent control is to create scarcity, and to make it difficult for other people to get housing.
Where did this scarcity come from? For one, developers had less incentive to build new housing if there was a ceiling placed on what they could charge. Friedman also argued that rent control created a “haphazard and arbitrary allocation of space.” This was echoed in a 1972 paper by Edgar Olsen, which found that rent control led to what economists call an “overconsumption” of housing.
GLAESER Let’s say you rented an apartment in New York in 1955, you had three small kids, you rented a three-bedroom. It was perfectly matched for the needs of you with your kids growing up. They moved out of the house in the early 70’s. By the late 80’s, maybe your husband or wife actually died and you’re living on your own in a three-bedroom apartment in New York. But, my goodness, would you ever move out? Your rent is a fraction of what the market rent is. One of my favorite stories about this — and this is quoted by Ken Auletta’s The Streets Were Paved with Gold, he cites Nat Sherman, the famous tobacconist to the world, who had this big shop on Fifth Avenue, who said that he pays, I forget what it was.
DUBNER: $355 a month for a six-room apartment, it says here.
GLAESER: Isn’t that amazing? Keep in mind, it’s a few decades ago. But it’s an unbelievable deal. Now, what’s outrageous about this is, he then says, “I think it’s fair because I use it so rarely,” right? Which means that he’s not getting very much value out of it, but the crazy thing about this is, there were lots of New Yorkers who would love to have that apartment and it would get a lot more value out of it.
In 1997, Ed Glaeser did his own analysis of rent control in New York City, trying to determine just how economically inefficient it was. He and his co-author, Erzo Luttmer, found that “this misallocation of bedrooms leads to a loss in welfare which could be well over $500 million annually to the consumers of New York, before we even consider the social losses due to undersupply of housing.” Glaeser’s work has also inspired a new generation of economists to further the literature on rent control.
DIAMOND: Historically, people relied much more on theory in making their arguments about rent control.
That’s Rebecca Diamond again. She’s a former student of Ed Glaeser’s.
DIAMOND: Because even without a lot of data you can make some pretty simple theoretical predictions about what rent control might do to a housing market.
But there are some things that theory alone cannot tell you.
DIAMOND: One of the biggest open questions in the literature of rent control is: what happens to those tenants that get rent control? Really, how much are the renters benefiting, because they’re the potential big winners of rent control. And to measure that, you really need to have data on where everybody lives, and who gets access to rent control, and whether they decide to stay in that rent-controlled apartment or go somewhere else. And traditional data sources that economists work with very rarely track migration of an individual.
DUBNER: So you recently co-authored with Tim McQuade and Franklin Qian a paper called “The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco.” First, if you would, talk about the data.
DIAMOND: Yeah, we have some really cool data. So, traditional data sets, you can get things on the distribution of earnings and income, things like that. But you won’t also see their migration. So, we have this, you could call, administrative data, which tracks people’s address histories.
DUBNER: And where did these migratory data come from?
DIAMOND: We bought them from a company called Infutor. They are a company that works in “identity management,” So they have this history of addresses for everyone which they collect from a number of different sources and stitch them together, which is very useful for the private sector and firms that need to keep track of up-to-date addresses. But from a research perspective, it’s super-exciting data because it’s so big and so detailed.
Armed with this super-exciting data on individual tenants, Diamond and her fellow researchers set out to measure some of the long-term effects of rent control in San Francisco. They made particular use of a change in the city’s rent laws. San Francisco had rent control, but it didn’t apply many of the city’s smaller apartment buildings.
DIAMOND: And the exemption was basically thought of as, “Well, these are mom-and-pop landlords. They don’t have market power. They’re not corporations. So we don’t need to regulate their rents.” And then newspapers reported that those smaller multi-family buildings were increasingly purchased by corporate entities, because that’s really where you could make your money in the housing market. And that led to a vote in 1994 where everyone in the city got to vote about whether we could remove this small multi-family exemption, and that would then expand rent control, not just to the large multi-family housing stock, but also the small multi-family housing stock. And that, indeed, passed.
DUBNER: So, you’ve got this awesome new law — awesome for you guys, at least, as researchers — that lets you mark before and after. It’s a perfect little natural experiment with a control group. And then you’ve got these wonderful data sets. And then you mash up all of these data together and analyze it and you find the following: your paper concludes that among many things “rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco, especially for minorities.” So let’s start with this: what does it mean exactly that renters’ mobility is lowered by 20 percent, and why is that important?
DIAMOND: So, we look at whether the renters who get access to rent control choose to remain in their newly rent-controlled apartment. So, we find that they are 20 percent more likely to remain there, relative to our control-group renters who don’t get access to rent control.
DUBNER: So, that seems totally unsurprising, yes?
DIAMOND: Yes, I more see that result as a validation that our data is good and high-quality and we have some something to work with here.
DUBNER: Okay. Further, you write that “rent control lowers displacement from San Francisco.” What does that mean, exactly?
DIAMOND: So, we can look at not just whether you remain in the actual apartment you lived in when you got access to rent control, but whether you remain in San Francisco as a whole. We find rent control has a dramatic impact on whether you actually live in San Francisco or not. So, it prevents those renters from leaving the city as a whole, which I think from a policy perspective of rent-control advocates, that’s one of the goals they talk about as preventing displacement from the city.
DUBNER: And then you write that, especially for minorities, that displacement is lowered.
DIAMOND: Right. So, when you look at that first cohort of renters that already lived in the city at the time of rent control, it is definitely helping minorities more. It’s preventing displacement of them especially.
DUBNER: Furthermore, you write that landlords who are susceptible to rent control “reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent either by converting to condos, selling to owner-occupants, or redeveloping buildings.” So, now it starts to get a little more complicated. Can you talk about who’s now starting to win here and who’s starting to lose here?
DIAMOND: So, obviously, when the landlord is first notified about rent control, he or she can quickly deduce that his or her rental stream is going to be lower than previously expected. And just like any other business owner, they might think about changing their business strategy. So, if renting out their apartments is no longer very profitable, now they may decide, “Oh, maybe it’s worthwhile to convert to condos and sell off the apartments to owner-occupants” and that would be a way to recover some of this lost income. Or, another thing they could do is, say, knock down their old building and build some new construction and either sell those as condos or rent them out as apartments.
Both of those options would avoid them having to pay this tax of rent control, help recoup some of their losses — which is good for the landlords, but is going to undermine the goals of rent control because now we’re going to have less rental housing out there available for rent control.
So you can start to see how rent control may be accomplishing a narrow, short-term goal — making existing housing more affordable for a select group of people — at the expense of the long-term goal of making a city more affordable generally.
DIAMOND: When you pass rent control, the landlords of the property suddenly getting covered by rent control are losing so much money, they no longer really want to rent their apartments out at the prevailing new prices, so they decrease their supply of rental housing to the market. And if there’s less supply, that’s going to drive up prices.
DUBNER: Okay, so, let me just make sure I have it pretty straight. You find evidence that rent control increases gentrification, one component of which is the displacement of low-income tenants. On the other hand, you also find evidence that low-income people, including minorities — at least those who are in rent-controlled units already — they’re likely to disproportionately benefit from rent control.
So, if I’m an affordable-housing advocate, I might say, “Oh, fine, fancy Stanford professor — who I’m sure has some kind of great income and/or housing subsidy and/or situation — I don’t care that some landlords are suffering. I don’t care that the policy is having some downstream effects that you don’t like. I need to make sure that low-income people aren’t going to get a rent increase of 50 percent overnight.” So, how do you respond to that argument?
DIAMOND: So, when you think about those initial tenants, that’s the best bet you’re going to get for the benefits of rent control to low-income tenants: the people that are already in the housing. But even though we find that those tenants are much more likely to stay in their apartment, when we look 10, 15 years later, the share of those 1994 residents that are still there is down to 10 percent or so. So 90 percent of them no longer live in that initial apartment.
And it’s that next low-income tenant that wants to live in the city, that low-income tenant is going to have a very hard time finding an affordable option, because now there’s going to be less rental housing, the prices that that low-income tenant are going to face when they want to initially move in are going to be higher than they would have been absent rent control.
DUBNER: I’m curious how generalizable you think your findings from San Francisco are for other cities.
DIAMOND: I would suspect that the actual quantitative loss of rental supply or benefits to the tenant will depend a little bit city to city, but I think the qualitative takeaway that landlords are savvy and are going to work hard to not lose money on their investments, I think is a very general point.
For economists who already felt confident in the theoretical arguments against rent control, research like Diamond’s provides empirical evidence that essentially tells the same story. Yes, there are some winners in rent control; but the losing is more widespread, and longer term. But how about empirical evidence from a reverse angle — that is, not when a city adds or expands rent control, like San Francisco did, but when it gets rid of it?
