# No, Driving for Uber Is Not a Payday Loan



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

*No, Driving for Uber Is Not a Payday Loan*
*Critics vastly overestimate cost of driving a car.*
Jared Meyer & Nick Archer | July 11, 2016
http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/11/no-driving-for-uber-is-not-a-payday-loan

Is Uber, a ridesharing company, offering well-paid, flexible employment options or taking advantage of drivers who do not understand the raw deal that they are receiving? A recent YouTube video, Why Uber Is A Scam, has over 875,000 views and claims that math proves driving for Uber is a scam-akin to taking out a payday loan. But beware of sensationalist claims-especially those that show Uber drivers somehow lose money.

Earnings differ by location, but most drivers agree that the average net wage lies between $14 and $15 dollars per hour, after accounting for Uber's fee. However, drivers provide their own cars, are responsible for fuel costs, and have to take into account vehicle maintenance and depreciation. It is difficult to estimate exactly how much drivers spend on their vehicles. But that does not stop those who oppose the sharing economy from dramatically overestimating drivers' costs in efforts to stir up outrage over Uber.

Considering that over half of Uber drivers still actively partner with the platform a year after they first started, the claim that Uber drivers lose money is laughable. But how much does it actually cost to drive for Uber?

IRS allows drivers to deduct from their taxes as the cost of driving. This amount drastically overstates the cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a vehicle, and assumes the vehicle is used only to drive for Uber.

To obtain a far more accurate estimate of the costs of driving, one must isolate the increase in costs attributable to the extra miles driven for Uber. In other words, people should not look at the cost of driving, for example, 10,000 miles per year. What needs to be analyzed are the costs from increasing vehicle usage from 10,000 miles per year to 20,000 miles per year.

The difference is massive.

According to AAA's 2016 report, after taking into account vehicle, maintenance, and fuel costs, driving 10,000 miles per year in a small sedan (the preferred vehicle for Uber drivers) costs an average of 57.4 cents per mile. This is a significant sum, and one that would make driving for Uber a lot less appealing. However, the benefit of Uber is that drivers usually already own and drive their vehicles non-commercially (around 13,000 miles per year onaverage).

The median Uber driver drives 10 hours per week. Based on this hours driven, capacity utilization rates, averagespeed, and passenger wait times, we estimate that average Uber drivers partner with the company for roughly 10,000 miles per year. For simplicity, let us assume that typical drivers increase their driving volume from 10,000 miles to 20,000 miles per year by deciding to partner with Uber. AAA's 2016 report and basic algebra reveal that the 10,000 additional miles cost only 16.4 cents per mile. This is a far cry from the oft-cited 54 cents a mile.

As driving volume increases, both personally and commercially, this price falls lower still. For Uber drivers working 10 hours per week and driving 10,000 miles per year, the cost of owning and operating their small sedans for the additional 10,000 miles comes to $3.15 per hour. This expenditure is far less than what is assumed by some of Uber's critics (around $15 per hour).

Of course larger cars have larger costs-the second 10,000 miles in a medium-size sedan cost 19.8 cents per mile. But even this expense is still only 37 percent of the 54 cents per mile claim. These numbers show how Uber drivers derive substantial cost advantages (in terms of cost per mile) from using vehicles that are already owned and personally driven. Uber drivers and customers all benefit from this crucial advantage.

These costs are not exact and they vary by driver and location, but our numbers offer a clear picture of what makes the sharing economy so transformative. By utilizing underused resources such as houses, vehicles, and tools, and by allowing people to monetize underused portions of their time, the sharing economy takes advantage of the significantly lower costs that come from marginally increased usage.

Instead of paying 57.4 cents per mile to operate a company-owned taxi for 10,000 miles, ridesharing drivers pay 16.4 cents per mile to operate their cars an additional 10,000 miles. Similarly, instead of paying $300 to buy a table saw, the sharing economy's platforms allow someone to rent an unused table saw on NeighborGoods at a miniscule marginal cost.

Sharing-economy services make it faster and easier for people to take advantage of productive efficiencies for the betterment of both providers and users. So no, Uber is not some new version of payday loans. Don't believe everything you see on YouTube.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Just once, I'd like to see one of these articles that claim to have a handle on what it costs to operate a car for rideshare be authored by someone who has actually driven rideshare for more than 1 ride - and seen firsthand what the expenses are when driving a normal vehicle both part-time and full-time hours.

The first mistake the authors make is trying to identify 'average' costs of the 'average' driver. While those numbers might be useful for data analysis, they are meaningless to real people - as no one is 'average'. All those numbers mean is that most people do NOT meet those numbers.

The second mistake the authors make is using 10,000 miles as the 'average' miles driven by a part-time driver for which the driver earns compensation. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the 10,000 miles/yr number is actual miles driven in rideshare pursuit, then that means the driver was compensated for only ~5,000 miles - since the 'average' driver must drive 2 miles to get paid for one mile. If the 10,000 miles number used by the author is compensated miles, then the actual expense incurred by the driver is twice that of the number the author states - again, because the driver actually drives ~2 miles to get paid for 1 mile.

The fact is that with hundreds of thousands of drivers involved in TNC driving in the US - maybe millions - there is no 'average expense', and the actual expense per mile to each driver is unique, based on their own particular circumstances. For the author of this article to calculate what is an incredibly optimistic expense per mile based on the most advantageous circumstances and then claim that is the 'expense number' that should be used to evaluate profitability for all drivers is simply disingenuous.

In my own real-world experience, driving only part-time (after work on weekdays and a bit on weekends) from July 1st to August 10th, I managed to put 10,000 miles on my vehicle. That's a far cry from the 10,000 miles per year the author uses to base his numbers on.

And the authors state: "Considering that over half of Uber drivers still actively partner with the platform a year after they first started, the claim that Uber drivers lose money is laughable" - which is contrary to Uber's own information which states that 50% of drivers stop driving after just 6 months. For the authors to re-frame those factual numbers to state that 'around 50% of drivers stop driving after 1 year - and state that is laughable', is simply absurd and tells me the authors wrote the article to support their own predrawn-conclusions.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *No, Driving for Uber Is Not a Payday Loan*
> *Critics vastly overestimate cost of driving a car.*
> Jared Meyer & Nick Archer | July 11, 2016
> http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/11/no-driving-for-uber-is-not-a-payday-loan
> ...


Where is the breakdown of the figures ?

Where is the math ?

Watching my TV 100 hours a month does NOT cost half of watching it 50 hours.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> For the author to reframe those factual numbers to state that around 50% of drivers stop driving after 1 year - and state that is laughable, is simply absurd and tells me the author wrote the article to support his own pre-conclusion.


Someone once asked Will Rogers if he read fiction. His reply was that he read it every day: the newspapers.

If he were alive to-day, he would have to change that to: the internet.


----------



## HERR_UBERMENSCH (Jun 3, 2016)

Obviously written by someone who works with/for Uber, has the stink of their math all over it.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

It was done by Reason.com, and there shills for Uber and fracking. We've already countered them on Twitter and explained their fallacy but they won't stop.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

Even if you take this article's numbers for granted ($14-15/hour adjusted gross - $3.15/hour for expenses), drivers are still making only about $11 an hour. In California that's a smidgen more than minimum wage. And without any of the following:

1) retirement or social security
2) worker's comp
3) unemployment
4) health insurance
5) skills training

Plus 6) they're saddled with all the risks and liability of owning their own business.

So what's the point of the article? Yeah, drivers aren't actually losing money unless you count _opportunity cost_. They could be working at a minimum wage job and doing better for themselves.

The entire article is straw-man fallacy. Drivers don't argue they actually make a net loss each day. They just realize that driving doesn't pay them enough to actually live.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> In my own real-world experience, driving only part-time (after work on weekdays and a bit on weekends) from July 1st to August 10th, I managed to put 10,000 miles on my vehicle. That's a far cry from the 10,000 mile per year the author uses to base his numbers on.


You call driving 250 miles a day for 41 straight days part time? Holy crap, you have very high expectations.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> You call driving 250 miles a day for 41 straight days part time? Holy crap, you have very high expectations.


lol! No, not high expectations for others... it's just how it works our for me. While I don't drive everyday after-work, I do most nights, and can easily stay out till 2 or 3am. It just happens. Quite often in-between ride requests I'm doing work on the phone or computer for my full-time work.

And you have to know that in July here in Cleveland we had all of those CAVs games and celebrations and then the Republican National Convention. There were a lot of opportunities to drive.

Thanks to our 'ZELLO' group, driving has become a pretty social activity in my city for those who want it to be.

All that being said, it's easy for me to put 250 miles/day on my car driving just part-time.


----------



## crookedhalo (Mar 15, 2016)

Why is the argument always, it's a second job so it shouldn't pay a living wage and since you should have owned a car before hand then the added maintenance costs don't count? Is this really the logic that goes into these pro uber articles?


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Thanks to our 'ZELLO' group, driving has become a pretty social activity in my city for those who want it to be.
> 
> All that being said, it's easy for me to put 250 miles/day on my car driving just part-time.


I'm so lost on your post. How the hell is 250 miles of city driving a day part time? I live in perhaps the most spread out metropolitan area with the highest speed limits. I drive full time (60-70 hrs/wk) and I only do about 1,000 miles a week. Our surface streets are 45-50 mph and our freeways are 65 mph. To do 250 miles a day part time I would have to drive my freeways for 4 hours nonstop. Just can't see my pax doing the tuck and roll exit at 65 mph.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> I'm so lost on your post. How the hell is 250 miles of city driving a day part time? I live in perhaps the most spread out metropolitan area with the highest speed limits. I drive full time (60-70 hrs/wk) and I only do about 1,000 miles a week. Our surface streets are 45-50 mph and our freeways are 65 mph. To do 250 miles a day part time I would have to drive my freeways for 4 hours nonstop. Just can't see my pax doing the tuck and roll exit at 65 mph.


What can I tell ya - I'm not you, and I'm not in Phoenix. 5 to 6 airport pickups here can result in 250 miles/day. Between 6P and 1A our airport (which is a small airport) sees around 50 flights come in. Between rush hour trips, events/concerts and airport runs, it's pretty easy to rack on the miles and do 60 trips/wk part-time.


----------



## crookedhalo (Mar 15, 2016)

I wouldn't really call 7 hours a day part time. I think that's what he was trying to say


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

crookedhalo said:


> I wouldn't really call 7 hours a day part time. I think that's what he was trying to say


 When you work 60/hrs + wk at your reg work, 7 hours/day, 5 days/wk is part-time.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

I have no sympathy for people who choose to work that much. It makes life harder for people who actually want to enjoy life without slaving two-thirds of it away.

