Researcher Admits Study That Claimed Uber Drivers Earn $3.37 An Hour Was Not Correct (fortune.com)

Last week, an MIT study using data from more than 1,100 Uber and Lyft drivers concluded they're earning a median pretax profit of just $3.37 per hour. Uber was less than pleased by their findings and used a blog post to highlight problems with the researchers' methodology. "Now the lead researcher behind the draft paper has admitted that Uber's criticism was actually pretty valid -- while also asking Uber and Lyft to make more data available, in order to improve his analysis," reports Fortune. From the report: The issue with the draft paper from MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR), Uber's chief economist Jonathan Hall said, was this: The researchers asked drivers how much money they made on average each week from such services, but then asked "How much of your total monthly income comes from driving" -- without specifying that such income must relate to on-demand services. Of course, many people driving for Uber and Lyft also earn money from regular jobs and other income sources. And this, Hall alleged, skewed the researchers' results.

"Hall's specific criticism is valid," wrote Stephen Zoepf, the executive director of Stanford's Center for Automotive Research, who led the MIT study, on Monday. "In re-reading the wording of the two questions, I can see how respondents could have interpreted the two questions in the manner Hall describes." Zoepf said he would be updating the CEEPR paper, but in the meantime he recalculated the figures using a methodology suggested by Hall, and found that the median profit was $8.55 per hour, rather than $3.37, and only 8% of drivers lose money on on-demand platforms. Using another methodology, he added, the median rises to $10 per hour and only 4% of drivers lose money.

Comments

This is bullshit

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Least important: they claimed that the causes of the error were that the respondents misread "income from on demand activities" as "income from all activities." The lead researcher admitted that could be misread and recomputed the numbers assuming his subjects were idiots.

Most important: The lead economist for Uber then made a bunch of assumptions when recalculating data. But the thing is Uber knows exactly how much each driver makes, how long each driver is working, exactly where they are, etc. If he wanted to correct the record, he could have. That he elected to use alternate assumptions to argue for a result indicates that result is overly optimistic.

The problem is that it was very obvious bullshit.

[ErikTheRed]

There seems to be a thing among the progressive / neo-liberal camp that requires them to screech down at any occupation or practice that they, from their loftier economic perch, would not personally engage in. Hey, I don't want to be an Uber driver either. It's fine. I have several friends who do it for extra cash (or, in one case, because they actually enjoy it - weird, but that's their thing), and none of them are anywhere near dumb enough to do it for a net of $3 and change. That number should, literally, be unbelievable, and yet many people believed it anyway because it fit a highly (absurdly) hyperbolic narrative. There are two problems here: 1) that these people need to be more skeptical (especially when such strong confirmation bias is involved), and 2) they need to check their fucking privilege. Not everybody has the immediate option of an awesome job, has good spending / saving habits, etc. Just because you wouldn't do something doesn't mean that nobody else should, and fabricating evidence to the contrary is both dishonest and cruel.