By the early 1990s, Cambridge was one of the few remaining rent-control strongholds in Massachusetts. Landlords had been trying to get rid of it for years. But there are a lot fewer landlords than there are tenants, so any attempt to change the local law was voted down. Finally, the rent control opponents had a winning idea: put the issue up on a statewide referendum, where there might be less empathy for all those city dwellers with below-market rents. When the referendum was held, nearly 60 percent of the voters in Cambridge were opposed — but, statewide, it passed, and so Cambridge began to deregulate its rents. Years later, a trio of M.I.T. economists examined the effects of removing rent control.
Ed Glaeser again.
GLAESER: It showed that when units were brought out of rent control, their owners invested in them. So, they upped the quality of the units; there was more of a supply of higher-end housing.
DIAMOND: They find that the rent-controlled apartments experience a lot of renovation. Landlords renovate a lot, and that drives up the desirability of living in those apartments. Also, they find that that creates spillovers onto the nearby apartment buildings that they themselves weren’t rent-controlled.
GLAESER: So neighboring apartments became more valued as a result of the end of rent control. And the most recent paper has shown that crime has gone down — particularly, street crime has gone down right after the elimination of rent control in Cambridge.
DIAMOND: So it looked like rent control had negative externalities on the neighborhood.
So what does economic research tell us about rent control? There are at least two conclusions — which, if I’m reading it right, sort of work against each other. The first conclusion is that rent control doesn’t help many people for very long, in part because it constrains the supply of affordable housing. The second conclusion is that just getting rid of rent control does not, in and of itself, lead to more affordable housing; in fact a deregulated housing market can easily lead to less affordable housing. The Boston-Cambridge area is one of many places experiencing a steep shortage in not just affordable housing but housing overall.
So even if you accept that rent control is a big contributor to the affordable-housing problem, getting rid of it isn’t necessarily a solution. You can see why politicians and policy-makers are confused. In Massachusetts, in fact, there’s currently a movement to bring back statewide rent control. And as we mentioned earlier, Massachusetts is not alone.
DIAMOND: So, we just had this big vote in California about whether we should repeal a statewide law that restricts the scope of rent control in California, and indeed we did not repeal that law.
DUBNER: So, somebody read your paper.
DIAMOND: It was interesting to see how our results were used by policy makers and media on both sides of the fight. Because indeed, some of our results are, like, rent control are good, others make them look bad. You’ve got to read the whole paper and take it all into account to make a decision, but it was a very policy-relevant paper for that discussion.
DUBNER: I’m curious what you can tell us about the political dimensions of rent control. I may be wrong, but I believe that rent control is generally supported by Democrats and generally opposed by Republicans.
DIAMOND: I think it’s a simplification to say all Democrats support rent control. But I think in the short run, you can see the benefits of rent control — the tenants right away benefit. What’s much harder to see are these indirect effects that take a long time, and it’s harder to put your finger on that. The losses are spread everywhere a little bit, and harder to see walking down the street or talking to your constituents.
GLAESER: There certainly are some poor people who can benefit. And, it’s a very tangible benefit, right? It’s not some complicated thing which requires you to trust in the market. It’s just sort of very clear, and if you think that people on the left, many of them just don’t trust markets to begin with, then saying there’s going to be some negative market effect to them, that sounds like capitalist hocus-pocus, whereas, what they can see right now is that Mrs. Reyes’s rents won’t go up because of their regulation.
Vicki BEEN: Economists tend to believe their models and say, “End of story,” and, “Believe me,” right?
That’s Vicki Been.
BEEN: But communities don’t necessarily have to believe economists, and so economists need to do a better job of responding to the very real fears that communities have.
Been used to be commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Now she’s a law professor at New York University, and she directs the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.
BEEN: The Furman Center has embarked on a project that we call “Not Your Grandmother’s Rent Control” to try to figure out, if you were starting from scratch, and you were designing the most efficient rent-regulation system, what would that look like?
* * *
As we’ve been hearing, economists are generally opposed to rent control. It rewards some people, but fairly arbitrarily; it punishes many others, and generally doesn’t do much to improve overall access to housing. That said, most people don’t think like economists, or even believe them. Which is why many politicians and members of the public think rent control is a great idea.
David EISENBACH: Well, I’m in favor of residential rent control and rent regulations.
That’s David Eisenbach; he teaches history at Columbia University and he recently ran for a citywide office in New York called public advocate. There are in New York City about 3.4 million apartment units, nearly 1 million of which are rent-stabilized. And New York’s rental market is incredibly expensive — as it is in many other cities with regulated rents, like San Francisco. Economists argue that overall high prices are a direct consequence of rent regulation; what does Eisenbach think?
EISENBACH: I disagree. I mean, there are a lot of reasons why real estate in San Francisco and real estate in New York are high. Blaming it on rent stabilization is definitely not it. The consequences of getting rid of either rent control and/or rent stabilization would be the immediate displacement, of a big portion of the population, and that would just be cruel at this point. I don’t know how anybody could justify — even somebody looking at it purely in economic terms — how anybody could justify that, just in human terms. You’re going to blame the high rents on rent control? Come on.
Okay, so Eisenbach does not believe the economic research on rent control. What does he believe in?
EISENBACH: Well, first and foremost, I’m an angry New Yorker who walks around the streets of New York and sees empty storefront after empty storefront, and just feels like my city is dying.
New York’s commercial rents have spiked along with its residential rents. And in some parts of Manhattan, as much as 20 percent of the retail space is either vacant or soon to be vacant.
EISENBACH: And I found out that there is this bill called the Small Business Jobs Survival Act. It was initially submitted back in the 1980’s and I figured, why don’t I run for office pushing this bill? And so I ran for public advocate on the platform, “We’re going to pass this bill; it’s going to save small business in New York City.”
We should say that Eisenbach did not win the election. He came in 13th in a field of 17. But he did get a fair amount of attention for talking about all those empty storefronts, which have upset a lot of people.
EISENBACH: There are two major provisions of the Small Business Jobs Survival Act. One: it guarantees a 10-year lease renewal offer from the landlord to the tenant for any tenant with a commercial lease in New York City. Number two: if the landlord and tenant cannot come to an agreement, they go to legally binding arbitration, and that arbitrator then will pick a fair market rent, which will then be charged in the next 10-year lease renewal.
Opponents of this proposal call it commercial rent control.
EISENBACH: But this bill, the Small Business Jobs Survival Act, is absolutely not rent control. It doesn’t put a limit on how much rent can be charged, which is the very definition of rent control. It’s legally binding arbitration. Much different.
DUBNER: Are there other cities that have this kind of small-business jobs protection on the real-estate front that works well?
EISENBACH: It’s going to be unique.
Even though Eisenbach lost his election, he still believes the Small Business Jobs Survival Act may get through New York’s City Council. I was interested to know what the economists we’ve been speaking with — Rebecca Diamond of Stanford and Ed Glaeser of Harvard — what they thought about commercial rent regulation.
DIAMOND: So, I’m also very interested in that, and I also know almost nothing about it. I have never seen any work on it.
GLAESER: You can easily tell a story where the threat of some form of rent control makes a vacancy problem worse in the short run. So, for example, I don’t want to rent right now to a lower-end tenant who could fill my space, because I’ll be locked in by the rent-control law and I’ve got that tenant forever. So, that means, I’m going to really hold out for a blue-chip tenant because I have this threat of this law over my shoulder.
So, do I think vacant empty storefronts are a problem? Sure. I mean, we can talk about it from a perspective merely as an urbanist, where we think it’s unattractive to have these things, but I’m also disturbed by it as an economist, because someone’s got space to sell, there are people who want to buy that space. Why isn’t the transaction happening, right? It’s sort of — the market is going awry. And the answer to that — of why the market is going awry — is not immediately obvious.
There are of course plenty of theories as to why so many storefronts in New York are vacant. Here again is Vicki Been, the former housing official who studies the real-estate market at NYU.
BEEN: I think there are a lot of questions about how commercial rent regulation would work and how it might interfere with an efficient market. One concern that I would have right now is, we seem to be in the middle of an upset, of a transition in retail in general, because of the availability of Internet retail. A lot is in flux.
GLAESER: But there are two points of evidence against that. One of which is that many of these storefronts formerly held services, and I don’t think a nail salon has been made obsolete by Amazon just yet. And secondly, the rents, the asking rents, at least according to the most recent Real Estate Board of New York report, in many of these areas are still sky-high. It’s not like there’s no demand for areas where you’re charging $300, $400 per square foot to rent these areas.
In the long term, all the economic push for both the landlords and the tenants is to get those units occupied and get the rent payments again flowing to the landlord.
Landlords, whether small or large, are often left out of public discussions about property markets. And if they’re not left out, they’re usually drawn as villains. Vicki Been, in thinking about the project she calls “Not Your Grandmother’s Rent Control,” is trying to change that.
BEEN: I think the thing that you really need to focus on is: how can I ensure that the landlord is getting a reasonable return, right? Because otherwise, people will take their money and put it elsewhere and you won’t get building. And how can we at the same time try to close some of these avenues that landlords could use to try to escape rent regulation without it becoming a system that’s so weighed down with so many different enforcement challenges that it kind of collapses of its own weight, right?