Working 100 hours a week is nothing to be proud of. You're taking a job away from someone who actually needs it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> I have no sympathy for people who choose to work that much.


 Who asked for your sympathy?


> It makes life harder for people who actually want to enjoy life without slaving two-thirds of it away. ... You're taking a job away from someone who actually needs it.


 Nothing personal, but that's about the most anti-free market, anti-work ethic, anti-freedom, anti-individual choice, anti-American thing I've ever read. I do what I enjoy and am not stopping anyone from doing the same. I own my own business and work as much as I like - and I drive TNC because I want to. To suggest that no one who doesn't 'need' to work should work, is absurd. Driving Uber/Lyft is NOT a job. It is an opportunity - an investment. Some people make money doing it, others lose money. Period.


> Working 100 hours a week is nothing to be proud of.


Who said anything about being proud? You're just pulling stuff out of thin air.


----------



## UberXking (Oct 14, 2014)

Flarpy said:


> I have no sympathy for people who choose to work that much. It makes life harder for people who actually want to enjoy life without slaving two-thirds of it away.
> 
> Working 100 hours a week is nothing to be proud of. You're taking a job away from someone who actually needs it.


almost 70,000 miles last year less than 35 hours a week. Sitting on your butt..... this is the easiest job in the world!


----------



## CatchyMusicLover (Sep 18, 2015)

I did 13K in the first year of having my car. While I didn't do rideshare ALL the time, a large number of weeks were 30+ hours a week. 10K in five weeks? I can't even fathom anyone thinking that's a worthwhile endevor.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

Based on current gas prices, mileage-based depreciation, and lifetime maintenance on the vehicles I've used for Uber, my average cost to operate my vehicle per mile is:

*21 cents*

Insurance/registration adds only about 4 cents more, but those are costs I pay anyway regardless of Uber.

Granted, I drive an older, paid-off vehicle in a location with very low fees, with very low-cost insurance. But most people should easily be able to beat the 50+ published average. If you can't, you have no business driving for Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

renbutler said:


> Based on current gas prices, mileage-based depreciation, and lifetime maintenance on the vehicles I've used for Uber, my average cost to operate my vehicle per mile is: *21 cents*.


That's inline with what I see, too.


----------



## MSUGrad9902 (Jun 8, 2016)

I see flarpy is at it again with his pinko-commie talk.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/this...-complain-about-uber-lyft.95244/#post-1339056


----------



## bingybingyfoo (May 5, 2016)

Yeah, I have to admit that I like the article quite a bit - though I would say that the "average " net per hour (sounds) more like what the full timers mention, they take slower hours that can leave you down. If you do just ten hours each week, you're theoretically going to do the most lucrative hours available to you, and your average income per hour may be higher. 
Maybe this all makes sense to me because I am kind of an econ geek, and I've always loved this stuff. As for the numbers, I was surprised to read that half of all drivers last a year, and I assume that this number and the others used must be from obvious public sources, because o/w, foul there, obv. But the estimates I see from many drivers match with my own, that our cost of fuel and maintenance seems to average in the 15-20c/m range, and then of course some folks have hybrids, and some are driving euro, with higher maint costs, etc. 
Maybe some of you would be more comfortable with the language if the author had presented the "average" of driving ten hours each week and all, but merely called it, an example.
The point, which is made so clearly here, I thought, is the difference between _the cost of owning and insuring and operating a vehicle, _as is all included in the 57c/m calculation (as is, your own time), vs the costs accrued in operating that existing vehicle *more* , to Uber. Underutilized resources, is the name of this game. If you have the free time (Underutilized resource #1), and nobody is driving your vehicle (Underutilized resource #2), you now have the opportunity to connect with passengers who will pay for both and, if you are decent at this at all, leave you ahead financially. Seriously, it's that simple. The complaints about the gig economy are real, and some math somewhere really should be done to include the costs (of time and expertise for administration, in benefits and qualifications, for example for UEI), as well as the additional risks, imposed on those who take part. But that's a different discussion, much bigger than whether you and I, are all, damn fools, every time we go online. 
I have plenty of beef with Uber, Uber made my NDB dissappear, Uber is shady and neglectful and a huge pain in the a$$. I don't believe Uber will outlast ridesharing for pay, and I am hopeful that the next offering might be superior. I would DEFINITELY try a third option in a hot second. But I side with the drivers who feel like we are entering this willingly, we are making it pay, and basically, it's way, way, better than anything else I ever did that pays > $10/hr.
As ever, YMMV Uber on


----------



## The Mollusk (Feb 13, 2016)

MSUGrad9902 said:


> I see flarpy is at it again with his pinko-commie talk.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/this...-complain-about-uber-lyft.95244/#post-1339056


Looks like he is.

If he were to experience the joys of socialism first hand he's likely change his mind.

Had a client tell me that he was managing his restaurant, doing paperwork in the back office when the government men first came in. They were doing an inventory on his property ( chairs, tables, cans of pasta sauce etc). When he asked what they were doing the socialists responded that they were inventorying the new restaurant that now belonged to General So&So.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Nothing personal, but that's about the most anti-free market, anti-work ethic, anti-freedom, anti-individual choice, anti-American thing I've ever read.


I smell a Trump voter.


----------



## MSUGrad9902 (Jun 8, 2016)

Flarpy - don't start man. You trolled everybody and then disappeared in the other thread. Don't start up again here.


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

This stuff is not rocket science. The going rate for a daily rental of a car starts at around $50 bucks and goes up from there depending on the model. Any view of costs for drivers must deduct at least $50 bucks a day for the cost of maintaining and insuring a vehicle. And that doesn't count fuel! 

Then, and only then, can you examine the true income of any Uber driver.


----------



## MSUGrad9902 (Jun 8, 2016)

I don't think a "rental" fee is truly indicative of the cost to operate a vehicle - there is profit to the rental company built into that fee. I think reason is correct that it doesn't actually cost 54 cents per mile to operate most vehicles, especially if you purchased a used vehicle and most of the depreciation is already realized. And who knows what the marginal costs are actually going to be? For instance, I just had a repair on my Ford Flex. The HID bulb assembly failed on the drivers side. I bought this car in April. Since then I've put 13,000 miles on it. And of those miles, 8,284 are attributable to ridesharing. So how much of the repair is attributable to rideshare and how much to personal use? 63%/37%?


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

agtg said:


> This stuff is not rocket science. The going rate for a daily rental of a car starts at around $50 bucks and goes up from there depending on the model. Any view of costs for drivers must deduct at least $50 bucks a day for the cost of maintaining and insuring a vehicle. And that doesn't count fuel!
> 
> Then, and only then, can you examine the true income of any Uber driver.


It's not rocket science, but it's far more complex than you're making it.

When you rent a car, you're paying for the car but also the guy who rented it to you, the lot the car was parked on, the building that houses the main office, the ads to get your business, a small bit of profit, and countless other things related to the cost of doing business.

So there's no WAY that expenses are $50 a day for the average person. Those of us who have calculated real-world mileage costs over the life of our vehicles come in far below that.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> I have no sympathy for people who choose to work that much. It makes life harder for people who actually want to enjoy life without slaving two-thirds of it away.
> 
> Working 100 hours a week is nothing to be proud of. You're taking a job away from someone who actually needs it.


OTOH, I admire people who are willing to work as much as it takes to meet whatever their goals may be. And Michael - Cleveland's working 100 hours per week doesn't hurt anyone else. I seriously doubt anyone at Uber is saying "we don't need to hire any more drivers because we have Michael".

To the original subject, I do think that 10,000 miles is a ridiculously small number for most part-time drivers. I average about 15 hours per week and I estimate I'll do at least 20000 miles per year in addition to the 15000 I normally drive for personal use.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

Tequila Jake said:


> OTOH, I admire people who are willing to work as much as it takes to meet whatever their goals may be. And Michael - Cleveland's working 100 hours per week doesn't hurt anyone else. I seriously doubt anyone at Uber is saying "we don't need to hire any more drivers because we have Michael".


Um, do I really have to explain this? If "Michael" is on the road making money for his eighth child and third house, then he's getting pings that poor drivers -- who have eschewed these needless expenses -- should be getting.

I can't believe it's that difficult to fathom.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> Um, do I really have to explain this? If "Michael" is on the road making money for his eighth child and third house, then he's getting pings that poor drivers -- who have eschewed these needless expenses -- should be getting.
> 
> I can't believe it's that difficult to fathom.


Maybe you'd find it more palatable that his reason for driving his that he's found the solution to global warming and he's trying to fund its implementation without relying on the Wall St 1%-ers.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> Um, do I really have to explain this? If "Michael" is on the road making money for his eighth child and third house, then he's getting pings that poor drivers -- who have eschewed these needless expenses -- should be getting.


Heh, actually, many of the poor are poor specifically because of their bad financial choices. You could give them $100,000, and they would still end up poor. I know people like that, so don't say they don't exist.

BTW, if you can afford to own a car good enough for Ubering, you're not poor. We need to escape this notion that "poor" is always the bottom 20%, or somebody who can't afford luxuries.

(Obviously, and this shouldn't need to be said but does, there are a lot of legitimately poor folks are simply unlucky, or unable to work, etc. But the majority of people classified as "poor" are not simply a few pings away from not being poor anymore.)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

bingybingyfoo said:


> As for the numbers, I was surprised to read that half of all drivers last a year, and I assume that this number and the others used must be from obvious public sources, because o/w, foul there, obv.


 That one year number includes drivers who stopped driving - but do one ride a month to remain 'active' in Ubers system. The real number is that most new drivers stop driving after six months (when the real costs start to catch up with them).


> The point, which is made so clearly here, I thought, is the difference between _the cost of owning and insuring and operating a vehicle, _as is all included in the 57c/m calculation (as is, your own time), vs the costs accrued in operating that existing vehicle *more* , to Uber. Underutilized resources, is the name of this game. If you have the free time (Underutilized resource #1), and nobody is driving your vehicle (Underutilized resource #2), you now have the opportunity to connect with passengers who will pay for both and, if you are decent at this at all, leave you ahead financially. Seriously, it's that simple.


 Two problems with that:
1. A car is a depreciating asset. The more miles you put on it in the same amount of time, the faster it loses its value - and drivers don't earn enough to be able to replace that asset, so once the asset is dead, so is its ability to earn money for the driver.
2. A driver spending X hours driving is giving up an irreplaceable commodity: their time. Time that could be used to do other things (make money, work somewhere else, time with family, etc.). Of course there's no way to put a set value on one's time... but it does need to be considered.


