Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 273 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#211

Post by dlwdlw »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #129
foobarian wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Taxicabs such as in NYC are famously expensive to buy into, and yet drivers somehow afford it and make livings on them. So if they are clearly not losing money, why is it that a company that's supposed to be vastly more efficient due to use of computers can't make a profit? Are the tech overheads really that high?

Taxicabs such as in NYC are (were) monopolies. The price you paid was far above what the market rate should have been, which is why drivers were able to make livings on them. Uber/Lyft are simply forcing prices back down to the market rate which is where the prices should be in a free market. Driving isn't really something that should be a career. > "Why is it that a company that's supposed to be vastly more efficien…

In a way, monopolies are good like elevator limits are good. It's not the support of the elevator that's the problem but the discomfort of people being crammed into the same space.

When the same market can suddenly be open to anyone you get people cramming into elevators and buses so that everyone is uncomfortable.

The entire US revolves around gates and monopoly like jobs. The greatest gate being the immigration gate. Technology empowers everyone and moves everyone towards the mean. Which is bad for groups that are above the mean.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#212

Post by azernik »

peterwwillis wrote: post #4
astrodust wrote: post #2

Uber is losing billions and their drivers are making peanuts. That sounds sustainable.

It was never designed to be sustainable. Why does nobody get that yet? The only reason Uber and Lyft work is that there are a ton of people with limited job skills, who have time on their hands, are short on cash, and need to spend their extra time trying to make money. Sure, there may be "bored people" who do this because they're retired or whatever, but that's a tiny minority. Most people do not become part-time ca…

But it's not even sustainable for the big companies. Even with screwing over their please-don't-call-them-employees, they still need constant infusions of investor cash to stay afloat.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#213

Post by slivym »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #171
procinct wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are basically biding their time until driverless cars take off it seems.

That's what I never really got. The fact that self driving cars will be the savior for Uber. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the concept is viable in urban areas within 5 years and Uber puts a massive fleet of self driving vehicles on the road. While it's certainly true that they wouldn't have to pay drivers it would be a massive shift in capital investment. The "genius" of Uber is shifting the necessary…

Well I think there are two counter points: Uber already has a running business, so it's relatively easy for them to go to a bank and say 'Here's how much a fleet of cars cost, here are the running costs, would you finance us $3Bn for it'. The answer is almost certainly yes, and if not then venture capital would probably fill the gap.

The second point is that there are two keys to making money out of this: Have self-driving cars, find customers to rent the self-driving cars. Uber is already established in the second part. So it might be true that another company buys the cars and tries to run the business, but uber has the established customer base.

In my opinion the future of self-driving cars inevitably ends up with one of the big players buying uber to allow them to monetize their fleet.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#215

Post by nemo3141 »

aianus wrote: post #102
SamReidHughes wrote: post #7

Any Uber drivers want to chime in?

I drove for Uber part-time last year in Canada and made less than $3 an hour on paper at tax time. However, this is highly misleading simply because I was able to deduct fixed "business expenses" that I would have spent anyways to own a car. Insurance, parking, licensing, registration, and finance interest, were all things that I would have spent anyways in the exact same amounts even if I only drove the car for pers…

I am not sure about Canada but in US you are supposed to deduct expenses for Insurance, parking, licensing, registration as a percent of miles driven for business. So 20k miles driven total with 10k for Uber and 10k for personal means only half of your car expenses is deductible for Uber income.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#216

Post by addicted »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #198
sundvor wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and ruining life of lots of people in the process. But hey, all for big money!

I do not see how subsidizing work is "ruining life of people". I, for one, receive competitive salary from market and would love my work be additionally subsidized by VC. Ruin me all you can.

Subsidizing poorly paid work. Work that on the median, if the research is correct, does not even make 50% of minimum wage.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#217

Post by Clanan »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #123
Clanan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left with much.

> If you exclude research due to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left with much. If the majority of research is tainted by conflicts, that doesn't somehow make it any less tainted by conflicts. It's trivially easy to design a study to produce the results you want it to, just by selecting things like accounting methods at the outset. For example, one method of accounting is to allo…

Nothing you said refutes my claim. All research requires some sort of funding. Humans have biases which can affect their judgment/work. If you think potential conflicts should automatically make a paper worthless, then you're basically excluding the vast majority of scientific work. Read the paper and decide whether its methodology and results are valid and correct. Don't just look at a list of sponsors and walk away - that's just intellectual laziness.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#218

Post by Clanan »

crdoconnor wrote: post #193
Clanan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left with much.

>Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left with much. It makes sense to try and figure out what the funders would want the answer to be and see if the research matches that. If it does, shouldn't you be more skeptical? For example, if Ex…

Every patron of every piece of research is hoping to benefit from it. I certainly agree that a reader should consider the goals of the authors and backers, and I would hope the authors would make both clear. I just get piqued when intellectual laziness steps in and says "don't read this, it's funded by biased sponsors (i.e. humans)!"

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#219

Post by sbronstein »

RealityVoid wrote: post #182
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxicabs such as in NYC are (were) monopolies. The price you paid was far above what the market rate should have been, which is why drivers were able to make livings on them. Uber/Lyft are simply forcing prices back down to the market rate which is where the prices should be in a free market. Driving isn't really something that should be a career. > "Why is it that a company that's supposed to be vastly more efficien…

> The price you paid was far above what the market rate should have been, which is why drivers were able to make livings on them. This sentence makes no sense to me. How can something's "market rate" be non-profitable for the producer? If you have market forces acting on something the balance of forces will necessarily push the price higher than the price of production. If something doesn't make sense to sell because…

> How can something's "market rate" be non-profitable for the producer?

You are confusing 'making a living' with making something. Even if a driver only nets $3.37/hour, that is still 'profit'. Just not enough to feed/house/etc yourself if it's your primary source of income.

Re: Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds

#220

Post by Clanan »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #150
Clanan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left with much.

How exactly would you suggest people read the paper? The article linked to a brief [1] which says literally absolutely nothing about how they conjured up their numbers. And the paper itself is here [2]. It's rather worse than a paywall. Instead the paper is restricted to their "sponsors" until an embargo of up to 6 months. This sort of behavior should not instill confidence in the paper's conclusions. And I think it…

Good point, but even getting this far is better than dismissing it out of hand because of a sponsors list. I do agree that the lack of actual paper does not instill confidence.
Post reply on HN