You need to pay attention to the different ways in which property owners are making money on the property, so you really need to have a holistic look. At the same time, you need to have very open-eyes view of the kinds of costs that we’re imposing on them.
There’s one huge cost that drives real-estate prices, whether we’re talking about rentals or sales, for both commercial and residential buildings.
BEEN: In New York City, for example, a very high percentage of rent goes for property taxes. So we can’t be saying to landlords, “Hey, keep prices down — but by the way, your property tax just went up by 10 percent. So we have to recognize that, okay, we as a taxpaying body have an obligation to understand the effect that those increases may have on rents, and we can’t just turn around and say to the landlord, “You absorb them,” right? “Don’t pass them onto the tenant.” Because that’s an unsustainable system.
GLAESER: It’s certainly true that renters implicitly have to pay for property taxes. And it’s not obvious that’s wrong, because the idea of property taxes is they’re paying for city services and renters use city services, too. That’s obviously not wrong.
DUBNER: So, here’s a big question that I really hope you can answer, because I’ve wondered this for a long time. Some of the biggest property owners in a city like New York — and some of the wealthiest property holders generally — are universities, religious institutions, hospitals, and other not-for-profit institutions, which makes them either partially or wholly exempt from paying property taxes. So, I’m curious, how does that exemption affect a) the taxes paid by everyone else, and how does that b) ultimately affect housing prices for everyone.
GLAESER: First of all: clearly, you’re right. The government has decided to subsidize certain institutions by enabling them not to pay property taxes. And from a purely accounting point of view, those taxes need to come from somewhere else.
On the other hand, it is also true that at least some of the institutions that you’re talking about have proven to be extraordinarily important for the economic health of the area, right? We’re subsidizing the university student, right? We’re making it cheaper for them to rent than it would be otherwise. Is that fair? Well, we thought that, somehow or other, it was a good idea to subsidize educational institutions at one point in time. We thought there might be some spillovers from that, some benefits from encouraging people to become educated. But, we should be open to re-investigating that, and anyway, you shouldn’t take my word for it, because after all, I’m the employee of an educational institution.
We can ask whether or not the blanket property-tax exemption that we’ve given to religious institutions and educational institutions is appropriate. I mean, that seems like a reasonable question to ask. In the case of religious institutions it in some sense goes back to fundamental issues about separation of church and state in the U.S., but we can still ask this question.
I would be surprised if we think that changing those tax rates is the number-one step to take to promote affordability in New York City though, relative to bringing more space on market that you can actually build on, changing the regulations. I mean, it seems like that’s not likely to be the case, but it is true that you move stuff to a religious or educational use, in many cases you’re moving away from an owner who would actually build on it. And that’s also correct.
So what have we learned about housing, especially affordable housing, especially in the most desirable cities? For starters, we’ve learned that it’s complicated. Property taxes play a large, underappreciated role in driving up costs, and the tax burden isn’t necessarily spread so equitably. Rent regulations, meanwhile, appeal to the public and politicians, but they also create perverse incentives that in the long run work against affordable housing. How about housing vouchers: aren’t they a more flexible way to subsidize housing?
BEEN: The advantage of a voucher is, you can go through all of those eligibility requirements and really target the voucher to the families that you think are most in need. And we in New York, and in many other major cities, we have prohibitions against a landlord refusing a tenant because they’re using a voucher rather than earned income.
But we’re still getting enormous resistance from landlords, because if you have a federal government that shuts down and isn’t paying its voucher payments, and there, the landlord is stuck with that, right? Or if you have a city, like New York City did, that issued vouchers and then changed its mind, and said, “Oops, that program is over,” then the landlord has a tenant in place who no longer can pay the rent and the landlord has to take them to court and bear the costs of that.
Meanwhile, the market price of housing in a place like Manhattan lies somewhere between punitive and prohibitive. So if rent control isn’t a viable tool in the fight for affordable housing, what is?
GLAESER: The most natural tool towards affordability is supply, and to make sure that we are making it easy enough to build moderate-cost rental-apartment buildings in these cities.
Ed Glaeser again.
GLAESER: We’ve used regulations to so restrict our ability to provide affordable housing units that now we’re at this restricted frozen-in-amber form. In the case of New York — gosh, New York is New York. It’s hard to imagine how much housing you’d really need to sate demand for New York.
DUBNER: What about Boston, where you live? Boston is facing what it calls a historic housing shortage. The city’s growing, not enough housing to match. What do you suggest Boston do to accommodate that surge, other than let the market work its famous magic?
GLAESER: Look, drive around Boston. It doesn’t look overcrowded to me, and I don’t think it should look overcrowded to anyone else. There’s a lot of vacant industrial space that could easily house tens of thousands of units. If you made it easy enough to build, I’ve got to think that this is a doable problem, at least from an engineering and economics point of view. The politics, of course, are more difficult.
DUBNER: What, specifically, would need to be done to change it?
GLAESER: So, the big answer is, you need, as-of-right zoning that enables fairly high-density levels over a fair amount of space. So, currently Boston’s zoning plan is highly antiquated. Every project is handled on an ad-hoc basis. Usually, it involves variances that are quite high from the original plan, which means that they are highly subject to judicial challenge. All of that is a recipe for uncertainty and delay and endless community meetings.
The thing that works best is when you have something where you’ve decided in advance, “This is how much we’re going to allow to build; there are a couple of simple rules that you’ve got to follow. Come here, bring your units and make it happen.” And that’s what’s needed. That’s what actually works. It’s not something that involves a 10-year negotiation process, but something that says, “Here are the rules upfront. Go to it.”
It should be noted that not all U.S. cities impose the same level of red tape you see in Boston and New York and San Francisco.
GLAESER: If you want to look for affordability, the American Sunbelt is pretty great. The Atlantas, the Houstons, the Dallases, the places that just have made it very easy to build over the last 40 years — you want to ask why Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix each added a million people between 2000 and 2010 as metro areas, it’s because they make it astonishingly easy to build. And you can go and you can buy a great-looking house for a fraction of what you’d pay in New York in these places.
We don’t have an affordable housing crisis in the U.S. nationally. We have lots of affordable housing in places with names like Atlanta, but just not in New York City.
Many European cities, meanwhile, are more like New York — in fact, exaggerated versions of New York.
GLAESER: Much of Europe is quite restrictive in your cities, but I’m much more comfortable about the idea that much of central Paris is patrimony of the world that needs to be protected.
While policies vary from city to city and country to country, almost all major European cities have rent control.
GLAESER: Sweden, of course, is the place where Assar Lindbeck, the famous economist — and although he was market-oriented, he certainly skewed to the left — Assar famously said that, “short of bombing, I know of no way to destroy a city that was more effective than rent control,” and he certainly had Stockholm in mind.
Tommy ANDERSSON: Right now, there are around 10 million people living in Sweden. Around 550,000 of these people were standing in a queue waiting for an apartment in Stockholm. That is 5 percent of the Swedish population.
That’s the economist Tommy Andersson.
ANDERSSON: I am a professor at Lund University, which is located in the south of Sweden. I focus on an area called market design.
Sweden has nationwide rent control.
ANDERSSON: The rental system in Sweden is based on collective bargaining. So according to the Swedish law, there is a union called the Swedish Union of Tenants and their job is essentially to negotiate the rents for tenants. And it’s based on something which is called the utility value, which essentially means that if you have two comparable apartments, they should have the same rents. Another objective that they have is that they should keep the rents low. The rents cannot be increased by too much.
If you’ve been listening closely, it may not surprise you to learn that this system has led to a housing shortage.
ANDERSSON: Because people will not invest in new buildings unless they can get good returns. So if you look at this report written by the National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning from 2016, they estimated that Sweden needs around 440,000 new homes before 2020.
And that’s not going to happen. This shortage is what can lead to long lines to get an apartment, especially in the more desirable places. How long do you have to wait in Stockholm?
ANDERSSON: You have to wait for 10 or 20 or even 30 years to get an apartment right now, if you would sign up today.
What if you don’t want to wait 10 or 20 or 30 years for an apartment?
ANDERSSON: So, there are no official figures because it’s a black market. But it’s clear that there exists a black market. You can get an apartment in several different ways. So one of them is essentially to buy contract with black money. You can also bribe someone in charge of allocating available apartments to get the better position in the queue. And another thing which is popular is these fake swaps. So, you’re allowed by law to swap apartments with other persons. So you’re just pretending that you are swapping apartments, but essentially you’re not.
In the old days what I had heard — and I must stress that I don’t have any scientific evidence of this — but apparently, black contracts used to cost around 10 percent of the market value. But in recent years it has actually grown to say 20 percent of the market value of the apartment. So it’s expensive to buy a black contract. You know, it’s always a risk to be involved in this business because even if you paid the money, it’s not clear that you will get the apartment simply because, I mean, there are criminal gangs involved in this as well.