> But I side with the drivers who feel like we are entering this willingly, we are making it pay, and basically, it's way, way, better than anything else I ever did that pays > $10/hr.


Me too, generally. My real complaint is the way that new drivers get sucked into this, by Uber and Lyft, thinking it's a sure way to make money. The companies should, IMO, be held to a standard of transparency based on all of the data they now have and be required to explain the costs and risks involved.


----------



## bingybingyfoo (May 5, 2016)

Um, what third world measure are you using? Being able to own a six thousand dollar vehicle in no way precludes "poorness". At minimum it is an opportunity to earn, but without actually making money with it, it's more like a necessary expense, for most people.


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

renbutler said:


> It's not rocket science, but it's far more complex than you're making it.
> 
> When you rent a car, you're paying for the car but also the guy who rented it to you, the lot the car was parked on, the building that houses the main office, the ads to get your business, a small bit of profit, and countless other things related to the cost of doing business.
> 
> So there's no WAY that expenses are $50 a day for the average person. Those of us who have calculated real-world mileage costs over the life of our vehicles come in far below that.


The average commercial insurance policy, if one chooses to be properly insured for this, is approximately $300 per month. That's a vehicle expense, and that's why rentals are more than what you're likely considering. Throw in the cost of regular maintenance, inevitable mechanic fees, and general depreciation, and I cannot see how you can get much lower than $50 a day. But, if you've got a run down that you think represents a more accurate view I'd like to see it.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

bingybingyfoo said:


> Um, what third world measure are you using? Being able to own a six thousand dollar vehicle in no way precludes "poorness". At minimum it is an opportunity to earn, but without actually making money with it, it's more like a necessary expense, for most people.


If you're poor and truly need a car, you can get one for far less than $6,000.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> Um, do I really have to explain this? If "Michael" is on the road making money for his eighth child and third house, then he's getting pings that poor drivers -- who have eschewed these needless expenses -- should be getting.


Who the hell are you to call my eighth child a needless expense? I have big plans for that kid - She's going to cure cancer.

I'll tell you what, since I can afford all of my needless expenses, why don't you tell those who can't afford them, to stop consuming all of those needless extravagances like tats, iPhones, AirJordans, etc.?


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

agtg said:


> The average commercial insurance policy, if one chooses to be properly insured for this, is approximately $300 per month.


$300 a month? How frickin' expensive is your car that insurance -- even ride-sharing insurance -- costs that much?

I was quoted a hybrid policy last year, and it was barely more than my regular personal policy.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

agtg said:


> The average commercial insurance policy, if one chooses to be properly insured for this, is approximately $300 per month.


If by 'this' you mean TNC rideshare, then, no - it's not $300/mo. The TNCs provide the liability insurance for the riders. Adding rideshare coverage to a personal policy (in states where it's available) is about 1/10th that cost.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

BTW, here's what "poverty" means in the US.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Most who fall below the flawed poverty line are hardly "poor."

Only those at the very bottom, who own virtually nothing and don't know where there next meal is going to come from, are truly poor. Thankfully there are outstanding charities that help those folks back on their feet, hopefully to start providing for themselves again down the road.* I strongly encourage everybody to donate to those outstanding organizations.*


----------



## bingybingyfoo (May 5, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 1. A car is a depreciating asset. The more miles you put on it in the same amount of time, the faster it loses its value - and drivers don't earn enough to be able to replace that asset, so once the asset is dead, so is its ability to earn money for the driver.


To that last I say, duh, the vehicle is part of your investment, and if you drive it to death with no plans for replacement, you are in the same position as anyone working any job who needs a car. A future vehicle must be on the mental horizon of anyone over 150k miles. Either way, you do or don't make that happen.
For the first part though, don't be foolish, obviously the same car is worth less with 250k than with 150k, but the difference isn't an even ratio- the change from 50k-150k is far more dramatic. For me, that's at least two more years I can be working toward my next car.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> 2. A driver spending X hours driving is giving up an irreplaceable commodity: their time. Time that could be used to do other things (make money, work somewhere else, time with family, etc.). Of course there's no way to put a set value on one's time... but it does need to be considered.


I included the resource of the driver's time but opportunity cost is only so meaningful, it must be compared only to other sources of income.



renbutler said:


> If you're poor and truly need a car, you can get one for far less than $6,000.


Again, omg what standard is poor?! Are we talking just past homeless, desperate, zero options, collecting recyclables to have a car? Yes of course a car can be had for less, but 6k is near the bottom of reliable decent choice to count on for a few years. A cheaper car will probably cost you more in the long run. And both will still cost you money after, I said necessary expense, not in reference to owning a better car (and $6k is still a *very* cheap car), but in keeping and insuring and operating *any car*.


----------



## bingybingyfoo (May 5, 2016)

renbutler said:


> BTW, here's what "poverty" means in the US.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
> 
> Most who fall below the flawed poverty line are hardly "poor."


LOL, judgy, much? Howtf do you get to say who is "poor"? The poverty line was calculated when food was our biggest expense, and based on that number ×3, per person. Food is half what it used to cost, but nobody even had car insurance, or cell phones, or rent 10x what they spend on food, when that was calculated. It's beyond outdated, but let's call it accurate anyway - You didn't answer my question - if you say it's still too high, where *does* the line fall in your opinion?


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

renbutler said:


> BTW, here's what "poverty" means in the US.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
> 
> ...


Charities and social programs leave people who are truly poor in our nation in a languishing state. I now, I've fed plenty of them for years. The real issue is that globalists have a plan and that plan is not to bring the third world status to an end by economic prosperity, it's to bring the first world standard to the 3rd world standard because that's much easier to do and continues the wealth transfer. You see, you can only transfer wealth out of the hands of the wealthy. The 3rd world has no wealth, and that's going to stay that way. It's the 1st world that's getting fleeced.


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If by 'this' you mean TNC rideshare, then, no - it's not $300/mo. The TNCs provide the liability insurance for the riders. Adding rideshare coverage to a personal policy (in states where it's available) is about 1/10th that cost.


Go ahead and prove there are even ten states in our nation that offer coverage that's reasonable for rideshare. Anyone can live like they're a rickshaw driver in a 3rd world country, but in America when people get hurt people sue and can take real assets from people who are not properly covered. You may even be found criminally negligent.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

agtg said:


> Go ahead and prove there are even ten states in our nation that offer coverage that's reasonable for rideshare. Anyone can live like they're a rickshaw driver in a 3rd world country, but in America when people get hurt people sue and can take real assets from people who are not properly covered. You may even be found criminally negligent.


Do your own homework.
Oh, okay, if you insist:

AL
AZ
AK
CA
CO
CT
GA
IN
KS
KY
MN
MD
MA
MN
NC <--- added in edit - but disputed
NE
NJ
NM
OH
OK
PA
SC
TN
TX
UT
VA
WA
WI

I have rideshare coverage here in Ohio - and it cost me less than $15/mo more than my old policy without it. I saved enough that I was able to add a $1mil liability umbrella policy, too.


----------



## Bad uber pro (May 16, 2016)

What shocks me everyday is these claims of people that never drove before that they know how much drivers are making without a poll basing that on market and type of hours the driver work. Yet they know it all, it's like uber just provided them with that information. 
Well, driving full time is a nightmare and dealing with difficult people eventually will get the best of you. Doing it part time, which lots of people do is lot of hard work for so little money and time taken away from your family that you will never get back. Whatever the figure is, it's definitely not worth it and sooner or later the driver finds that out.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Bad uber pro said:


> What shocks me everyday is these claims of people that never drove before that they know how much drivers are making without a poll basing that on market and type of hours the driver work. Yet they know it all, it's like uber just provided them with that information.
> Well, driving full time is a nightmare and dealing with difficult people eventually will get the best of you. Doing it part time, which lots of people do is lot of hard work for so little money and time taken away from your family that you will never get back. Whatever the figure is, it's definitely not worth it and sooner or later the driver finds that out.


Exactly... "but most drivers agree that the average net wage lies between $14 and $15 dollars per hour," I don't agree that at all. Someone driving minimum fare trips makes $6 an hour which is why I refuse all downtown pickups until late night.


----------



## canyon (Dec 22, 2015)

People if your doing this as a full time job, then yes you are morons. There are other driving jobs out there, route jobs and trucking jobs and so on. If you really wanted to get a better job you could. The problem is you enjoy not having a boss and somewhere in the back of your minds you actually think this can work as a full time gig. Who is fooling who here?


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

canyon said:


> People if your doing this as a full time job, then yes you are morons. There are other driving jobs out there, route jobs and trucking jobs and so on. If you really wanted to get a better job you could. The problem is you enjoy not having a boss and somewhere in the back of your minds you actually think this can work as a full time gig. Who is fooling who here?


Exactly. Full time UberX drivers baffle me. Good for them if they are actually in a place where they can make money, but part-time supplemental income is the answer.


----------



## Toyota Guy (May 18, 2016)

I've been driving for 3 1/2 months. I've worked about 400 hours and received about $17.00/hour. I've driven 11,000 miles in that period of time. My vehicle costs are .25/mile (estimating high: .10/mi for gas, .10/mi depreciation, .05/mi for maint and repair) I'm already paying for insurance and registrations. So, at .25/mi for the vehicle ($2750) and another few hundred for other stuff, figure $3000 in costs on the high side. That means net of $4000. Also, because of the IRS allowance of .54/mi plus other legit deductions (cell phone data, computer, etc), my deductions equal my income and no tax is due. Not a lot of money, but its OK; I'm ahead of the game.


----------



## OC Lady Uber Driver (Jun 26, 2016)

renbutler said:


> Heh, actually, many of the poor are poor specifically because of their bad financial choices. You could give them $100,000, and they would still end up poor. I know people like that, so don't say they don't exist.
> 
> BTW, if you can afford to own a car good enough for Ubering, you're not poor. We need to escape this notion that "poor" is always the bottom 20%, or somebody who can't afford luxuries.
> 
> (Obviously, and this shouldn't need to be said but does, there are a lot of legitimately poor folks are simply unlucky, or unable to work, etc. But the majority of people classified as "poor" are not simply a few pings away from not being poor anymore.)


*The working poor are those whose expenses outpace their income.

...and with that being said, my COBRA payment is the second most expensive bill I pay every month, next to my mortgage.


----------



## Trebor (Apr 22, 2015)

2 years, almost 80,000 miles driven, I have spent less than $2,000 maintaining and fixing a car that I paid almost $10,000 for. (oil changes, tires, cv axles, etc.)

