Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drivers and Other Gig Economy Workers Are Earning Half What They Did Five Years Ago (recode.net)
According to a new study by the JPMorgan Chase Instittue, drivers who transport people via apps (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Uber Eats, Postmates) made 53 percent less in 2017 than they did in 2013. Recode reports: The average monthly payments to those who worked for a transportation app in a given month declined to $783 from $1,469. Meanwhile, people working for leasing apps -- Airbnb, Turo, Parklee and other apps that let you rent assets like your home, car or parking space -- saw their incomes from those platforms rise 69 percent to $1,736 on average.
This is happening as online gig work has become more popular, thanks in large part to the growth in the number of transportation jobs. The share of the working population that has participated in the online gig economy at any point in a year rose from less than 2 percent in 2013 to nearly 5 percent in 2018. There are a number of potential reasons why the average pay for gig economy drivers has gone down. It could be any or all of the below, according to JPMorgan: drivers on average are working fewer hours; demand hasn't increased to meet the increased number of drivers; trip prices have fallen; or platforms are paying drivers lower rates.
This is happening as online gig work has become more popular, thanks in large part to the growth in the number of transportation jobs. The share of the working population that has participated in the online gig economy at any point in a year rose from less than 2 percent in 2013 to nearly 5 percent in 2018. There are a number of potential reasons why the average pay for gig economy drivers has gone down. It could be any or all of the below, according to JPMorgan: drivers on average are working fewer hours; demand hasn't increased to meet the increased number of drivers; trip prices have fallen; or platforms are paying drivers lower rates.
Uber keeps shoveling VC money into the furnace hoping to one day make itself profitable. In the meantime, with dwindling cash reserves, they can't afford to pay drivers as much as they used to.
It's a race to the bottom. The more "gig economy workers" there are, the lower the rates will be.
Instead of the traditional impact being company profit margins, it's peoples wages that are shrinking.
They're trying to undercut taxis and public transportation, then jack prices sky-high after they kill the competition. Hope they epically fail, crash, and burn.
The headline is VERY misleading. They are talking about MONTHLY income and NOT hourly income. So what is happening is that new Uber drivers are far more likely to be part timers, putting in a few hours of driving at the end of the day to earn some extra income.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week. Over 60% have another job that is their main income.
That approach is pointless to begin with so I'm not even sure why they would think they'll be able to replace taxis and occupy a Monopoly position that would allow them to increase rates. Are they blind to the fact that their very own model could be used to unseat them if they were to try to act like a city taxi service? Never mind that they're not the only game in town and users will just go to Lyft or anyone else who has cheaper prices.
Five years ago, the average Uber driver was more likely to be a professional driver. They had no presence in smaller cities, they had a lot less UberX and a lot more Uber Black. Today, in my home town, it's still just UberX - no fancy options, the best you can get is UberXL so you can have some luggage space. But we do have Uber...
As I've said elsewhere, I'm happy to burn VC money for cheap rides, but I'd use Uber or Lyft even if they weren't cheaper than official taxis. I know what I'm getting and who drives it, I never have to worry about bullshit claims that the credit card machine doesn't work, I don't have to carry cash at all. All of those are very valuable qualities. Do they screw drivers over? Probably so, but traditional cab companies are little if any better under ideal conditions.
nobody knows since the data is _only_ monthly. It's just as likely that there are so many Uber drivers now that they're crowding each other out and nobody can make a living. Well, strike that, it's more likely. That's why medallion systems were created in the first place, e.g. to make sure the streets weren't flooded with drivers every time the economy dipped.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They're trying to undercut taxis and public transportation, then jack prices sky-high after they kill the competition.
Their competition is not taxis or public transit. Their competition is Lyft, and Lyft is not going away. When both Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, other "ride-share" companies were up and running in less than a week.
Uber is growing at 3 times the rate that taxis are declining, so only a third of their riders would have otherwise used a taxi.
Uber's rates are already "sky-high" compared to public transit. They win against public transit by being way faster and more convenient.
