I'm gonna check out this "study" and see which market was used and what time period (Covid or pre-Covid)Les Ants,
I often hear a lot of complaints on here about what the Ants are earning. I'm here to dispel those myths using evidenced-based empirical research as opposed to the hit pieces run by often left-leaning news outlets.
Linked is a New York Times piece that summarizes and attempts to discredit the 136 page Cornell piece that is also linked. The study was conducted using data from both UBER and Lyft. This is the most rigorous study I have seen on the topic and the methodologies are sound. It adjusts earnings in ways that I have been advocating for for some time.
For instance, it nets out the time that ants are running both apps, ie. if you are running both apps for an hour, it counts it as an hour, not two. This is a huge adjustment for the denominator. It also only includes incremental costs and excludes things like insurance, which the Ant would be paying for regardless. It also deducts depreciation due to the aging of the vehicle, which again would happen regardless of Anting. It includes depreciation from mileage (note that the diminution in value of a vehicle has two components - the age and the mileage). The most controversial exclusion is wait time when not actively driving or en route to a pickup. If you believe that time should be included, you can deduct $2.50 from the levels below.
After applying this thoughtful analysis, the researchers concluded that part-time Ants, which they peg as 85% of the population, make $23.25/hour AFTER expenses or $46,500 annually based on 40 hrs. a week for 50 weeks a year. Full-time Ants make $17.40/hour or $34,800 annually. Many recent college graduates are making between $39-$48k as illustrated by the table below.
For a profession (Anting) that requires no education and very little skill, it appears that the Ants are being overcompensated.
View attachment 605557
Uber and Lyft hailed a Cornell paper’s conclusion that their drivers make solid wages. But others have questioned the researchers’ approach.www.nytimes.com
De La Creme
I'm gonna check it out of curiosity by I don't need to check it to know that if the numbers you posted ($23 per hour after expenses) are what the study claims, it's a total lie, PERIOD.
Common sense dictates that's a total lie.
There's no way in hell that a job that pays that kind of money AND provides flexible hours would ever have a horrendous 98% yearly turnover rate. NO FREAKING WAY.
$23 per hour AFTER expenses is good money, and when coupled with flexible hours makes a winning combination that people would flock to and STAY.
But Uber can't keep drivers for more than a few months.
Either your numbers are bogus and/or the study is bogus.