Most of the stuff I am able to do myself, so I know I saved a lot of money, but I don't think I would of spent more than $5,000 in labor and parts if I were to take it somewhere. But let's assume it cost me $5,000

So, $10,000 for the car +$5,000 = $15,000

I know, most of the drivers out there won't have $10,000 cash to buy a car, but I did. So interest is not a factor for me.

80,000 miles at 56 cents a mile should of cost me $44,800 to drive that vehicle, according to IRS right?

No, it cost me less than $15,000. This car? Even with all of the miles, I can still command $5,000 from Craigslist TODAY.

So, basically if I got a new car today (which I may very well do in the next couple weeks.) Assuming, I am able to sell it for $5,000. That car would of cost me less than $10,000 to use it for Uber for the last couple of years.

These are of course approx. numbers, but they are real. I am not a number cruncher sitting at a editorial desk that drove Uber for one day just to turn it into a story.

Deprecation is totally what inflates that 56 cents a mile number and it can kiss my butt. When you are driving for Uber, your basically turning your car into an asset. Your car is your investment. Find a good deal. I have been looking around for almost a month, but this is the one time your car is a investment.

P.S. Insurance? Really? This is a factor for people? I am not UberBlack so I have regular full coverage insurance, which I would carry if I was not driving for Uber. The thing that cost more is my rideshare gap insurance which is about $7 more a month (USAA)


----------



## JapanFour (Mar 8, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> Um, do I really have to explain this? If "Michael" is on the road making money for his eighth child and third house, then he's getting pings that poor drivers -- who have eschewed these needless expenses -- should be getting.
> 
> I can't believe it's that difficult to fathom.


you dont have to explain this because its wrong. Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## neweagle (May 13, 2015)

bingybingyfoo said:


> The point, which is made so clearly here, I thought, is the difference between _the cost of owning and insuring and operating a vehicle, _as is all included in the 57c/m calculation (as is, your own time), vs the costs accrued in operating that existing vehicle *more* , to Uber. Underutilized resources, is the name of this game. If you have the free time (Underutilized resource #1), and nobody is driving your vehicle (Underutilized resource #2), you now have the opportunity to connect with passengers who will pay for both and, if you are decent at this at all, leave you ahead financially. Seriously, it's that simple.


I like this, but I would argue that what makes the sharing economy a viable option is that 1) the cost of entry is low, because you own and operate whatever the asset is already, and 2) *the cost of participation in negligible as well, because whatever you are sharing, you would be using anyway, or it costs very little to allow others to do so.* Therefore, you can generate a monetary benefit with low additional startup costs or operating expenses.

In my opinion, the operating model of TNCs aren't really a part of the "sharing" economy, in spite of their promotional efforts. Yes, the cost of entry is very low; I would assume that (like myself) the vast majority of drivers signed on with little or no cost, other than perhaps a ride-share addition to their insurance, since we already owned our cars. However, when it comes to #2 (insert gross bathroom pun here LOL), you can't generate a significant full-time or part-time benefit without dedicating a lot of extra time, and incurring a lot of extra costs for your car, that you wouldn't incur if you weren't driving. So you aren't "sharing" time and costs that were gonna happen anyway. I think this is why so many drivers have such a rude awakening. They get caught up in the hype of "sharing" something they own to do something that is easy and inexpensive to start doing, and is very flexible to keep doing, then are surprised that "sharing rides" is so darn expensive.

Personally, I only drive as a part of my commutes to and from work using the destination filter each way. The additional expenses above what I would spend anyway getting to and from the office are minimal compared to the income and tax benefit. For example, I've taken 13 trips so far this week, and my payout is $75, but I've only driven 30 miles out of my way. Plus, I can write off the 180 miles I've driven so far, even though I would have driven 150 of them anyway. So instead of spending just over $80 to drive 150 miles (using the IRS number of $0.54 per mile), I'm getting paid $75 now, and writing off over $97 later, for 30 extra miles of driving. This is how a "sharing" economy experience is supposed to work. I won't retire off of it, but it does make a sizeable impact on my finances.

Of course, I'm sensitive to the fact that Uber is a "keep food on the table / roof over my head" option for many folks, and the long term-costs have to dealt with later vs the money RIGHT NOW. I'm thankful that I can treat Uber as a "sharing" option, and wish everyone luck as they figure out how to best make it work for them.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

The only true statement in this thread is that it varies by market. so neither camp can say if you are losing money driving for uber. 
SF rates: $1.15 per mile, $0.22 per minute, $2.00 base.
LA rates: $0.85 per mile, $0.15 per minute, ZERO base.
the payout is significant in structure. Los Angeles/Oc are the only major markets with a Zero base fare. it is evident that while you can make money in cities like SF, you will lose money (after expenses and depreciation) in Los Angeles and Orange County.


----------



## Euius (May 19, 2016)

uber strike said:


> you will lose money (after expenses and depreciation) in Los Angeles and Orange County.


Only if you _pretend_ that fares are the whole and total compensation paid to drivers.

It's not. All those medals, all that guaranteed surge or guaranteed hours, all the per ride bonuses are compensation.

Seriously, if anybody really thought they were losing money then they wouldn't do the job. Yet it's always posted by _active drivers_ how they are "losing money driving". You can't even convincingly lie that you think you are losing money.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Euius said:


> Only if you _pretend_ that fares are the whole and total compensation paid to drivers.
> 
> It's not. All those medals, all that guaranteed surge or guaranteed hours, all the per ride bonuses are compensation.
> 
> Seriously, if anybody really thought they were losing money then they wouldn't do the job. Yet it's always posted by _active drivers_ how they are "losing money driving". You can't even convincingly lie that you think you are losing money.


everybody knows that medals are temporary. uber calls them a promotion. that's all they are. and medals have quotas and requirements which do not suit drivers that want to be their own boss and signed up for the flexibility. as for surge, medal drivers are killing surge.
and drivers are not doing the job. that's why uber had to give medals. drivers are not willing to drive after these last pay cuts.
also if drivers were doing the job then uber would not have the highest turnover rate of any company in the world. uber cannot keep their drivers. uber is forced to continue mass sign ups since inception


----------



## BostonBarry (Aug 31, 2015)

canyon said:


> People if your doing this as a full time job, then yes you are morons. There are other driving jobs out there, route jobs and trucking jobs and so on. If you really wanted to get a better job you could. The problem is you enjoy not having a boss and somewhere in the back of your minds you actually think this can work as a full time gig. Who is fooling who here?





agtg said:


> The average commercial insurance policy, if one chooses to be properly insured for this, is approximately $300 per month. That's a vehicle expense, and that's why rentals are more than what you're likely considering. Throw in the cost of regular maintenance, inevitable mechanic fees, and general depreciation, and I cannot see how you can get much lower than $50 a day. But, if you've got a run down that you think represents a more accurate view I'd like to see it.





m1a1mg said:


> Exactly. Full time UberX drivers baffle me. Good for them if they are actually in a place where they can make money, but part-time supplemental income is the answer.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...-UZlcBy-hAEZl9U-UXMCYc3dqw/edit?usp=drive_web


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Scott.Sul said:


> You forgot NC.


seriously? He only asked for 10.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

canyon said:


> People if your doing this as a full time job, then yes you are morons. There are other driving jobs out there, route jobs and trucking jobs and so on. If you really wanted to get a better job you could. The problem is you enjoy not having a boss and somewhere in the back of your minds you actually think this can work as a full time gig. Who is fooling who here?


This is only possible in the largest markets. That horse left the barn over a year ago in the smaller markets. There are too many drivers and the rates are way too low now. I hate that I actually believed in this company a couple of years ago.


----------



## Uberman8263 (Jan 11, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> Even if you take this article's numbers for granted ($14-15/hour adjusted gross - $3.15/hour for expenses), drivers are still making only about $11 an hour. In California that's a smidgen more than minimum wage. And without any of the following:
> 
> 1) retirement or social security
> 2) worker's comp
> ...


You failed to mention the fact that the driver has the opportunity to pay almost 15% of his earnings to Social Security.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Uberman8263 said:


> You failed to mention the fact that the driver has the opportunity to pay almost 15% of his earnings to Social Security.


Not really.
While the SS self-employment tax is made up of both the employer and employee portions, + 2.9% medicare tax,
the contribution is based on adjusted NET income, not gross.

"Net earnings for Social Security are your gross earnings from your trade or business, minus your allowable business deductions and depreciation." - social security administration


----------



## Euius (May 19, 2016)

uber strike said:


> everybody knows that medals are temporary. uber calls them a promotion.


So what? It's compensation, and you're being dishonest when you leave it out and pretend you're only being paid fares.

Drive when the compensation is worthwhile, stop when it isn't.



> medal drivers are killing surge.


That's the _point_. Riders don't like surge. Because Uber is _subsidizing, _you get to drive more than a ride every couple hours or so.

Again, if you're concerned about anything other than total compensation, you're doing this Uber thing wrong.


----------



## uberist (Jul 14, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> I have no sympathy for people who choose to work that much. It makes life harder for people who actually want to enjoy life without slaving two-thirds of it away.
> 
> Working 100 hours a week is nothing to be proud of. You're taking a job away from someone who actually needs it.


No one takes jobs away from anyone... want a job? Become better at it then the last applicant.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper (Aug 6, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> I smell a Trump voter.


Come on now. Greece, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. are all calling--they would love to have you. 

Because you know, a guy who knows American principles and points-out someone who enunciates things opposed to them must be pro-Democrat (most of Trump's historical positions), when the Democrats sound like you...


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou (Oct 13, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Where is the breakdown of the figures ?
> 
> Where is the math ?
> 
> Watching my TV 100 hours a month does NOT cost half of watching it 50 hours.


Yeah nothing adds up and it's vague uber speak. Sounds like uber employees wrote that "piece".


----------



## thelittleguyhelper (Aug 6, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> Um, do I really have to explain this? If "Michael" is on the road making money for his eighth child and third house, then he's getting pings that poor drivers -- who have eschewed these needless expenses -- should be getting.
> 
> I can't believe it's that difficult to fathom.


So what you're saying is those who want to work more must be stopped by force because it is "unfair." Hmmm... North Korea might value your intuition and services...


----------



## thelittleguyhelper (Aug 6, 2016)

uber strike said:


> everybody knows that medals are temporary. uber calls them a promotion. that's all they are. and medals have quotas and requirements which do not suit drivers that want to be their own boss and signed up for the flexibility.