At least I can pay good, old-fashioned, cash for a taxi and not have my CC info, email, name, and other ID info in a database for eternity. Uber/Lyft/the rest of the "rideshare" techbro firms = no privacy.
Yeah, yeah, taxis have cameras, but facial recognition is still a lot harder than ID from an account "verified" with CC info. F Uber, Lyft, Via, and the rest of them.
You're assuming the business model was not flawed from the outset and because of that, you're interpreting their motive to be more brilliant than it appears to be. Please review the venture capital, and stock market dumpster fire (fueled by investor hundreds of $millions) called MoviePass.
There are a lot of business people who think by sheer force of money, they can disrupt an industry and eventually own the kingdom. In the case of Uber, their investors were racing in a land rush to become such an immense 900lb gorilla that no other competitors could challenge them... they expected to own the consumers and the service providers. As you point out, the free market has stepped in and eliminated the opportunity for Uber.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
and as far as I know they haven't. You'd also expect Uber drive's to see higher hourly pay, but it's around $9 bucks/hr. But that looks to be in line with the figures from 2016. Maybe a little less if inflation is taken into account (remember inflation is higher for low paid employees since big ticket items like new cars have less inflation than food/rent/healthcare or even used cars).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Cool story, bro. You go on paying at least double, waiting in inordinate amount of time, carrying cash and wasting your time.
You and Fluffernutter, our favorite angry cabbie roommates or something?
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
I make double what I was making as a salaried employee. I take uber fairly often and the drivers all have said they make more driving for Uber (duh) than they did at there last job. One even shown me spread sheets of his expenses and his strategies for being available when the fairs are higher. I don't see anyone in the gig economy complaining, so I have no idea where these articles are coming from.
Disclaimer:I'm in Ontario, Canada - minimum wage is $14/hr.
Nothing wrong with people wanting to be paid in cash rather than giving banksters "swipe fees." What's wrong with Haitians? You racist?
Cash is not really viable for wide range of globalized services anymore.
Get a Target prepaid card (it's a bit trickier to grab one outside of the US, but still doable). Same goes for SIM card. It is possible to use most modern phone-tied services (semi) anonymously. The idea is that it is a bit inconvenient to set up so most people don't bother. Still beats the amish "option" you're suggesting though.
Got news for you: most businesses still accept cash. In the NYC boroughs, many of the same drivers that drive for the "rideshare" firms also operate under regular taxi ("black car") brands and can be used for a lower cash payment than when you pay through Goober or Lyft.
Amish is not an insult -- sometimes the older option is the best option. Fuck progress for the sake of progress when it gives no measurable benefit.
Crime is the price we have to pay for living in a free society. If cash enables crime, so be it. Better less safety than total control and surveillance.
Want to really fix crime? (a) stop criminalizing victimless crimes like personal drug use and sex between consenting adults. (b) don't create an economic environment with lack of opportunity that doesn't allow people other options.
but you're doing more trips per hour that's not necessarily a good thing either. It means more wear and tear on their cars for less money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's also measuring revenue, not profit.
The driver still needs to pay the costs of running the vehicle, which will not have reduced in 5 years, so the impact on real incomes is far more than a halving.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I've been seeing a lot of parked cars with both Lyft and Uber stickers. I worry that after they work their 10 hour shift for oee company they move on and work another 10 hour shift at the other.
“... drivers who transport people via apps (e.g. Uber, Lyft, Uber Eats, Postmates) ...”
I take it Uber Eats is trying to gain a foothold in that important, but underserved, cannibal market?
#DeleteChrome
The driver still needs to pay the costs of running the vehicle, which will not have reduced in 5 years
Actually, running costs have reduced. The biggest cost is gas, which was $3.65 per gallon 5 years ago, and is $2.90 today.
Compared to gross revenues halving, that is quite a small drop.
If the revenue drop is entirely due to drivers driving a shorter distance during the month, then they will be better off, but there have been multiple stories of driver rates dropping.
It's impossible to know exactly what has happened.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Actually MoviePass? If you look at its history it started out making a modest profit but its a classic case of because something worked LOCALLY does NOT mean it would work nationwide.
