Pew study: Internet use gaps remain
The Pew Research Center released astudy on American Internet adoption since 2000. The study is a compilation of 97 national surveys over 15 years and finds that, although differences in Internet adoption have closed, gaps still remain.
Young adults are still more likely to use the Internet than people 65 or older, but for the first time a clear majority of seniors now use the Internet. According to the report, “in 2000, 70% of young adults used the internet and that figure has steadily grown to 96% today. At the other end of the spectrum, 14% of seniors used the internet in 2000, while 58% do so today. Not until 2012 did more than half of all adults ages 65 and older report using the internet.”
The study finds a similar trend based on household income. A full 97 percent of adults living in households with annual incomes above $75,000 use the Internet, but only 74 percent of adults in households earning less than $30,000 use it. The authors note how Internet access via mobile devices has increased adoption in low-income households:
[T]he more recent rise of smartphones has provided internet access to lower income people, sometimes with lower prices, sometimes with other attractive technology features. Indeed, a recent report released by Pew Research found that lower-income Americans are increasingly “smartphone-dependent” for internet access.
The study also found that in the last 15 years the gap between rural and urban Internet users has decreased, but remains at seven percent: “In 2000, 56% of suburban residents, 53% of urban residents, and 42% of rural residents were internet users. Today those figures stand at 85%, 85%, and 78% respectively.”
Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015 (Pew Research Center, June 26, 2015)
TCGplayer workers rally for livable wages and launch a report on poverty-level wages at the eBay subsidiary
Apple retail workers in Oklahoma City win first collective contract with CWA
Labor and public interest groups defend FCC's broadcast ownership rules promoting competition, diversity, and localism on air