Yeah so, you do know "promotions" means "incentives": it's PROMOTING something--like desirable behavior to the side wanting to promote something.

If you don't like it, don't take the promotion: freakin' simple. Almost like...you have the freedom as an independent guy to choose, just like they have the freedom to try to promote, and aren't in the business of taking care of you directly like a nanny...

p.s. I sound like a harsh d8ck because it's very, very important for people to be smacked enough to "get it" and stop whining like little babies and understand what they're in--even if really all they're doing is willfully ignoring it and squealing and screaming like a little brat who didn't get his milk yet.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper (Aug 6, 2016)

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> Yeah nothing adds up and it's vague uber speak. Sounds like uber employees wrote that "piece".


I remember, when I was an employee, sending-out maths for people who really wanted them: it just pissed those off who care more about hearing what they want to hear rather than getting a grip on objective reality. So then they'd turn and think you're the enemy (when it actually hurt my own performance measurements and reviews to take that extra time).

Then people wonder why companies start going "f*** this" and drop "caring" about people who, in return, don't reciprocate.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

crookedhalo said:


> Why is the argument always, it's a second job so it shouldn't pay a living wage and since you should have owned a car before hand then the added maintenance costs don't count? Is this really the logic that goes into these pro uber articles?


Yeah, it's like saying you have a spare room so it shouldn't be an issue letting a homeless bum live there for only $50 a month. After all, you already own the house, and he's not there ALL the time anyway.

Plus, the extra miles are more costly than regular miles since most if us don't trash out and vomit in our cars, or SLAM the doors 50 times for each two or three hundred miles we drive. I've never opened my car door into a curb or pole, or into traffic. The risk factor is much higher for unusual costs than it is without pax, not even taking into account the distraction factor of pax and navigation.

If the "extra" driving were the same, commercial insurance would be a lot cheaper. Only miles driven would matter, not how you do them.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Travis treats Uber like a payday loan, basically living from investor to investor, so basically Uber is living paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## FARIS (Jul 11, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> I smell a Trump voter.


I don't know how do you smell but everyone has the right to vote to whoever he want and no one need your approval for that.I'm going to vote for trump because I don't like hillary .I don't like him but I hate hillary more.I don't need to explain it to you .You don't need your or others approval to vote or do anything else .I'm sick of guys like you.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

thelittleguyhelper said:


> Yeah so, you do know "promotions" means "incentives": it's PROMOTING something--like desirable behavior to the side wanting to promote something.
> 
> If you don't like it, don't take the promotion: freakin' simple. Almost like...you have the freedom as an independent guy to choose, just like they have the freedom to try to promote, and aren't in the business of taking care of you directly like a nanny...
> 
> p.s. I sound like a harsh d8ck because it's very, very important for people to be smacked enough to "get it" and stop whining like little babies and understand what they're in--even if really all they're doing is willfully ignoring it and squealing and screaming like a little brat who didn't get his milk yet.


you must learn to understand context. without context you will reply with frivolity having no inclination of what the discussion is about.
in context, i was responding to his claim that incentives are compensation. in essence he was saying that we have extra income than just these cheap base rates. i responded by saying that although we can earn money through incentives he and anyone else is greatly mistaken if they think these incentives will stand.
and i also showed him the downside of incentives. so no, i was not saying that i do incentives cuz everyone from the Los Angeles threads know that i do not do incentives.
the downside of incentives is that they strip drivers of the luxury of being your own boss. the appeal of driving for uber was the flexibility we used to have. but now uber holds the reigns by setting a quota on drivers, telling them how much to drive and telling them where to drive and what time to drive in order to qualify.
so my point is that this is unacceptable for drivers that do not desire to become employees.
GET IT???


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

All im getting is everyone hates their jobs i hear not alot of avarage people like their jobs. If you doing part time work and makeing 100k+ a year your happy if not noone is happy. You want money be a politian or invent something its only way to make money in 2016. I make $1000 take home for 40hours as i just got on lyft express couple months ago i was makeing same as what i was when i was useing my own car but its just took me a few more hours to get to it. It all depends on your market i live in boston so that prolly helps me also. Im liveing comfortable. Not praiseing these guys but this kinda shows us our future. The most you could prolly get in a career now is maybe 10 years? What rideshare is showing us is the coorprate america dont give a shit about its little people and we little people just want freedom a good liveing a stability.


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

FARIS said:


> I don't know how do you smell but everyone has the right to vote to whoever he want and no one need your approval for that.I'm going to vote for trump because I don't like hillary .I don't like him but I hate hillary more.I don't need to explain it to you .You don't need your or others approval to vote or do anything else .I'm sick of guys like you.


Gary Johnson.


----------



## crookedhalo (Mar 15, 2016)

m1a1mg said:


> Gary Johnson.


Chelsea Clinton


----------



## Jimmy Bernat (Apr 12, 2016)

My Car costs me about 13 cents a mile to run that includes gas , maintenance and depreciation . I can add in car payment and insurance which would add 9 cents a mile to that to bring me to 21 cents a mile (my car payment insurance is based off of a 4,000 mile month obviously that cost would change depending on mileage but I've been averaging 3700 miles a month over the last 6 months on my car that includes personal miles )


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> Even if you take this article's numbers for granted ($14-15/hour adjusted gross - $3.15/hour for expenses), drivers are still making only about $11 an hour. In California that's a smidgen more than minimum wage. And without any of the following:
> 
> 1) retirement or social security
> 2) worker's comp
> ...


1) You are eligible for social security, it's part of what you pay in self-employment taxes. Most private companies have done away with pensions many moons ago. 
2) You could get pretty close with various private options available. Also, you technically can if you use the same method as the below
3) You can hack this if you set up an S-Corp and pay yourself as an employee, such that all employment taxes, SDI, etc. are paid just like any other company.
4) You have to pay out of pocket yes, but self employed you get to write off the premiums. Also, good chance your post deduction income levels are so low you qualify for ACA. Not that I agree with/like obamacare, but it is the financial reality for the foreseeable future. 
5) It's driving, anyone can do it. I'm driving while I finish school. The flexibility to pursue opportunities outside of driving is probably one of the biggest benefits.

6)Quality of self-employment in general VS anything related specifically to TNC driving.

I've 'lived' off TNC driving for 11 months in one of the most expensive cities in the US, paying out of pocket for health insurance, having an expensive xchange lease that most on this forum would call a 'scam', while renting a place in Scripps Ranch.

Anyway, I think what a lot of people don't account for is that many work and have car payments, etc. for their commute and personal travel. No one ever says that 'these are my costs of driving to work' and deducts those costs from their W2 sourced earnings to figure out their 'real' income, though ultimately that's EXACTLY what owning a car and using it for any normal employment does; you're working to pay for the car. However, the IRS doesn't allow you to deduct your travel expenses from your income, nor will your employer pay for normal commute mileage. TNC driving turns your vehicle expense into an income generating asset, while SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the cost of personal travel since most people will drive commercially for value that dwarfs their personal expenditures.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper (Aug 6, 2016)

Null said:


> 1) You are eligible for social security, it's part of what you pay in self-employment taxes. Most private companies have done away with pensions many moons ago.
> 2) You could get pretty close with various private options available. Also, you technically can if you use the same method as the below
> 3) You can hack this if you set up an S-Corp and pay yourself as an employee, such that all employment taxes, SDI, etc. are paid just like any other company.
> 4) You have to pay out of pocket yes, but self employed you get to write off the premiums. Also, good chance your post deduction income levels are so low you qualify for ACA. Not that I agree with/like obamacare, but it is the financial reality for the foreseeable future.
> ...


Preach it. I kept trying to help-out drivers at Uber on this when they were angry, but not realizing that their expenses had gone from being personal to mostly-business.


----------



## neweagle (May 13, 2015)

thelittleguyhelper said:


> Preach it. I kept trying to help-out drivers at Uber on this when they were angry, but not realizing that their expenses had gone from being personal to mostly-business.


Indeed. Well said.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

Null said:


> 1) You are eligible for social security, it's part of what you pay in self-employment taxes. Most private companies have done away with pensions many moons ago.


Most drivers pay nothing in SE tax because the IRS's 55-cent per mile (or whatever it currently is) deduction eats up so much of their reported income that they have a net loss.



> 3) You can hack this if you set up an S-Corp and pay yourself as an employee, such that all employment taxes, SDI, etc. are paid just like any other company.


It comes out the same either way, it's just that the corporation is paying instead of you. And now you're paying $800 a year (in California at least) to have the corporation at all.



> 4) You have to pay out of pocket yes, but self employed you get to write off the premiums. Also, good chance your post deduction income levels are so low you qualify for ACA. Not that I agree with/like obamacare, but it is the financial reality for the foreseeable future.


If your net income is that low, you're likely paying no self-employment tax or very, very little. Hardly enough to set yourself up for social security at the age of 67 or whatever it is.



> 5) It's driving, anyone can do it.


And that's why it pays so little. There's no barrier to entry.



> I've 'lived' off TNC driving for 11 months in one of the most expensive cities in the US, paying out of pocket for health insurance, having an expensive xchange lease that most on this forum would call a 'scam', while renting a place in Scripps Ranch.


And how many hours a week were you driving?



> No one ever says that 'these are my costs of driving to work' and deducts those costs from their W2 sourced earnings to figure out their 'real' income


They most certainly should.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

I won't be reporting a loss, surely. In any event, social security is a broken system that should have no existed, and likely won't exist by the time many of us are eligible to claim on it.

The s-corp route will allow you to be eligible for unemployment benefits, since the company is paying the premiums. So no it isn't the same. Yeah, it is cost prohibitive and more complicated, but your assertion was that no unemployment benefits were possible, they are possible, but not convenient, definitely.

I drive 40-50 hrs a week. My most is 55 hrs during comic con week. This week may top it since I'm going on vacation in San Francisco next week so I'll be covering my basis out of this weeks earnings.


----------



## Flarpy (Apr 17, 2016)

Null said:


> The s-corp route will allow you to be eligible for unemployment benefits, since the company is paying the premiums. So no it isn't the same. Yeah, it is cost prohibitive and more complicated, but your assertion was that no unemployment benefits were possible, they are possible, but not convenient, definitely.


That possibility is pretty meaningless. Might as well take the money you (through your corporation) are paying into unemployment and put it into an interest-bearing account. The point of unemployment _benefits _is that your employer is paying for them, not you.


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Do your own homework.
> Oh, okay, if you insist:
> 
> AL
> ...


You're lying. Go ahead and name the companies offering $15 dollar a month coverage in North Carolina. You can't. I know, I've tried. It's one of the many reasons I stopped driving.