MoviePass originally started out in San Francisco where with the sky high costs of...well frankly being in San Fran at all, made a lot of movie theaters seriously hurt for butts in seats. The guys that started MP noticed this and made deals with several local theaters to offer them deeply discounted seats because...well having SOME money is better than NO money and it costs the theater the same to show the movie to 10 people or 100 and the duo had a reasonable price for the service, closer to what Amazon Prime costs. These two factors made them a modest if not "VC worthy" profit.
But then came a new CEO who thought he could "pull an Amazon" and went nationwide with NO deals with the theaters AND at a price so low that even if they had the same deal the original duo had (who IIRC wisely cashed out when they heard the "new business plan") would never make a red cent and...yeah surprise surprise dumb business plan? Is dumb.
The sad part is if they kept the original model and simply expanded to other cities with high costs of living and a glut of movie theaters? They could have had a modestly successful little franchise, but that model simply wouldn't work in places where theaters have no issue getting customers.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The headline is VERY misleading. They are talking about MONTHLY income and NOT hourly income. So what is happening is that new Uber drivers are far more likely to be part timers, putting in a few hours of driving at the end of the day to earn some extra income.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week. Over 60% have another job that is their main income.
Score:2??? Mod parent up, please. The summary leaves out this very important context.
Also relevant but omitted: Five years ago, Uber and Lyft simply didn't exist in a usable state in many places. As ubiquitous as they have become, It was impossible to get a ride much of the time in my area just 3-4 years ago. Trust me, they let me down a few times when I tipped a few glasses and didn't plan on inconveniencing friends for rides. At first, we had a few otherwise unemployed early adopters here driving full time and a few of us who were curious but not serious, so availability was very spotty. This isn't NYC or LA, but no, not some podunk BFE ultra-rural backwater region either.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Their other competition is DUI lawyers and airport parking lots. I know a lot of people who use Uber for nights out because they want to drink a little but refuse to drive drunk. And even my 70 year-old mom has used Uber for a lift home from the airport when I was unable to pick her up. She's definitely no luddite or technophobe though she is a bit of a Nervous Nellie, and even she said it was fine and complimented "Big Al" for helping her with her suitcase.
I don't use Uber or Lyft a lot because I can easily drive most places I go, but I find them to be very convenient when travelling, in urban areas particularly. Being able to call for a cheap ride in a few minutes on a whim whether you're in Denver, Nashville, or Boston, and only needing to know one app rather than multiple companies and phone numbers, is incredibly convenient. The simplicity adds to the obvious convenience.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Our masters artificially restrict the housing supply in major cities, driving up the price of existing units. Likewise our masters import as much cheap labor as possible, in order to drive down wages.
Yet another case of venture capital ruining everything it touches.
About 80% of Uber drivers drive for less than 35 hours per week.
I'm an Uber/Lyft driver. And another misleading statistic is the number of hours they tell us we've worked.
And that's because both companies do not count the waiting time we take to wait for rides to accept, nor the time we use to get back to a location without getting a ride request. So if the app tells me I've worked 35 hours or 45 hours this week and done my 130 rides for the week, it usually means I've actually worked roughly 50+ to 60+ hours a week. It's all very misleading.
And to some of you wondering how this is possible. Why aren't drivers quitting? Well, I'd say 99% of drivers did quit three or four years ago. Me, I am part of the new batch of replacement drivers. I've seen my income slowly get reduced overtime, but definitely not as much as the drivers did four years ago when they went through a massive price cut.
That's the deal.
This has impact on the social fabric. I'm noticing this myself, because as a web developer doing agency stuff you basically are smack-center in the gig economy. Sort of decently paid, yes, but gig economy none-the-less. The Germans have a better term for this "the precariously employed" to describe those working in the gig economy.
The thing is, I think this is also a natural consequence of us all moving into a post-scarcity economy, so by and large this is a good thing happening. But until a society doing something resebling UBI is in place it sucks, because the ones doing the gigs are the onces left without a chair when the music stops.