That doesn’t sound like what the designers of the Swedish rental system were going for. But the housing market in Stockholm is so bad that even business leaders there have risen up in protest.
ANDERSSON: The C.E.O. and the founder of Spotify, in 2016, he wrote an open letter to the people of Sweden saying that unless you solve this housing situation in Stockholm, Spotify may consider moving its headquarters out of Stockholm simply because we cannot find housing for our future employees.
If policy makers can’t figure out smarter ways to encourage more affordable housing, you can expect to see this kind of scenario playing out in cities all over the world.
* * *
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Zack Lapinski. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Matt Hickey and Corinne Wallace. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:
What your disgust level says about your politics, how Napoleon influenced opera, why New York City’s subways may finally run on time, and more. Five compelling guests tell Stephen Dubner, co-host Angela Duckworth, and fact-checker Jody Avirgan lots of things they didn’t know.
Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.
* * *
Today’s episode is a special live installment of Freakonomics Radio. You’ll hear about New York City’s subway system and the man who’s trying to fix it. You’ll hear about the relationship between Napoleon and music — and the relationship between politics and disgust, which is not as obvious as you might think. If you’d like to attend a future taping of Freakonomics Radio Live, we’d love to have you. We have upcoming shows in San Francisco on May 16th, Los Angeles on May 18, Philadelphia on June 6, London on September 6, and in Chicago on September 26th. For details, visit freakonomics.com/live.
Stephen J. DUBNER: Good evening. I’m Stephen Dubner and this is Freakonomics Radio Live, coming to you tonight from City Winery in New York City. As you know, Freakonomics Radio is typically a studio show based on lots of forethought and research and extensive interviews. In this live show, we throw all that out the window. No forethought whatsoever. Joining me tonight as co-host, would you please welcome the University of Pennsylvania psychology professor Angela Duckworth. Angela, if you don’t know, is the author of the longtime bestseller Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. She’s also C.E.O. of Character Lab and one of the founders of Behavior Change For Good. Angela, what else are you up to?
Angela DUCKWORTH: Through Character Lab, I’m hoping to quadruple the amount of behavioral science that’s done on kids and how they grow up to thrive. So we’ve been doing okay, but I think we should have more science so that we can have more to talk about on Freakonomics.
DUBNER: Excellent. So as you know, we play here a game called “Tell Me Something I Don’t Know.” We bring guests onstage to tell us some interesting fact or idea or story. You and I will poke and prod them as much as we’d like. Then later on, our live audience will pick a winner. The criteria are very simple. No. 1, did they tell us something we truly did not know? No. 2, was it truly worth knowing? And No. 3, was it demonstrably true? Which is important. And to help with the demonstrably true part, would you please welcome our real-time fact checker. He’s the host and producer of ESPN’s 30 for 30 podcasts. Jody Avirgan. Hey, Jody.
Jody AVIRGAN: Hello, Stephen.
DUBNER: Something I learned about you very recently, Jody, is you have a young daughter who has become an Internet phenomenon.
AVIRGAN: Well, she had a moment as an Internet phenomenon, actually, a photo I took of my daughter went viral. It was a photo we took of her after she’d eaten pizza for the first time. The audience is seeing it right now. She went to this sort of blissful state with pizza sauce all over her face. And I put it out into the world, and it went nuts. I checked this morning. Fifteen million people have seen this photo off of my Twitter account, and then it got ripped on to all of the meme accounts, and people were sending us examples of it being used in random Czechoslovakian advertisements. And the morning shows were asking us to come on. And we kind of just laid low. But yeah, it was kind of wild ride.
DUBNER: All right, Jody, I’m glad to hear that your daughter is meme-worthy. I’m glad that you are here tonight to be our fact checker. Our first guest, would you please give a warm welcome. He is president of the New York City Transit Authority. Andy Byford. Andy, welcome to the show. Now, the audience — this puzzles me.
DUCKWORTH: They’re happy!
DUBNER: Here’s what we know about you so far. You are president of the Transit Authority, which means that you essentially run the subways and buses. Correct?
Andy BYFORD: That’s correct.
DUBNER: And most of these people, including myself — we ride your subways and buses. And yet, when you walked in, they applauded. Which to me, seems paradoxical. So by what magic has Andy Byford won over the transit riders of New York City?
BYFORD: A British accent goes a long way.
DUCKWORTH: It really does.
BYFORD: It’s British charm.
DUBNER: And I understand you come from a transit family. Correct? Third generation?
BYFORD: I do. My granddad drove a bus through the Blitz, actually, through the Blitz. I ride the subway or the bus into work every day. I have never owned a car in my life. I probably never will. I rely on public transit and I believe in it. I’ve also failed my driving test twice.
DUBNER: So, compared to the Blitz, and buildings being crumbled in the streets, I guess the New York City subways are easy.
BYFORD: Oh, piece of cake. Absolutely, yeah. We have a long way to go. But it is improving. And what I wanted to do tonight is just talk about what we’re doing to make it better.
DUBNER: Let’s start with a little history. Obviously, New York is one of the older subways — I guess London is the oldest in the world.
BYFORD: London dates back to 1863, our subway is 1904. Coming here, the challenge is the same, but it is exponentially bigger. Interestingly, I’d say 15 to 20 years ago, the London Underground was in a similar state to that in which we find ourselves here in New York today. Stations looking a bit shoddy, unreliable signaling, tired vehicles, lack of funding. Sustained funding has transformed the Tube. That’s what we need here today. And a focus on basics. That’s what I want to talk about.
DUBNER: I love that we’re getting applause for infrastructure funding. We’ve never had that before. So the New York City subway, as I understand it, has the worst on-time performance of any major transit system in the world. Is that accurate, first of all?
BYFORD: We certainly are nowhere near where we need to be. In January of 2018, our on-time performance — admittedly it was a bad month — but it was a woeful 58, just over 58 percent. Through relentless focus on basics and substantial investment, a year later we’ve got it up to just over 76 percent
DUBNER: Now, to be fair, New York’s subways generally get people where they’re going. They can be slow and crowded and unpleasant on occasion but they’re also transporting — how many million people a day?
BYFORD: Well, for the whole of transit, it’s 8 million people. It’s made up of 5.7 million people on the subway, 2.3 million on the buses. And on a good day, going from the Bronx down to Manhattan, where I work, southern tip of Manhattan, that train hammered down the express line. You try doing that in a cab, and you try doing that for $2.75, you’re not going to do it.
DUBNER: Right. When I think of New York, I think that one reason it was able to grow into the city it did was because it had subways early, and so it was able to move people around a lot, underground, without tying things up. The downside of that is it was an old system, and therefore I gather — like any old system — hard to retrofit, right? So can you just kind of set the scene for us, in terms of how good, I guess, the bones still are, and assuming they are good enough to upgrade as you’d like, what are the impediments to the higher speed, the fewer delays, etc.?
BYFORD: So, I think it’s fundamentally, the system does have good bones. And let’s look at the positives. We do have express tracks. We do have a lot of stations. We have the most stations in the world. We have 472 stations. So, we’re starting from a good basis. But on a less-positive side, for various reasons, primarily lack of investment — crippling lack of investment — over the past few decades, the subway has been allowed to degrade, to the point that now we really struggle with on-time performance, because of lack of two things: one, lack of service reliability; and two, a crippling lack of capacity.
DUBNER: Can you point some fingers, please? If your chief argument is that funding is necessary for maintenance of an expensive and complicated system — which seems obvious — where is it, has it been a lack of funding? Has it been poor spending? Is it the typical political hide-and-seek games, where the money is diverted? And I would like you to name some names, with email addresses, please.
BYFORD: So, I think one of the lessons that constantly gets learned in transit is, you cannot stop investing in maintenance and what’s called state of good repair. People point to the subway system in Washington, D.C., WMATA. That was built in, I believe it was 1976. It’s really groovy, it’s a very sort of nice system.
AVIRGAN: Usually on fire, though.
BYFORD: Well, that’s the thing. People in D.C. — it stands for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — I’m told people say it stands for We Make A Town Afraid. That’s a bad place to be. Why? Because it was a new system, you can put it off. Politicians can put off the investment, because it works perfectly fine. So to your question, here, much the same. Politicians have lots of draws on their time. You’ve got to sort the roads out, you’ve got to sort out education, you’ve got to sort out hospitals. And for various reasons, this has snuck up on us. And you see this slow but incessant, relentless decline in terms of service reliability. The city’s population has grown. The infrastructure has got older, the pressure on it has got higher, the funding in real terms has dropped. And that’s why we’re in the state that we’re in.
If what Byford is saying here about infrastructure and maintenance warms your heart, check out Freakonomics Radio episode no. 263. It’s called “In Praise of Maintenance.” Okay, back to Andy Byford.