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> seriously? He only asked for 10.


He's lying. I called every major company that works in North Carolina, there's nothing under $300 dollars available and the state of North Carolina flat out says that if you get caught driving without it your regular insurance company can drop you like a hot potato. There's a bunch of crap being shoveled in this thread. Get your boots on or get dirty.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> That possibility is pretty meaningless. Might as well take the money you (through your corporation) are paying into unemployment and put it into an interest-bearing account. The point of unemployment _benefits _is that your employer is paying for them, not you.


I think step 1 is not to be unemployed nor reliant on government entitlements, so I somewhat agree with you.

Anyway, what unemployment benefits can pay during the length of a max unemployment period can vastly exceed the premiums if you want it to.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Flarpy said:


> Even if you take this article's numbers for granted ($14-15/hour adjusted gross - $3.15/hour for expenses), drivers are still making only about $11 an hour. In California that's a smidgen more than minimum wage. And without any of the following:
> 
> 1) retirement or social security
> 2) worker's comp
> ...


Factor in risk and it is minimum wage. People who spend 10 hours a day on the road are putting their lives and property on the line and in most jobs that require that kind of risk they get compensated for it.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

renbutler said:


> If you're poor and truly need a car, you can get one for far less than $6,000.


Yeah, and it will run for about a week before breaking down and making you poorer.

Way to lower the standard of living in this country. You're thinking is the product of neo-con brainwash. What happened to the notion of a chicken in every pot and your children doing better than their parents.

You've settled to accept whatever your told is better than the rest of the world. News Flash the standard of living in AMerica has been surpassed by many other nations now. Our people don't even get paternity leave and 2 weeks maternity leave is shameful. Thanks for all those years of voting in Republocrats and Demopublicans.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *No, Driving for Uber Is Not a Payday Loan*
> *Critics vastly overestimate cost of driving a car.*
> Jared Meyer & Nick Archer | July 11, 2016
> http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/11/no-driving-for-uber-is-not-a-payday-loan
> ...


Assuming drivers average net is between $14-15 hr is just hogwash. In my area, GROSS is $10. The variables are so differant from area to area that there is no way to make such blanket assumptions. Most drivers quit within 6 months. Why? The pay is so low that they are losing money or working for nothing or next to nothing. Or so little they can't maintain their vehicle. I've never heard a commercial for Uber passengers, but hear dozens everyday for drivers. Uber needs an over saturation of drivers for their business model to work. An over saturation of drivers insures it doesn't work for the drivers.


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Flarpy said:


> I smell a Trump voter.


No, that was me, I farted


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Who the hell are you to call my eighth child a needless expense? I have big plans for that kid - She's going to cure cancer.
> 
> I'll tell you what, since I can afford all of my needless expenses, why don't you tell those who can't afford them, to stop consuming all of those needless extravagances like tats, iPhones, AirJordans, etc.?


I have big plans for that kid. They entail a stripper pole


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

If you don't have it don't borrow it.

There once was a man who had all the money in the world. He made his money by giving money to others and expecting more then he gave in return. He said," What would they all do without my money to help them?" How would they eat, where would they live? Who would protect them? "

When the people realized they had learned how to grow their own food, and build their own houses, they decided to stop borrowing money from the rich man, they did learn how to trade what they had for other things they needed, and work together.

The rich man panicked and thought,"Why are they cutting down my trees and not paying me? I never said they could cut down my trees! Who said they could farm on my land, without paying me?" Where did they get the money to do this, when did they buy the land from me? So the rich man rushed into town and found some people who were hungry and could not farm. Then he found people who could not build, or cut trees. He told theses people that,"If they continue to let the others continue to do these things, really bad things would happen." Then he told them that he would pay them handsomely if they would go and stop all of this by any means necessary, and how only smart people know that without money the world will collapse, and a great darkness would come and destroy everyone.

The men that were recruited grabbed torches and pitchforks and in a frenzy rushed to burn fields and destroy houses, and stop people from cutting down the rich mans trees, and farming on his land. "Stop or the world will be thrown into darkness and we will all die !"they said as they burned fields, and smashed houses.

As chaos began and villagers turned on each other and fought with each other the rich man sat in his house smiling as he thought to himself,'" When this is all over they will realize how thing work around here and how good I am to everyone. Without me everyone would starve, and be homeless. Without my money how will one person be better then another? How would they know their value and importance? Without me what would they do?"

Anyways, hey what do I know go take out a loan and pay someone back with interest or pay fines for being late on your payments for being poor. Because after all how will you be better then anyone else if you don't have something nicer, and more expensive then someone else? How will the tow truck driver feed his family if he doesn't tow away the car you cant pay for? How would they keep their mansion(s) and cars? How would their bodyguards and security people live without them, how would their families eat? That's how rich people ensure they stay rich. It's called interest on borrowed money for land they don't really own in the first place, and dangling a dollar in front of the starving masses to get you to do what they want. I don't remember God handing the deed to earth to the richest man alive do you?

Is there really cheese at the end of the maze they have you running, or did they eat it before they told you about the maze?


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

El Janitor said:


> If you don't have it don't borrow it.


You're a Dave Ramsey follower aren't you?

If you had $10,000 in the bank and needed a car for driving you would be an idiot to pay cash for the vehicle; you wouldn't see a profit until you made $10,000 + variable/ancillary costs. However if you were to finance the car then you could be profitable your first week and you could do something else with the capital.

Leverage is a tool.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

I would like to point out the Orlando market, let's assume that a car does cost 16c a mile to operate, in Mickeymouse land the best Paid/unpaid millage ratio achievable is about 35% doing Uber X. The reasons for this are rather simple... no one pays for a ride TO the magic Kingdom 20 minutes from closing time, and no one pays for an uber ride from the magic Kindgom 20 minutes after it opens. (theirs 6 Major theme parks 4 water parks and endless smaller deals like this, plus the convention center) Orlando has a lot of examples like that and to be honest not even the cabs can do better than a straight 50% paid mileage (that is literally just queuing at the airport all day). Additionally X, XL, Select can not pick up from the airport, so there's a lot of fares going to the airport, and then you have to drive dead miles... to any other part of town (and the airport is across town from the tourist areas)

So 65c (the lowest in the country) 75% of that going to the driver nets you 48c and change per mile, multiple that by you only getting 35% paid miles and you get an astounding 16.8c per mile in profit for every mile you drive if 35% of your miles are paid. If your car costs you 16c per mile to operate.... your profit margin is gone. Add an additional 8c per minute going to the driver and it's impossible to make minimum wage.


Assuming 16c a mile in expenses, no bottled water, ect.

Anything under 30ish% =losing money

A 30 minute 30 mile fare (you can hit 70MPH on some of the highways easy) (with 35% paid millage) would get you a whopping... $2.40 in profit.

30 minute 30 mile fare (with 50% paid mileage, a number you will never get) would get you a whopping... $9.60 in profit.
Even with 100% paid miles and a car that runs on unicorn magic, that 30 mile fare is only... $16.80 to the driver.


In a taxi that 30 mile fare is generally enough or close to enough to pay a day's taxi lease in Orlando.

Also i have been working as a taxi and or Uber driver for over a decade... It doesn't matter who i drive for I end up in the 200-300 miles driven per day, with the average at about 85 paid miles in a taxi per day. Also... the best i have ever gotten driving a cab is about 220 paid miles in one day, with uber i haven't ever come close to that.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

DriverX said:


> Yeah, and it will run for about a week before breaking down and making you poorer.
> 
> Way to lower the standard of living in this country. You're thinking is the product of neo-con brainwash. What happened to the notion of a chicken in every pot and your children doing better than their parents.
> 
> You've settled to accept whatever your told is better than the rest of the world. News Flash the standard of living in AMerica has been surpassed by many other nations now. Our people don't even get paternity leave and 2 weeks maternity leave is shameful. Thanks for all those years of voting in Republocrats and Demopublicans.


Weird post.

I've always bought cheap cars, and they've done me quite well. The days of junk GM and Japanese cars dying at 80k miles are long gone. Well-kept vehicles now last until 200k or beyond.

I love the idea of success. You buy a cheap car now so that you can afford to pay cash for a nicer vehicle later. If you pay tens of thousands of dollars including interest to finance a vehicle now, you will always be broke.

The political part is particularly weird. I'm not a party guy. I'm a libertarian fiscally, and moderate socially. So I'm not sure what that last paragraph's rant is about.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

Null said:


> You're a Dave Ramsey follower aren't you?
> 
> If you had $10,000 in the bank and needed a car for driving you would be an idiot to pay cash for the vehicle; you wouldn't see a profit until you made $10,000 + variable/ancillary costs. However if you were to finance the car then you could be profitable your first week and you could do something else with the capital.
> 
> Leverage is a tool.


Holy crap, this is a train wreck of mathematics.

No wonder debt is out of control these days. And the same thinking has put our government trillions of dollars in the hole.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Null said:


> Leverage is a tool.


And like all tools, you have to use the right one for the job.
Using a shovel to get out of debt, for instance - not the best idea.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

agtg said:


> You're lying. Go ahead and name the companies offering $15 dollar a month coverage in North Carolina. You can't. I know, I've tried. It's one of the many reasons I stopped driving.


here's a tip: do a google search for "states that offer rideshare insurance" - then click on the link for Harry Campbell's site, which list the companies that offer rideshare insurance, by state. I can't post the link here because it is against the TOS of using this site.

Stop lying to people.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Rat said:


> I have big plans for that kid. They entail a stripper pole


talk about my kid that way and I will hunt you down.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

DriverX said:


> Yeah, and it will run for about a week before breaking down and making you poorer.
> 
> Way to lower the standard of living in this country. You're thinking is the product of neo-con brainwash. What happened to the notion of a chicken in every pot and your children doing better than their parents.
> 
> You've settled to accept whatever your told is better than the rest of the world. News Flash the standard of living in AMerica has been surpassed by many other nations now. Our people don't even get paternity leave and 2 weeks maternity leave is shameful. Thanks for all those years of voting in Republocrats and Demopublicans.


BS and more BS

I paid $3,800 for my XL vehicle - and have put over 10,000 miles on it.
I paid $9,000 for my Select vehicle and have put 2 1/2 years and 40,000 miles on it.
I paid $2,000 (+$1,000 in repairs) for my X vehicle and have put 30,000 miles on it.