My 2 eurocents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Asuming they drive the same car, maintanance will have increased.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's a low skill, low barrier-to-entry job. If you can drive a car and use a GPS app, you can be an Uber/Lyft driver. These jobs (whatever they are, be it fast food employee, Wal-Mart greeter, etc.) don't pay a lot. If that's the only type of job you can do, that sucks. If you can do something that maybe is a little more challenging or specialized, you'll make more money. I'm getting a little worn out seeing these 'my bullshit easy job doesn't pay enough' news stories personally.
But couldn't you always take a Town Car -- illegally -- for cash in NYC?
I don't count myself an expert on NYC, but early on when I started flying out there to support our small office, they told me if I had trouble finding a cab there was often a bunch of Town Cars that would do cash fares.
I didn't do it often, but 2-3 times coming out of a better restaurant there would be a few Town Cars waiting and they would take you for cash fares that didn't seem out of line for what I'd pay for a taxi.
This artificial scarcity of housing thing gets brought up here, mostly blaming owners of single family homes for engaging in zoning restrictions so they can get rich on housing price increases.
I watch the sale prices for houses in my neighborhood and if I extrapolate those prices out 10 years when my mortgage is paid off and I sell, the price I will get for my house isn't even a profit compared to what I paid in principal, interest, taxes and insurance and maintenance costs.
It's feels like a windfall because it's a giant lump sum run up by inflation, but it's more or less break even at best. I literally would have been much better off had I rented cheap suburban apartments and put the difference in some stock index fund.
I think the complaints about artificial scarcity are kind of accident-of-history. Up until not that long ago, most people didn't *want* to live in the city. Old housing stock, bad schools, crime, high taxes. The US spent decades migrating to the suburbs. In the last 20-some years, many cities have seen a renaissance, including suburban boomers retiring and moving back into core cities.
Since so much development focus at a macroeconomic level was focused on the suburbs, the cities were underdeveloped. Now that everybody wants to live there -- young people, retirees, etc, the housing growth is lagging the demand, and the demand is driving prices way up.
America is so far down the toilet, you don't even know which way is up any more. You aren't aware that the unemployment numbers are being played, job prospects suck out there are and getting worse. Good luck explaining how Uber is going to make your society better and enjoy your cheap rides to serfdom.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The sad part is if they kept the original model and simply expanded to other cities with high costs of living and a glut of movie theaters? They could have had a modestly successful little franchise, but that model simply wouldn't work in places where theaters have no issue getting customers.
I think it could work almost anyplace where you have deals with the theatre. People who are going to the movies for free are much more likely to buy the high priced snacks. Moviepass seems like a workable solution if they can get the theatres to give them free/discounted tickets and/or a cut of the snack revenue. The biggest problem I see is that it is way too easy for the local theatre to roll their own plan and cut moviepass out. For that reason, the most sustainable business model for Moviepass is likely the franchise model where they provide the technology needed for movie theatres to offer subscription services to their customers.
And to some of you wondering how this is possible. Why aren't drivers quitting? Well, I'd say 99% of drivers did quit three or four years ago. Me, I am part of the new batch of replacement drivers. I've seen my income slowly get reduced overtime, but definitely not as much as the drivers did four years ago when they went through a massive price cut.
So you are part of the current lot of suckers who replaced the last lot of suckers who finally wizened up that they weren't making money and doing stupid amounts of unpaid hours... SPOILER ALERT... eventually you'll come to the same conclusion that its actually costing you more than you earn and look for a job at McDonalds. Then the next bunch of starry eyed suckers will move right in and start the process all over again. Despite P. T. Barnum's alleged assertion being true, there is still a finite number of suckers who'll fall for the Uber trap, at this point they'll end up with the drivers who literally cant get work anywhere else and will put up with sub poverty line wages and corporate abuse.
Of course, the end result of the "gig" economy is that after you've run out of fresh suckers, you go out of business.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
There are a lot of business people who think by sheer force of money, they can disrupt an industry and eventually own the kingdom.