BYFORD: So, let me tell you what we’re doing about it. The city and the state have jointly funded what’s called the Subway Action Plan. So it’s installing what we call continuously welded rail — better rail that is less prone to rail defects. It’s about fixing leaks. It’s about renewing components. It’s about unblocking drains. So it’s really about fixing those elements that were allowed to degrade on the existing system.
To me on arrival, what was missing was the complementary part — which is, you must get your operational disciplines right. So when I came here, it drove me crazy, as a railway man of 30 years’ experience, that you see trains sit in the platform, you all see it, doors open, close, open, close, open, close. “Can we please get going?”
There were speed restrictions that were not necessary — speed restrictions went in initially, for a valid reason, that either the track had a defect years ago, or because we had trains that were made of wood years ago, or didn’t have such strong brakes. Those speed restrictions are no longer necessary. We had what are called signal-grade timers that were put in for a safety reason, but they’ve been allowed to fall out of calibration.
DUBNER: So you’re saying, even when the equipment is capable and the tracks are fine—
BYFORD: It’s not properly calibrated. So that was my suspicion. Obviously, you listen to the customers, but you also look at data. What was it about 2012, suddenly the delays went exponentially up? That’s when we started putting in those signal-grade timers. They were wrongly calibrated. So we have set up a team called the SPEED Team. It stands for Subway Performance Evaluation and Education Development, because we love acronyms, right? We subscribe to the PUMA initiative at New York City Transit Authority. You know what PUMA stands for?
DUCKWORTH: I don’t.
BYFORD: Please Use More Acronyms. So we set this team up to cover, on a specialized train, every inch of New York City Transit’s 600 track miles. They drive at the signal at the speed that it should be set for. And if the train gets automatically stopped, then the signal is wrongly calibrated. So, so far, we have identified 320 such signals that are wrongly calibrated, and we’re working our way through correcting them.
AVIRGAN: Can I just clarify one thing? You’re saying that the only way to test a signal is to take a train and drive it as fast as possible at the signal and see what happens?
BYFORD: Well, just for the benefit of everyone listening on the radio — this fact checker is actually on his third bottle of beer. But just to clarify, to put everyone’s mind to rest — when I say drive the train at it, obviously it’s for the speed limit that should be, the signal should clear at that speed.
AVIRGAN: But you need a full train to test that one signal?
BYFORD: No, this is an empty train. This is an empty train. These are qualified people.
DUBNER: I believe Jody’s question is, isn’t there software or something that does that?
BYFORD: No, I want to test the reality. So, these people, qualified people—
DUCKWORTH: Oh, you definitely want to test it with an actual train.
BYFORD: —and if that signal, the signal plate, says that signal should clear at 15 miles per hour, but it’s actually what we call tripping the station, stopping it at a lesser speed, then it’s wrongly calibrated.
DUBNER: Can I can I ask a funding question? So there is — as I understand it, a relatively new congestion surcharge on taxis and car services. And now, there is talk of another congestion fee for vehicles entering certain parts of Manhattan, which is what we more typically think of as a congestion fee. That money, we’re told, is directed to “the subways.” So: how much money will there be? Is it really coming to you? What is the money going toward? Etc.
BYFORD: First of all, the for-hire vehicle surcharge, the one that you just described, and that will now start to see a flow of funding come towards — dedicated funding — coming towards transit, which I very much welcome, because the one thing, working in transit, that really cripples you, is stop-start funding. You can’t plan unless every year you’re thinking, well, what are we going to get this year? That’s no way to run a business. I need to be able to plan with certainty.
The real game changer will be made major, sustainable, affordable, long-term sources of funding. And one of those suggested is a congestion charge. Because it does two things. One, it cuts congestion. And the other half of my focus is of course buses, which have the lowest speed of any North American bus system. Why? It’s nothing to do with my operators, the buses can’t levitate. They’re stuck in traffic.
DUCKWORTH: Not yet.
BYFORD: We’re working on that, by the way. But they’re hopelessly stuck in traffic. So what it gives you is, less traffic, but the traffic that does come in, pay a fee, and that fee must be lock-boxed, ring-fenced, cannot be siphoned off anywhere else, guaranteed go into funding.
DUBNER: What’s your annual budget now, and what do you want, let’s say, two, five years from now?
BYFORD: So, at the moment, the operating budget of New York City Transit is around $8 billion. So it’s a big chunk of cash, but bear in mind this is a huge system, in that we run thousands of services 24/7, which is another reason this is a tricky system to upgrade, because no one wants their lines shut down while we upgrade.
DUBNER: It’s like the 24-hour diner, and you always wonder, when do they clean out the fryer? That’s what I wonder about you.
BYFORD: I’ve often wondered that. That’s my next challenge. I’ve often wondered that. So, what we really need is to bite the bullet. And I’m saying, with the right funding, sustainable funding, we can turn this system around. No more tweaking. Let’s totally re-signal the network. Let’s make the system fully accessible. We can’t be proud of this system unless and until it is fully accessible to all New Yorkers. Let’s sort out the bus network. Let’s modernize the prevailing mindset, the bureaucracy of the transit network.
So, some specifics: within the first five years, properly funded, we can re-signal five lines. In the next five years, for a total of 10, we can modernize 11 of the lines. In that 10 years, completely modernize 300 stations. We can make 180 stations accessible within that time frame. I’d need, we’ve calculated, $40 billion over those 10 years. Can we really not afford $4 billion a year, maybe two from the state, one from the city, $500 million from Washington, D.C., $500 million — maybe we could find it in Transit.
We can move from state of emergency to state of the art within just 10 years. If we don’t do this plan, all that will happen is, the infrastructure will get even older, the population will grow even bigger, and the pressure on it will grow harder. But guess what? The price will go up. So now’s the time to bite the bullet.
DUBNER: Jody Avirgan, we heard a lot of interesting ideas, some statistics, massive optimism, and, I would say, energy, which I admire.
DUCKWORTH: Charm and charisma. And grit.
DUBNER: A lot of grit.
AVIRGAN: I want to talk specifically about one thing, which is, you said there is a lack of capacity. Are you running, at any given time, the maximum number of trains that could be on the system at that time?
BYFORD: No, we’re not. No. And that is, again, something that we are in the process of addressing. A classic example of that would be the L line, because that line is one of the two that has communications-based train-control, modern signaling, that currently runs 20 trains per hour. After the upgrade, we’ll be able to run more trains because we’re providing more power. The signaling system can handle it. There’s not enough power. Which is ridiculous. So we’re addressing that.
DUBNER: Andy Byford, thank you so much for coming on our show. Would you please welcome our next guest. She is an economic historian at N.Y.U. She studies creativity and innovation. Her name is Petra Moser. Petra. How are you?
Petra MOSER: Great.
DUBNER: Good. You teach quite nearby at N.Y.U. How did you get here tonight?
DUBNER: And it worked.
MOSER: It did.
DUBNER: What do you have for us tonight, Petra?
MOSER: So, I wanted to ask you whether you might know: how did Napoleon influence music?
DUBNER: How did Napoleon influence music? Angie Duckworth, do you have any thoughts?
DUCKWORTH: Did he commission a special piece for Josephine?
MOSER: I don’t know that.
DUCKWORTH: That’s not the answer then.
MOSER: No, that’s not the answer. You got to be a little bit more creative. You got to think a little bit out of the box.
DUBNER: Did it have to do with war-making?
DUCKWORTH: Did he conquer a nation and then have the musical traditions blend together—
DUCKWORTH: I was so close.
MOSER: It was good. If we put the two of you together, we’re actually getting somewhere.
DUBNER: Since we’re not going to get there on our own, why don’t you tell us?
MOSER: So, Napoleon started his Italian campaign at the end of the 18th century. And he won Lombardy and Venetia, which are two states in Italy. These states, by 1801 were under French control, and they got all the French laws, including copyright. But Italy did not have copyrights. So now in Italy, you have two sets of states. They have the same language, they have similar culture. They both get flooded with Napoleon, with the soldiers, with everything, with the gambling, all of that. But only two states have copyrights for the next 20 years.
So now we can actually look what that does to music. Because now we have these two states where composers own what they produce, what they create, and what we wanted to see is whether, once you give an artist an intellectual property right, whether that actually makes them produce more and whether it makes them produce better stuff.
DUBNER: What was your measure for quality?
MOSER: Opera is really great. You can quantify both quantity and quality. So quantity is fairly easy. It’s really helpful that opera is a public art form.
DUCKWORTH: You can count the number of operas.
MOSER: Exactly. So, it’s public. So you can count it. But then, the other thing is that lots of people really love opera and they write everything about opera. So we have lots of people who just say, “Oh, this was a really notable performance, there are tons of people at this performance. People were streaming at the doors.” And there’s a record of that. So we know which were the hits. Then another measure of quality is whether we still play something today. So if something still plays at the Met today, or whether it’s still available on Amazon today, whether people want to buy it.
DUBNER: But wouldn’t that be directly following on from whether they were popular or not, is that not the same thing?