You have to know how to buy cars - and maintain them - and it takes a bit of luck, too.
But it's not that hard.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

agtg said:


> He's lying. I called every major company that works in North Carolina, there's nothing under $300 dollars available and the state of North Carolina flat out says that if you get caught driving without it your regular insurance company can drop you like a hot potato. There's a bunch of crap being shoveled in this thread. Get your boots on or get dirty.


fine - I noted that one in the list as questionable.
The other 26 have verified companies that provide rideshare insurance in those states.
You can look it up.
Even if half of them are wrong (which they're not), it exceeds the 10 you asked for.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

for every one of you, there are a hundreds of lemons

LAW OF AVERAGES


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

renbutler said:


> Weird post.
> 
> The political part is particularly weird. I'm not a party guy. I'm a libertarian fiscally, and moderate socially. So I'm not sure what that last paragraph's rant is about.


LOL you libertarians are the weirdest

You want to come to the party but you don't want to pay for the BEER!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

DriverX said:


> for every one of you, there are a hundreds of lemons
> 
> LAW OF AVERAGES


nonsense. this has nothing to do with averages.
If you're going to be in the business of driving your own vehicles, it just makes sense those with a knowledge of driving, buying/selling vehicles and maintaining them are going to be better at it than those who are not. Doesn't mean that they can't do it, it just means it will cost them more.


----------



## agtg (Jun 8, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> fine - I noted that one in the list as questionable.
> The other 26 have verified companies that provide rideshare insurance in those states.
> You can look it up.
> Even if half of them are wrong (which they're not), it exceeds the 10 you asked for.


Please tell us how much it costs and what it covers. You see, insurance is only good if it is needed and will actually cover. Some low-cost "plan" that doesn't cover anything is just as bad as going without. Who wants to be responsible for PAX injuries and potential suits?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

agtg said:


> Please tell us how much it costs and what it covers. You see, insurance is only good if it is needed and will actually cover. Some low-cost "plan" that doesn't cover anything is just as bad as going without. Who wants to be responsible for PAX injuries and potential suits?


Why do you keep asking other people to do your homework work for you? Get off your lazy ass and find out what coverage would cost you. And don't lecture me about my insurance coverage needs. I know more than I need to about my own needs since I carry home, auto, business use of auto (rideshare), business liability, professional liability - and a $1mil liability umbrella.

If you want a quote on rideshare insurance for yourself in the state of Ohio, contact BradSussmanInsurance

My rideshare policy covers the difference between Uber's $1,000 deductible (& Lyft's $2,500 deductible) and the deductible on my own policy. It also covers me during the 'gap' periods when I may be on my way to a ride with no pax in the car - a period that Uber provides only lower limits of liability coverage and the gap period where I may be online, but not have an active ride request - a period during which Uber will try to deny all coverage. And most importantly to me, it covers me when Uber/Lyfts insurance company decides not to cover me - even if I am driving under their program at the time of an incident.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

renbutler said:


> Holy crap, this is a train wreck of mathematics.
> 
> No wonder debt is out of control these days. And the same thinking has put our government trillions of dollars in the hole.


Back the math up.

It's a pretty basic math problem that profit is revenue minus costs. If you were to spend any large sum of money on a car, your business efforts are in the hole until you've covered your costs and you incur variable expenses in the process of covering your direct vehicle cost. The entire time until that happens you're working for free.

On the other hand, if you financed the 10k over 3 years. You might pay 4% in interest, but you could cover your immediate expenditures your first week (guessing, most good markets) and see a profit from operations right away, instead of several months.

But seriously have you ever been to a Dave Ramsey seminar or bought a book of his? This debt is evil dribble is espoused as gospel by his fans.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

I'll take paying 0% interest over 4% every day. And I still make enough money to invest a portion of my income.

Plus, I need the vehicle for daily life anyway. That's why I spent $6000 cash (actually $2000 after trade-in) for my van. I now have a vehicle whenever I need it. And, to help defray some of that cost, I Uber when I have free time and nothing else fun/important to do.

I had the cash to buy the van. Anybody in their 30s should have enough cash to buy a $6000 car if they want/need one. It shouldn't be as unusual as it is, even in our anemic economy.

I don't think debt is "evil." It's just that, more often than not, it's dumb. The only debt that makes sense is a common-sense mortgage. I appreciate Ramsey, even if I don't agree with everything he says. For example, I use credit cards -- but only if I can pay them off every month.

I've done well enough to know that a debt-free lifestyle _works._


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Null said:


> You're a Dave Ramsey follower aren't you?
> 
> If you had $10,000 in the bank and needed a car for driving you would be an idiot to pay cash for the vehicle; you wouldn't see a profit until you made $10,000 + variable/ancillary costs. However if you were to finance the car then you could be profitable your first week and you could do something else with the capital.
> 
> Leverage is a tool.


No.


----------



## BentleyK9 (Oct 12, 2015)

I have to iwn and drive a car to my normal job and personal stuff and sctivities. Nothing wrong with my free time to have thecar earn some cash. Ive been driving almost a year now. Zero compkaints from me!!!
This artical is way too much info, too much math. We dont need a "big bang theory" type ofressoning. 
You want an extra paycheck just get your butt in the drivers seat and drive. Be smart. Do your research on best areas and times. If you have to have an analytical justification... Dont drive. The rest of us will gladly pickup your future fares.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

renbutler said:


> I'll take paying 0% interest over 4% every day. And I still make enough money to invest a portion of my income.
> 
> Plus, I need the vehicle for daily life anyway. That's why I spent $6000 cash (actually $2000 after trade-in) for my van. I now have a vehicle whenever I need it. And, to help defray some of that cost, I Uber when I have free time and nothing else fun/important to do.
> 
> ...


The 0% offers are from makes internal/subsidiary financing departments (Why would an outside finance company give you free money while taking substantial risk who doesn't make a portion of the sale?). Generally you can't get 0% on used vehicles. Even if you are, you're generally talking branded dealership CPO stock; you're paying more than you would private party enough to dwarf the 0% interest.

The independent buy here, pay here, places are usually sketchy for other reasons.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

I wasn't talking about 0% financing. I was talking about buying a car with cash, which is essentially a 0% interest rate.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

renbutler said:


> I wasn't talking about 0% financing. I was talking about buying a car with cash, which is essentially a 0% interest rate.


It's not 0% in effect. You have time value and opportunity cost. Secured loans (Cars, mortgages) are very cheap capital. The reason this can be beneficial for both parties is because for the most part, the bank is loaning you money that never existed, so it's making a few points off of money it never had in reserves and large portfolios that those points cover default rates.

Ex. I'm a P2P lender (Prosper, Lending Club, which oddly enough is one of the few loans that are actually backed almost 100% by real cash). I can make (Average loan rate 13%) 8%/year on lending capital to others (and have done so for some time now). I don't even log into my account anymore, it just prints money. =D

So, if you borrowed at 4%, invested at 8%, you've more than offset your interest expense and come out ahead (slight reduction for taxes, etc. you can't write off your auto interest in most cases, but uncle sam want his cut of your 8%).

You're also working (or worked) for free until you covered the cost of the vehicle + variable/fixed costs. Your ROI is many months out, even at full time driving (most markets, I assume).


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

But I'm already investing a reasonable amount of money. I don't need to borrow money just to increase my risk and exposure.

In that same vein, I invest only for the long-haul: five years or more. I'm not going to get a three-year car loan just to invest money and hope that the next three years will average 8% (long-term, it should, but not over every three-year period).

On top of that, my net worth starts from a higher point for the sole fact that my car costs tens of thousands less than a new car. Even if you can justify financing (dubious), I am _starting_ from $20k or $30k ahead by getting a cheaper car to begin with.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

renbutler said:


> But I'm already investing a reasonable amount of money. I don't need to borrow money just to increase my risk and exposure.


Not sure how financing money you have increases your overall risk, but OK.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

Null said:


> Not sure how financing money you have increases your overall risk, but OK.


You said people should finance cars so that they have more money to invest with 8% returns!

So the financing isn't the risk -- the investing is. But if you invest for the long-haul, you greatly reduce the risk.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

renbutler said:


> You said people should finance cars so that they have more money to invest with 8% returns!
> 
> So the financing isn't the risk -- the investing is. But if you invest for the long-haul, you greatly reduce the risk.


Non sequitur. Finance option come with varying length terms. You could finance over 5+ years if you wanted. You don't have to finance the car directly (lienholder on title), you could do it unsecured, but pay more in interest most likely, etc. You're also not limited to the type of investment opportunities merely because you're financing a similar amount of capital (why financing a car for 3 years limits you to 3 year investment horizons with that capital escapes me).

There are multiple kinds of investing, your comments on 8% seem to imply the stock market. What I do with P2P loans is considered alternative finance and doesn't follow the same cyclical nature of the stock market. In fact, they don't trend at all with each other.

I write stock options and only hold those positions for 30-45 days, because what I sell expires (the hope being they expire worthless; much like your auto insurer hopes you go the policy term without a claim). Selling long duration options doesn't necessarily increase your likelihood of success. Depends on the premium collected.

Anyway, any time you limit risk you also limit rewards. If you're risk averse, by all means stick with loaded mutual funds, broad market ETFs and garbage treasury bonds but realize you're limiting your potential exponentially. Since you're in your 30s your horizon is still quite some time away; you can bear some draw downs in your portfolio in pursuit of larger gains but you'll be significantly further ahead when it comes time to retire (well, unless you blow your account up I suppose). Ultra conservative portfolios are for those near their horizons or so financially illiterate or anxiety prone they can't mentally handle (respond inappropriately) to gains and losses.


----------



## Djc (Jan 6, 2016)

uber strike said:


> everybody knows that medals are temporary. uber calls them a promotion. that's all they are. and medals have quotas and requirements which do not suit drivers that want to be their own boss and signed up for the flexibility. as for surge, medal drivers are killing surge.
> and drivers are not doing the job. that's why uber had to give medals. drivers are not willing to drive after these last pay cuts.
> also if drivers were doing the job then uber would not have the highest turnover rate of any company in the world. uber cannot keep their drivers. uber is forced to continue mass sign ups since inception


Uber is actually playing this correctly by paying a higher rate to drivers when and where they are needed the most. They keep pax rates artificially low to increase market share and addiction but know that during busy times there are not enough drivers willing to work for such low rates. Because of wage disparity requirements of drivers Uber can do this. Uber also is trying to minimize surge (not completely kill it) to gain market share as competitors typically surge less.

Eventually when enough people are so used to using Uber for years that they won't go back to public transport/driving and paying for parking, I believe they will institute a similar system of charging the pax during peak hours where base rate is more at certain times and locations or min surge multiple applies to all rides. Or they will keep subsidizing drivers (at least the ones with higher earning requirements - with machine learning and driving patterns they know who) until driverless cars are implemented or they lose demand or get enough drivers willing to work for these low rates (not going to happen unless a recession comes).