Stupid as that sounds, it can still make a lot of money for the VC's. As long as they sell their stake (or enough of it to pocket a big profit) before the whole house of cards tumbles down, the worthless kingdom they end up owning ended up costing them nothing (or even netting them a big windfall). The problem is that the media and, in turn, the public buy into the hype on the way up, facilitating this whole 'succeed by failing' sham.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Strat, you're usually spot-on but in this case, we're looking at the result of Uber and Lyft's massive 'recruiting war' that they've been engaged in the past few years. The numbers have likely plateaued but there are now far too many drivers. Of course, the companies - and the customers - aren't likely to mind this one bit.
If I had to guess based on my own experience in San Diego, I'd say there are too many drivers competing for the same customers. Every other car har an Uber logo on it.
Everything that I've heard is that Uber losing $1.50 for every $2.50 that they earn. Supposedly, someone correct me if I'm wrong, Uber is going to run out of money by the end of the year if they don't get another infusion of investor cash. Self-driving cars are still probably 10 years away, sounds to me like Uber is going to be long gone by then
but then the big theaters started there own plans that really hurt them.
You and others seem to consider the Uber/Lyft things, and possibly other 'gig' options...as something you do for FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT.
In many, if not most cases, this is not the case.
It is a way to earn a bit of extra money on the side.
You might have fred who is off regular job one day, and for a couple hours he decides to drive a bit on Uber, rather than watch cartoons.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
These ultra-low end contract engagements should only be taken as a last resort. They tend to be bad economic choices for the worker in the same way that "rent-to-own" is a bad way to furnish your home.
No because then you get what we have now with every media bunch starting their own streaming service, more and more money spent chasing fewer and fewer customers as people get tired of the restrictions and just tune out. this might work in smaller markets where there is only one movie house but in larger cities where you can have several companies owning theaters? Its just gonna piss people off
That is why the MP model worked so well in San Fran, they went out and made deals with pretty much all the theaters and then the customer didn't have to give a shit if the movie they wanted to see was playing at theater X or only at theater Y, they just went to the most convenient location that was showing what they wanted and that was that.
This is why I think most of the ones being put out by the Movie chains themselves will end up being quietly dropped in a few years and why most streaming services will end up going tits up, its really REALLY easy to run off the customers simply with slight increases in aggravation. They find the show they want to watch isn't being shown by the chain anywhere close to them a couple times? They are gonna say "why am I wasting money on this if I can't see what I want?" and they are gonna cancel, same as I figure Netflix and Amazon will end up ruling streaming with original shows while everybody else ends up fucked. It really doesn't take much to piss customers off when the entire purpose of your service is to make things more convenient and you have to remember the kind of folks that buy into such services are a little more "into" movies and shows that Joe Average who just watches the latest tentpoles so they are a lot easier to tick off.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Contract rent is a form of economic rent. There's a reason they have the same word in the name, it's not just some coincidence.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Strat, you're usually spot-on but in this case, we're looking at the result of Uber and Lyft's massive 'recruiting war' that they've been engaged in the past few years. The numbers have likely plateaued but there are now far too many drivers. Of course, the companies - and the customers - aren't likely to mind this one bit.
Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. Likewise, I usually find your posts interesting, insightful, and informative.
I was not referring to only Uber and Lyft. I acknowledge your point on that angle.
"Gig" jobs are not limited to Uber and Lyft or even ride-sharing. Even TFS/TFA states this. The live band or DJ at your local bar/club is a part of the "gig economy" as well.
Government keeps throwing in more obstacles, costs, etc on both the gig-workers and those who employ them which drives down what they make.
Government in the US strongly prefers "normal" employment as it's easier for the IRS to track, taxes/SS are taken out directly instead of individuals filing 1099s and paying only what they owe, rather than the government getting an interest-free loan from your paycheck until you file for a tax refund.
Government relies heavily on using our payroll withholding money for free. That's one of the reasons why the government hates things like Uber/Lyft...no payroll withholding and thus no interest-free loans to government.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
They used to take this for granted a couple decades ago, but somewhere people lost the ability to see that for some reason....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That is why the MP model worked so well in San Fran, they went out and made deals with pretty much all the theaters and then the customer didn't have to give a shit if the movie they wanted to see was playing at theater X or only at theater Y, they just went to the most convenient location that was showing what they wanted and that was that.