MOSER: There’s some endogeneity there. So, if something is popular now, then it may be more—
DUCKWORTH: How about how many stars it gets on Amazon? Is that part of the academic scholarship?
MOSER: Not in this paper.
DUBNER: So I’m not surprised that an economic historian would want to understand the innovation impact of copyright, because copyright and patent — we know there’s a lot of debate over how strong it needs to be to encourage the right amount of innovation, without overprotecting, etc. Did you go looking for opera first? Did you go looking for Napoleon? Did you go looking for old copyright law?
MOSER: No. So, I’ve done a lot of work on patents. And when you do the same thing over and over and over again, you just get bored. And I sang a lot as a kid, and I was trying to sing opera in college, and then I took economics at the same time, and I liked that better.
DUBNER: Do you have an example for us of an opera that was composed during that era, in one of those states — that you said — Lombardy and Venetia, you said?
DUBNER: Let’s hear some. Petra, you’re welcome to join in, if you’d like.
MOSER: If you will, I will too.
Let me break in here to say I chose not to sing that night, because I wasn’t warmed up.
DUBNER: Okay, so tell us a bit about this Rossini piece, and how it’s an example of the phenomenon that you’ve measured.
MOSER: Rossini was a very peculiar character, as many of these composers. He was also poor. And so he is a good example of the way in which copyright influences composers. So, he really responded to what people paid him. So, we have records of him saying to the theater managers, “Look, you are not paying me enough, so I’m just going to give you the same stuff over and over and over again. I just take this aria, and I’ve changed a little bit, and that’s it.” And that’s precisely what we think is not novelty — what we think is not creativity. But when he actually got enough money, then he would really make something that was better.
DUCKWORTH: So what’s really interesting about that is that creativity, most people think of as being intrinsically rewarding, right? And in fact, people think that when you pay, you actually decrease the intrinsic amount of it. No?
MOSER: This completely fits economics. He is poor. His mother and father were itinerant musicians. So he didn’t come in saying, “Oh, I’m just gonna do this for fun.” So he did it, in part, to make money. So, suppose, say, a composer today needs $2,000 to live. And say before copyright, you get like just $1,000 per opera. And now with copyright, because they have to pay you for repeat performances, you get $2,000. So now he only has to write one opera instead of two. That gives him the freedom to do precisely what he wants to do. So we actually see this in Rossini and other people, that they make things more complicated, they play around with things and he now has more time and he has more freedom. So it’s a wealth effect.
DUBNER: I’m curious where you land on issues of copyright and patent ownership, in a world that’s obviously gotten a lot more complicated. And what your position is on the optimal copyright policy.
MOSER: Having basic copyright protection is important for two reasons. The first one is that it gives people an incentive to produce better work, but then the other one is if you actually make art something that people can make money off, you also change the type of person who can become an artist.
So we see this actually with 19th-century novelists. Before copyrights were really a thing, the only people who would write were people who, when we matched them with their parents’ wealth records, they were actually just wealthy — there’d be men and women, but they would both be wealthy. Once you have stronger copyrights in England, then, when you look again at the parents of the people who would become writers and become novelists, now all of a sudden we have people from humbler backgrounds.
DUBNER: Petra, thank you so much for playing with us. Our next guest is a psychology professor at Cornell who studies how people make moral and ethical judgments. Would you please welcome David Pizarro. Hi David, what do you have for us tonight?
David PIZARRO: Suppose that you walked into a public restroom, and there’s—
DUBNER: Whatever comes next is not good.
PIZARRO: And there’s just a mess, an un-flushed toilet. How disgusted would you be? Say, 10, really, really, really disgusted. Zero, wouldn’t bother you.
DUBNER: This one goes to 11, I’m gonna say.
DUCKWORTH: Depends on what’s in the toilet. As low as 5, as high as 10.
AVIRGAN: I’d probably be in the 3 to 6 range.
AVIRGAN: I’ve seen some stuff.
PIZARRO: My follow-up is, what do you think this has to do with who you voted for in the last election, say the Presidential election?
DUBNER: And do you study disgust?
PIZARRO: I do study disgust. I’m really easily disgusted. So it’s a difficult thing to do, but that’s what grad students are for.
DUBNER: All right. So the the example you’re using is an unflushed toilet. Could you use a different example?
PIZARRO: One of my favorite examples, actually: how disgusted would you be if you took a sip of a soda can and realized it wasn’t yours? It was a stranger’s?
DUCKWORTH: Zero. I ate food backstage that literally—
DUBNER: My plate, actually.
DUCKWORTH: Yes, and I didn’t even know whose it was.
DUBNER: I’m glad you brought that up, because I thought that was really strange. So you’re looking at how the emotion — is disgust an emotion, by the way?
PIZARRO: Yeah, most people call it an emotion. I mean, there’s some debate, because it seems a little different from the other emotions, because it’s so reflexive. But I think most people who study disgust would call it an emotion.
DUBNER: But what you’re getting at is, your research is about the relationship between disgust and political affiliation?
PIZARRO: That’s right, political orientation. So, how conservative or liberal are you on the spectrum? And what we’ve found — the more disgusted you were, the more likely you were to say you were conservative. We’ve now looked at this across different countries, in different languages. We keep finding this relationship. The more easily disgusted people say they are, the more likely they are to be toward the right of the scale, less easily disgusted, toward the left.
DUBNER: Let me ask you: so there’s a question we came across in a series we’ve been doing on creativity, and especially if you’re in the creative arts, the political orientation is way, way left. That led to conversations about, is there something about creativity in the arts that is correlated with liberalism? Because if you think of liberalism as essentially wanting to change the state of the thing, and conservatism as an attitude toward traditionalism, I’m curious whether you have anything to say about the mechanism by which that kind of relationship may exist.
PIZARRO: Yeah, that’s been the most interesting question to us, because if you just demonstrate a relationship, that doesn’t get at the heart of the question. The question was what is the nature of this relationship? So one way to ask that is, what part of conservatism is really being captured by this? And so in looking at various measures, what we see is exactly what you said, Stephen. It’s the traditionalism aspect. Keeping things the way they are. So the old ways of doing things are good, don’t do the new things.
This shows up in other ways that you could ask the question. So one of the big findings in personality psychology is the dimension called “openness to experience” — people who are more liberal are very high in openness to experience. They may want to try out new things. People who are more conservative are very low in openness to experience. So you can see disgust as one of those emotions that’s kind of like, “Well, I have a set level. How risky do I want to behave for a reward? So do I try a new food?”
DUCKWORTH: So is it true, then, that picky eaters and hypochondriacs are more likely to be politically conservative?
PIZARRO: I don’t know the answer to picky eaters. That’s a very good question.
DUCKWORTH: That would be your prediction maybe, right?
PIZARRO: It would be the prediction. Although, whenever I talk about this stuff, I always want to point out that this isn’t — it’s not as if how grossed out you are is 100 percent predictive. About between 3 and 10 percent of why you might be liberal or conservative seems to be captured by disgust measures.
DUBNER: Hey, something I’ve wondered about a long time is, the people who care for sick people, let’s say, I’m astonished that they’re able to do it so well and regularly, et cetera. And I often wonder, is that acclimation, or is it a trait?
PIZARRO: That’s a really good question, And in fact, Angela’s colleague at Pennsylvania, Paul Rozin, one of the pioneers who studied this, did a study looking at first-year med students asking this question, trying to see, if you ask a bunch of questions like the ones I asked you, in general how easily disgusted are you in everyday life, and you get a score — so if we asked everybody here, there’d be a nice normal distribution. Some people are really easily, some people are not.
He was asking those questions of incoming med students, and what he found was that most students were like the rest of the population coming in. After a year of medical school, when — as you might know, you have to poke into bodies, and you get used to bodily fluids and all that stuff — they were less disgusted when it came to that stuff. But not in general — they were still disgusted by all the other stuff, but they acclimated. So the answer to your question is, we’re really good at acclimating to specific things. Anybody who’s a parent knows you get used to certain things.
DUBNER: Jody Avirgan, David Pizarro has been telling us about the politics of disgust, which are really interesting, and lead to a lot of interesting thoughts and questions. Anything factual we should know?
AVIRGAN: This isn’t exactly a fact check. But I do want to go back to how you actually measure disgust. You ask people about hypothetical scenarios, and ask them to rate how disgusted they were. Do you trust that?
PIZARRO: That’s one way. Other people have done the work of correlating—
AVIRGAN: Of actually disgusting people in real time — love it.
PIZARRO: Of actually disgusting people. So they’ve brought people into the lab and they’ve asked them to do really gross but safe things. So, would you eat a piece of chocolate shaped like dog poop?
DUBNER: I think Angela’s answer says less about her liberalism than about her chocolate attitude.
PIZARRO: That may be right. And that’s why it’s a noisy measure.
DUBNER: Exactly. David Pizarro, thank you so much. I really enjoyed having you here.