I am not endorsing Uber but they are making good business decisions for their objectives - just like any other company diff people get paid diff amounts for doing the same or similar job, where the people in the salary negotiations who didn't fight for more or didnt know their worth in the industry get paid much less. Most companies will not pay more than they have to and those who want market share will also charge customers as close to $0 as possible.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

Djc said:


> Uber is actually playing this correctly by paying a higher rate to drivers when and where they are needed the most. They keep pax rates artificially low to increase market share and addiction but know that during busy times there are not enough drivers willing to work for such low rates. Because of wage disparity requirements of drivers Uber can do this. Uber also is trying to minimize surge (not completely kill it) to gain market share as competitors typically surge less.
> 
> Eventually when enough people are so used to using Uber for years that they won't go back to public transport/driving and paying for parking, I believe they will institute a similar system of charging the pax during peak hours where base rate is more at certain times and locations or min surge multiple applies to all rides. Or they will keep subsidizing drivers (at least the ones with higher earning requirements - with machine learning and driving patterns they know who) until driverless cars are implemented or they lose demand or get enough drivers willing to work for these low rates (not going to happen unless a recession comes).
> 
> I am not endorsing Uber but they are making good business decisions for their objectives - just like any other company diff people get paid diff amounts for doing the same or similar job, where the people in the salary negotiations who didn't fight for more or didnt know their worth in the industry get paid much less. Most companies will not pay more than they have to and those who want market share will also charge customers as close to $0 as possible.


That's easily one of the smartest posts I've read in my one year here.

Sorry, just clicking like wasn't enough.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Djc said:


> Uber is actually playing this correctly by paying a higher rate to drivers when and where they are needed the most. They keep pax rates artificially low to increase market share and addiction but know that during busy times there are not enough drivers willing to work for such low rates. Because of wage disparity requirements of drivers Uber can do this. Uber also is trying to minimize surge (not completely kill it) to gain market share as competitors typically surge less.
> 
> Eventually when enough people are so used to using Uber for years that they won't go back to public transport/driving and paying for parking, I believe they will institute a similar system of charging the pax during peak hours where base rate is more at certain times and locations or min surge multiple applies to all rides. Or they will keep subsidizing drivers (at least the ones with higher earning requirements - with machine learning and driving patterns they know who) until driverless cars are implemented or they lose demand or get enough drivers willing to work for these low rates (not going to happen unless a recession comes).
> 
> I am not endorsing Uber but they are making good business decisions for their objectives - just like any other company diff people get paid diff amounts for doing the same or similar job, where the people in the salary negotiations who didn't fight for more or didnt know their worth in the industry get paid much less. Most companies will not pay more than they have to and those who want market share will also charge customers as close to $0 as possible.


bad business decisions actually and i will clarify why:
first off i can only speak of La market. we are down to 85 cents a mile, 11 cents a minute with a zero base fare. uber cannot keep their drivers at those rates. this is the reason for the high turnover rate. 
uber has not been able to stop mass sign ups since inception. uber is in fact paying out $700 to driver for referring a new driver and x amount to the new driver. 
the bad business is in the fact that this causes a safety issue for riders. uber is continuously signing up drivers without interviews. sign up is online as you are well aware. uber has no idea who is signing up. no clue as to demeanor, character, or personality. uber must stop signing up drivers that are deranged like THE UBER KALAMAZOO KILLER.
uber should begin to use the rating system as a form of safety rather than deactivation. the (star) rating system should be used to maintain drivers on the platform that are experienced and trusted,- tried and true.

uber cannot keep their drivers due to cheap rates. majority of the experienced and trusted drivers have already quit or greatly diminished their online time. uber is left with drivers that have not been interviewed and who have not been tested. drivers that are committing all kinds of crimes from sexual assault to rape. bad business indeed.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

uber strike said:


> uber has no idea who is signing up. no clue as to demeanor, character, or personality. uber must stop signing up drivers that are deranged like THE UBER KALAMAZOO KILLER.


Okay, I have to call BS on this.

GQ just had an in-depth article about that entire event. (Fascinating read, by the way.)

There was _nothing whatsoever_ in the guy's past that should have indicated this was going to happen. No background check or interview would have found anything to raise a red flag. The guy himself has no idea what happened that night, except that he knows it was very wrong and that it didn't make any sense. Dude got some wires crossed in his brain, and unfortunately several people lost their lives. Tragically and inexplicably.

Anyway, if you could point to other Uber mass murders, you'd be on to something. This guy didn't sign up for Uber so that he could commit horrible crimes. Now, there have been other criminal acts by Uber drivers, but I don't see anything that indicates Uber drivers are committing crimes as part of their job anymore than in other low-wage professions.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

renbutler said:


> Okay, I have to call BS on this.
> 
> GQ just had an in-depth article about that entire event. There was _nothing whatsoever_ in the guy's past that should have indicated this was going to happen. No background check or interview would have found anything to raise a red flag. The guy himself has no idea what happened that night, except that he knows it was very wrong.
> 
> Anyway, if you could point out to other Uber mass murders, you'd be on to something. Now, there have been other criminal acts by Uber drivers, but I don't see anything that indicates Uber drivers are committing crimes as part of their job anymore than in other low-wage professions.


you misunderstood my post. nowhere did i say anything about his past, nor background checks. uber already does background checks. and you do not have to have a criminal past to commit a crime. so please read my post before commenting.

i talked about how uber does not interview drivers. uber allows online sign ups and start driving. no feel for the person's character or personality. believe me if uber would have met this guy they would have know that he is deranged. he actually stated that the uber app made him shoot people. you hear someone talking like that you do not approve them to drive. this is necessary if the customers lives are valued. 
uber must stop putting riders lives at risk. uber does not even know who they are signing up. 
if you need me to post video of DALTON i will and then you can tell me if there are no signs that this man is deranged.

also, what is the purpose of stars if they are not used to ensure safety for riders? uber must make it their aim to keep their experienced and trusted drivers. through mass sign ups uber neglects the safety of riders. the new driver starts at 5 stars giving the passenger a false impression that they are getting a 5 star driver, when the truth is that the driver has not been tested or even interviewed.

uber must make safety a top priority and determine to maintain their experienced drivers on the platform.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

No, I read your post, dude. 

You said that the lack of interviews means that Uber is hiring murderous drivers like Dalton. That's complete BS, because there's no evidence there are more drivers like him, and an interview would have _never_ weeded him out anyway. The people who knew him (far better than a simple interviewer would) assert that they never had any notion that he had the potential to cause harm. An interviewer couldn't have known he thought the app caused him to shoot people, because he never thought that until after he started driving for Uber. How could he have?

Read the article if you doubt any of this.

I actually agree with your far less hyperbolic point: Uber probably needs to do more than a cursory background check on drivers that it pairs with riders. Safety is definitely paramount.

All that is true without the nonsense point about Dalton.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

if uber cannot tell this guy is deranged, riders are in serious trouble...


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

If that happened BEFORE they allowed him to sign on, then you'd have a point.



You made a hyperbolic point, and you got called on it. It's okay. Dust yourself off and move on.

We actually agree about your core point. Start there.


----------



## bingybingyfoo (May 5, 2016)

Anyway, it's all astray from the topic which is how fair /poor the driver's pay, and you posted your nonsense reply about how (I think your point was that, if they paid better, Uber would keep more experienced drivers, but low rates mean constant onboarding of new, potentially more dangerous drivers?) quoting a post which made a clear and excellent point about the brilliance behind Uber keeping more dynamic pay scales, and why they work. If older drivers don't stay (and you probably shouldn't, really, if you aren't being offered much in incentives), there are lots of reasons, everyone knows for each pro this job offers, like autonomy, it is outweighed by heavy cons on some days. The job market has improved and there are lots of reasons old drivers might not drive much anymore, but new drivers _will always be needed _to facilitate any growth for the company. New pax = new drivers. The minute there are too many they can light up those incentives and bring you crusty crabs out of your caves, but, they can't bring in more pax than current drivers can carry, nmw. So, yes, constantly expanding its reach in terms of available drivers, while letting even a majority be often mothballed, is *totally and completely * a great idea- if your business could instantly offer unlimited service, with resources you don't have to pay or store or stock or even so much as water a plant, how wonderful, you just killed your supply problem in a whole new way. You get to spend all your company's efforts on demand and growth. 
Plus, don't forget new drivers are coming in at % more beneficial to Uber. They are cheaper, and [the rest of us? ] only come out when we decide it's worth it to us. Often, that means Uber is upping our bottom line "artificially ". Which suits them, just fine.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

If an uber driver in say.... Orlando... gets paid 48c per mile and the cost per mile to operate their car is say... 16c per mile (or a mere 29% of the AAA rates)

and not even half of his miles are paid in Orlando (80 paid miles and 200 total miles is about typical)
And there are no more guarantees in Orlando
Or surges

so grand total
48c per mile and 8c per minute paid to the driver
a 8/20 paid mile ratio

80 paid miles 200 total driven

$32 in expenses
to $38 in paid mileage
Plus another $16 for time you have passengers (20 minutes per 8 paid miles or 20 miles total driven)


For every 200 miles driven
$22 in total profit


----------



## OlDirtySapper (Jul 26, 2016)

$14-15 /hr lmfao. 21 cents a mile is a reasonable cost per mile. But in some cities uber pays only 56 cents a mile (after they take their 25% and lets not forget the $1 fee they just collected and you get taxed on). At least your making money but a cab driver in that same area is making like $1.40 (after lease or split) a mile and his only cost is like 8-10 cents a mile for gas. And dont forget you are paying the 21 cents on your deadhead to wherever you are sent. Honestly there is no reason for a company that makes a million a day just in the $1 a trip it steals from its drivers off the top to pay as bad as uber does.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

renbutler said:


> If that happened BEFORE they allowed him to sign on, then you'd have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


my point is that this man wouldn't of even been an uber driver had uber made sure to ensure the safety of riders by not allowing sign ups via the internet.
there is no face. any deranged man is allowed sign up and drive. 
do you really think that riders would be ok with this if they knew that sign ups were online without a interview process?
we have to get the word out. tell your passengers. post on fb. twitter, etc.


----------



## renbutler (Jul 25, 2015)

And my point is that I agree driver qualifications could be better as you suggest, but Dalton is a terrible example of why this true.

But now we're going in circles.


----------

