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.

Comments

Re:Well, Duh!

[ShanghaiBill]

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's not necessarily true either

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:That's not necessarily true either

[ShanghaiBill]

nobody knows since the data is _only_ monthly.

No it isn't. One article written by one lazy journalist is not the only data available.

Uber has said that the reason for the decline is drivers working fewer hours. According to Uber, more than 50% of their drivers now work less than 10 hours per week.

The job market today is stronger than it was 4 years ago, and it makes no sense for workers to accept half the pay they did then for the same job. People are not that stupid, and that is NOT happening.

Re:That's not necessarily true either

[Anonymous Coward]

The study mentions that:

These declines in monthly earnings among drivers may reflect the fact that the growth in the number of drivers could have put downward pressure on hourly wages; they may also reflect a potential decline in the number of hours drivers are driving. In our data, we do not observe wages and hours separately; we see only their product, earnings.

However, other research provides some clues. Some calculations of hourly wages
on a very large transportation platform—Uber—indicate that trip prices fell between 2014 and 2016, but the number of trips per hour increased, resulting in stable hourly wages (Hall et al, 2017; Hall, 2018).

To our knowledge, there is no published time series information on average hours worked among drivers on any single platform or across all platforms. However, research into tax reporting indicates that self-reported costs by new drivers fell 41 percent between 2013
and 2015, whereas self-reported earnings fell 46 percent (Abraham et al, 2018). Since a significant fraction of these costs is likely to comprise variable costs (vehicle maintenance and fuel), the decline could reflect a reduction in hours, as well as the decline in fuel prices that occurred during this period. The fact that earnings declined more than costs, however, suggests that effective wages also fell.

Re:End result: looking good

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

Re:It was clear from the start they were burning c

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Well, Duh!

[stephanruby]

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.