* * *
DUBNER: Our next guest is the commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation. Please welcome Polly Trottenberg. Polly, nice to have you here.
Polly TROTTENBERG: Thanks for having me.
DUBNER: First of all, tell us what the New York City Department of Transportation is and does, and how it differs from Andy Byford’s New York City Transit Authority please.
TROTTENBERG: It’s a good question. Andy and I work together a lot, but New York City Department of Transportation, we’re responsible for roads, bridges, bike lanes, ferries, bike share, car share.
DUBNER: Before we get into what you’re working on and what you’re going to tell us, Andy began by describing the general state of transit. What about your overall view — what are the big problems, and how many different dimensions do they exist on?
TROTTENBERG: We actually have a different kind of challenge for a lot of my infrastructure, which is, it’s kind of a fun challenge. The city is growing in leaps and bounds. New York City now, population 8.6 million people, the highest it has been in the city’s history. Sixty-two million tourists last year. Incredible economic activity. Construction. And then of course, we have things like Uber and Lyft and Amazon, and Fresh Direct, which have just filled our streets, and made an incredible competition for space.
Side note: Fresh Direct is an online grocery-delivery company in New York. They’re famous for having their trucks idle on the streets for hours. But one other thing they do is they rate their fruit on a five-star scale. So whatever fruit has five stars this week — maybe it’s pixie tangerines or red plumcots — you know it’ll be at peak flavor. It’s a smart system, and I wish this practice would spread; just thought you might like to know.
TROTTENBERG: Meanwhile, a new generation that’s not so car-centric. They like transit, they want to ride bikes. They maybe want to ride scooters. There’s a big competition now, at least in my world, for street space.
DUBNER: So, what do you have for us tonight specifically, then?
TROTTENBERG: Well, when you build a bike lane on an avenue in New York City, what happens?
DUBNER: You’re asking about safety? Are you asking about congestion? Are you asking about density, speed, or whatnot?
TROTTENBERG: So, I mean all of the above. There’s a traditional view, when people who maybe aren’t cyclists think about bike lanes, they focus on the traffic elements of it. But there are actually a whole lot of other elements that come in when you put in a bike lane.
DUBNER: So, I do know that when you add a lane to a highway, let’s say, it actually doesn’t ease congestion because it draws demand, right?
TROTTENBERG: Induced demand is the phrase you’re looking for.
DUBNER: Right. So is it the case that when you subtract a lane of car traffic and replace it with a bike lane, that actually it does not cause car congestion problems?
TROTTENBERG: I’m happy to say, if you take out that lane but you redesign the street at the same time, you make the traffic move in a more orderly way, you put in turn lanes, and you change the signaling, you can keep the traffic speed some cases better, and a lot of cases sort of the same, while also adding in a safe space for cyclists. And just one of the statistics, where we put in bike lanes, we see huge safety improvements, not only for cyclists, who we consider a vulnerable population on the street, but for pedestrians and for motorists too, because it calms the traffic and it organizes it better.
DUBNER: I love the way that you frame the problem, which is that there’s a competition for a resource, and the resource is space — street space, lane space, and so on. One thing that I’m curious on your position — in terms of congestion in New York City, I believe that 97 percent of New York street parking is free. Transportation scholars have found that an enormous amount of congestion in New York, and other places that offer free parking, is caused by cars cruising around looking for a parking spot. So economists think this is idiotic, that you’ve got something of value — this parking space — that you’re charging zero for, especially when it has so many negative externalities — causing congestion for everybody else, pollution, etc. So, have you thought about eliminating or severely limiting free street parking, as a means to address congestion generally in New York City?
TROTTENBERG: Obviously from the economist’s point of view, it’s the same problem, both the parking and the road space, which is, it’s a scarce resource and demand greatly exceeds supply. We should price it. It’s a perfectly logical economic place to be. It is an impossible political place to be.
DUCKWORTH: Nobody wants to give up their free parking.
TROTTENBERG: The politics of parking has been, certainly for me, one of the most eye-opening parts of my job. It is something that is very intensely debated. We have, over the time that I’ve been in this job for five years, we have modestly raised parking rates. We have added in, in some places, bike share and car share, we’ve taken some of those spaces and repurposed them for uses that are more shared. But it’s certainly been a slow process.
DUCKWORTH: Is that because of the endowment effect, that now that people already have their free parking. I mean, hard to get, but free parking. You just can’t take it away.
TROTTENBERG: Yes. It’s not complicated.
DUCKWORTH: Can I ask — you are somebody who has a really hard job—
TROTTENBERG: And a lot of grit.
DUCKWORTH: Well, that is where I was going. A lot of grit. And I wanted to know how you got into this. I mean, I don’t know if you were a little girl and said, “I’m going to be the commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation.”
DUCKWORTH: So could you just share a little bit of the story? How did you get into this calling?
TROTTENBERG: I went to college here in New York, back in what we would say were the bad old days, when the city was experiencing a lot of difficulties, a lot of crime, a lot of disinvestment. And I just got very interested in urban policy and transportation policy. And one of the great success stories of New York — again, why my streets are so full, why Andy’s subways are so full — we took a city where there had been disinvestment, and we really turned it around. At one time, the Williamsburg Bridge was shut down because it was coming to pieces. Now we really invest in our bridges and our roads. So I think being part of that process — and now, today we have bikes and scooters, and Uber and Lyft, and all these other really exciting changes.
DUCKWORTH: Does the bike lane innovation actually improve physical health? Because one of the other major trends over the last 50 years is that we just sit around all the time.
TROTTENBERG: If you think about cycling as a mode, it is an inexpensive mode to own and operate. And for us to provide for. I mean, basically it’s paint. It emits no carbon, burns no fuel. It gets you moving, it’s physical exercise. It connects you to your city. Of course, it is terrific for general individual health, public health, and the health of the city.
DUCKWORTH: Is there any evidence of that? I’m wondering whether when you put in a new bike lane, there is any measure that the physical health of, I don’t know, that community, that neighborhood has — that might be very difficult to quantify, but it would be very exciting if you could.
TROTTENBERG: Well, we’re going to be looking at the long term health statistics. Anecdotally, we see evidence that it is getting people moving, particularly kids. But I don’t know, maybe Jody will dig up some some better numbers than I have.
DUBNER: If you were able to start from scratch, would you have streets on a grid system? Because one thing that a grid does is it encourages speed, because it’s wide open, straight.
TROTTENBERG: There’s a wonderful book written just recently about how the grid came about in New York City. And it was sort of a bunch of half-drunken foreign guys who threw it together a little haphazardly, when you read the book, it’s very surprising. When I’m in other cities where they have less of a grid — and for example, they have alleyways. I like to joke, I have alley envy. Because here in New York without those alleys, there are no places for the garbage trucks and the deliveries and the utility poles. Everything has to happen on those same streets where the cars are traveling, the buses are traveling, the bikes are traveling, and the pedestrians are traveling. So no, I think there are places where a grid is very efficient, but I would design it very differently.
DUBNER: Jody Avirgan, Polly Trottenberg has been telling us about the roads primarily, and other things in her purview. Did you find anything that needs flagging?
AVIRGAN: Angela, to your question about effects on public health, there was one study from the Mailman School here at Columbia University. It tries to measure the effect of a bike lane on an increase in the probability of riding a bike, and then quantify the effect on health, and reduced pollution, and then measures that against other public-health measures. And the conclusion is that investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventative approaches used today, so we’ll see. That’s one study.
DUBNER: Polly Trottenberg, thank you so much for joining us tonight. It is time — I’m so sad to say — for tonight’s final guest. She is a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. Would you please welcome Katherine Hornbostel. Katherine, it is nice to have you. You are our last guest tonight, so make it good. What do you have for us?
Katherine HORNBOSTEL: All right. No pressure. So, if I handed you a bucket filled with water and laundry detergent, and asked you to tackle global warming, what would you do?
DUBNER: Oh, that’s so easy.
DUCKWORTH: You would wash something.
DUBNER: I would make a giant bubble bath and I would invite—
DUCKWORTH: With laundry detergent.
DUBNER: Hey, don’t yuck my yum. I would make a giant bubble bath, and I would invite the climate lions and the climate lambs to lie down together in the bubble bath and relax, and proceed to have an empirical, sane conversation about the best ways to address climate change. That’s what I would do with a big bucket of soapy water.
HORNBOSTEL: I really like that approach.
DUBNER: Are we done here? Is that the answer?
DUCKWORTH: That’s exactly what she was gonna recommend.
HORNBOSTEL: I can’t say I wrote about that approach in my paper. Do you have any other suggestions?
DUCKWORTH: I don’t really know what’s in laundry detergent — can you give me a hint?
HORNBOSTEL: Yes, so I’m actually talking about the active ingredient sodium carbonate. I don’t know if that helps.
DUCKWORTH: Sodium carbonate. Is that baking soda?