Don't most people always go to the closest theatre? There are only 2 theatres in my town and they are about 15 minutes apart. They are competitors but they always show pretty much the exact same movies at the exact same time. A moviepass at either one would be fine. It would make zero difference to me if it was one or the other. The driving distance and amenities are similar enough that something like a moviepass at one and not the other could easily draw in customers slightly further away.
One thing is that apparently when Uber/Lyft open in a new market they offer supplementary profits to new drivers--but these disappear after a while--and there were a lot more new markets 5 years ago than now.
At least I can pay good, old-fashioned, cash for a taxi and not have my CC info, email, name, and other ID info in a database for eternity.
From Uber's FAQ:
Apple Pay can be added to your Uber account as a payment method. With an Apple Pay account, you can also request and pay for trips without having an Uber account. Apple Pay is a subscription-based service currently only available in the United States. ... Select PAYMENT in your app menu and tap Apple Pay.
Apple Pay is like a one time CC, they don't have any of my CC info.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
it costs the theater the same to show the movie to 10 people or 100
If this were the case, StubHub would be all over movie theater ticket sales. Empty seats? Discount the tickets until they're all full. Theaters would be tickled at more patrons buying concessions.
This is the big confusion suffered by anyone who invested in MoviePass (post-expansion). There are no margins available on the tickets. Theaters split the ticket sales revenue with the studios, full-stop. The premise that movie theaters can afford to cut MoviePass a discount on tickets in order to get more butts in seats is pure fantasy. Go google "Movie ticket profit margins" and you'll find internet content like this:
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Sorry, but I'm a cash strapped millennial, not a boomer flush with pension money - in my area taxis are significantly more expensive option.
If you restrict yourself to a single driver or small pool of cars, you'll pay significantly more simply because you have no access to much larger market. The only exception to that is "personal driver" arrangements where you cut a deal with someone sharing regular route and you pay em directly, typically work commute. However you still discover those via "ridesharing ads".
As for Uber (or Didi, or whatever top dog is in the area) specifically, those are best when they're dumping VC money (I don't think they do that anywhere in the US anymore). When they stop doing that, they jack up their margin significantly, relying on fools loyal to the "brand". Fools are people who care only about convenience, not cost (or privacy, for that matter). But virtually all drivers use multiple markets ("apps" + "personal driver") available in the area to maximize their own bottom line, and so do the consumers if they are conscious about the cost.
I guess I don't understand. I'm mostly responding to the rhetoric of "enforced housing shortages" that principally blames single family homeowners for backing zoning restrictions that limit the construction of multi-family housing in traditionally single family neighborhoods. The crux of the argument is that people aren't interested in protecting quality of life, etc, they are just protecting their housing value as an investment.
To me the hole in that argument is that a house isn't a very good financial investment in terms of profit, nobody is really making much of a profit off their houses around here based on what I see for sale prices and what's actually paid to buy and own the house.
It may be true if you live in some parts of the country or even very specific neighborhoods here locally. My dad had a neighbor in Arizona who had moved from LA, two retired cops that sold their house in LA and bought a ranch in Arizona. The way my dad described it, their house sold for like 3-4x what they paid for it and in a fairly short amount of time (the cops basically retired when they hit pension minimum years).
The real value (or utility proposition) of owning a house seems to be you get a place to live for 30 years *and* a big check at the end. The big check *feels like* a profit thanks to the nominal distortion of inflation, but $revenue - $expenses, it's often a break-even perspective. The bonus is you lived someplace for 30 years and still get a bunch of money.
Use a car service. Negotiate a lower cash price than Goober. They're mostly the same drivers...
Well.. There is a sucker born every minute.
Cheap storage VM.
But that was true of Amazon for years - maybe decades. Who says investors won't put more cash in. Especially if they've already pulled out their initial cash investments by selling their inflated shares.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Fair enough. I suppose savvy investors know when to get out and when to keep investing. If it turns out to be a case of another startup gone south or a wise business decision, time will tell, I suppose. (munches popcorn)