HORNBOSTEL: Very similar.
DUBNER: Would you wash the sky?
HORNBOSTEL: Not quite — what would I be wash— are you saying, like, throw a bubble bath in the air?
DUBNER: Like one of those geo-engineering schemes that run a giant hose into the stratosphere and spray out some benign material that refracts sunlight, that kind of thing?
HORNBOSTEL: Not quite. That is a very creative approach. So, I’ll give you guys a little bit of a hint: I’m going to send you to a coal power plant with this bucket of water and detergent.
DUCKWORTH: So, what is the specific, I guess, byproduct or whatever, of coal burning, that’s bad — and then maybe we’ll be a little closer.
HORNBOSTEL: There are a lot of things that come off of coal that are bad. Some of them, thankfully, we already have regulations against — things like SOx and NOx. They already scrub a lot of the crap that comes off of coal plants.
DUBNER: Can you give the full name of SOx and NOx, please?
HORNBOSTEL: So, sulfur oxides and nitrous oxides. Gaseous compounds that are bad for the environment.
DUBNER: Because we all thought it was a Dr. Seuss story.
DUCKWORTH: I was like, “That is so cute! Why would we want to legislate against them?”
HORNBOSTEL: So, carbon dioxide is the other obvious one, that there are no regulations for, currently, for coal plants.
DUBNER: Are some of the emissions in a coal plant, do they react in some way, negatively, I guess, with sodium carbonate? Is that the idea?
HORNBOSTEL: You’re on the right track, you’re getting very close.
DUBNER: So I don’t think we’re going to get closer without a mechanical engineering degree, which you do have.
HORNBOSTEL: So, this particular combination — water and sodium carbonate — if you dissolve it in water, can react with carbon dioxide and extract it from a gas stream coming off a coal plant. And the really interesting thing that I’ve studied is that if you put these chemicals into little capsules that look like caviar, you can actually pack them into a reactor, attach it to a power plant, and selectively take out the carbon dioxide that’s being released from the exhaust.
DUBNER: So you’re describing a form of carbon capture, correct?
HORNBOSTEL: Yes. It is a carbon-capture technology.
DUBNER: What stage is it in? Are you one of the inventors of said technology?
HORNBOSTEL: Yes, I was on a team at a national lab from the D.O.E. that invented and studied this technology. It’s been demonstrated at a lab scale. Currently we’re looking for partners to adopt it. Not at a power-plant scale yet, but at smaller scales to test out and figure out the kinks and try to scale it up.
DUBNER: And what you’re describing, there is obviously chemical reactions here. But is it essentially a filter?
HORNBOSTEL: It’s a good question. It’s not exactly a filter — I guess you could think of it from a big picture standpoint as a filter, though. So you’re sending the nasty gas from a power plant through it, it selectively takes out carbon dioxide. At some point it reaches capacity. And then you have to de-sorb or remove the CO2 from the full solution.
DUBNER: And how do you do that?
HORNBOSTEL: So, usually you have to heat up steam and send it through these capsules, and it’ll take the carbon dioxide back out. And then you pressurize it and put it underground.
DUBNER: Okay. So, it’s carbon capture, you bury the carbon underground, which some people have big concerns about there. What’s your level of concern on that?
HORNBOSTEL: I think that’s very safe, if you — it’s actually being done already in a lot of places — it’s fairly safe and there’s a lot of science to back up the fact that it’s not going to leak out or cause problems, if you—
DUCKWORTH: Does it just stay there forever?
HORNBOSTEL: Really, if you find the right formations — that’s kind of beyond my research area, but the scientists on that side are pretty confident you can store a lot of carbon dioxide underground. Just the sheer magnitude of carbon dioxide emissions requires that we put it underground at this point.
DUBNER: So the unit or machine that you’re talking about, what do you call it?
HORNBOSTEL: So I guess I would call it a reactor. So, it’s basically a giant vat filled with this solution that will react with carbon dioxide to hold it, until you need to release it and store it.
DUBNER: So, I can’t tell whether it’s because you cleverly began the conversation by talking about laundry detergent. Was it as simple, really, as just getting something kind of like laundry detergent and figuring out how that responded to these carbon emissions?
HORNBOSTEL: Yeah I mean, so it is simple compared to other technologies for carbon capture. By putting them in small capsules, what you’re essentially doing is raising the surface area. So imagine a big vat filled with caviar. You have a very large surface area of contact between the liquid in those capsules and then the gas flowing through, which really allows you to use these very simple ingredients, instead of a very tricky or corrosive solvent instead.
DUCKWORTH: So you said laundry detergent is a lot like baking soda. Now, this might be a digression, Stephen, but since I have a mechanical engineering professor — is that little box of baking soda that I have in my refrigerator, is it really absorbing the odors?
DUBNER: I love how she can tell us about carbon capture, and this is the tough question for her.
DUCKWORTH: This is the most important question of the evening.
HORNBOSTEL: The more degrees you get, the farther removed you are from practical solutions to things like that. So, sodium carbonate reacts with carbon dioxide. It actually forms baking soda. So that is the reaction — that is the product of this reaction. I guess to emphasize here is that both the initial chemical and the final product are both very safe, very cheap, very abundant.
DUCKWORTH: I have to ask this question: this is such a simple, elegant, commonsense, straightforward, hiding-in-plain sight — was your team composed mostly of women?
HORNBOSTEL: We had a very good proportion of women on my team.
DUCKWORTH: Just a hypothesis.
DUBNER: So, when I hear the words “safe, cheap, and abundant,” it does sound literally too good to be true. So let’s pretend that you were not involved with this project at all. But you knew about it, and you knew all the other competing carbon-capture systems that are being developed and funded and so on. What would you put the odds of this project succeeding — I’m not saying as the only carbon capture solution, but as a significant one?
HORNBOSTEL: So, I’m very confident that it could work if we invested and did it. Confidence in terms of whether or not this will be the winning technology — lower, much lower, just because there are a lot of technologies out there for carbon capture, there’s a lot of competition, there are some others that are much more mature than ours.
DUBNER: Does it have a name?
HORNBOSTEL: We call it M.E.C.S. It’s an acronym — so, Micro-Encapsulated Carbonate Solution.
DUBNER: Do you think we could crowdsource a better—
HORNBOSTEL: I just call them capsules, but I’m open to suggestions.
DUBNER: I like the caviar idea.
HORNBOSTEL: Carbon-Capture Caviar.
DUBNER: Carbon-Capture Caviar.
DUCKWORTH: Oh, I like that.
DUBNER: It says here you invented something else a few years back called the Pump2Baby Bottle.
HORNBOSTEL: I didn’t expect you to bring that little curveball up. Yes. So I had twins when I was in grad school. I was pumping for them. And they did not nurse well, and so I invented this little hack where you can actually feed your babies breast milk as you’re pumping it. So you attach it to any breast pump, as you’re pumping the milk, the baby starts drinking it.
DUCKWORTH: That is genius. Did you patent it? Did you make a lot of money?
HORNBOSTEL: In the process of patent prosecution right now. Filed for patent, working on it.
DUCKWORTH: If you are not jumping up and down with excitement about it, then you have not nursed a child or pumped.
DUBNER: Yes, I haven’t. I’m gonna confess right now. Hey, Katherine Hornbostel, thank you so much for telling us something we didn’t know. And can we get one more hand here for all our guests please. It is time now for our live audience to pick a winner. Obviously, all our guests have come here in the spirit of inquiry and information-sharing so we shouldn’t reduce this thing to a horse race but — well, this is America, and we really like to know who wins. Who’s it going to be?
- Andy Byford, with “How to Fix New York City’s Subways,”
- Petra Moser, with “Napoleon’s Copyright Legacy,”
- David Pizarro, with “The Politics of Disgust,”
- Polly Trottenberg, with “How to Fix New York City’s Roads,” or
- Katherine Hornbostel, with “How to Launder Your Carbon.”
DUBNER: Our grand prize winner tonight — we had a dead tie. So thank you so much to both Andy Byford and Petra Moser, for telling us about fixing New York City subways and Napoleon’s copyright legacy. To commemorate your victories, you will each receive this Certificate of Impressive Knowledge. And it reads, “I, Stephen Dubner, in consultation with Angela Duckworth and Jody Avirgan, do solemnly swear that both Andy Byford and Petra Moser told us something we did not know. And for that we are eternally grateful.” Thank you so much. That’s our show for tonight. I hope we told you something you did not know. Huge thanks to Jody and Angela, to our guests, and thanks especially to you for coming to play “Tell Me Something—
AUDIENCE: I Don’t Know!”
DUBNER: Thank you very much.
Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. Our staff includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Zack Lapinski, and Corinne Wallace; we had help this week from Morgan Levey, David Herman, and Dan Dzula. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:
The post Freakonomics Radio Live: “Would You Eat a Piece of Chocolate Shaped Like Dog Poop?” (Ep. 372) appeared first on Freakonomics.[ + ]