4 ms·

It doesn't look like this takes depreciation or gas into account, but the site is like 75% advertisements so I might have missed it.

bhupy 7y ago
From the article: "These expenses include: Insurance: This includes personal insurance and a rideshare or commercial insurance policy. Car/lease payments: The amounts a driver pays to drive their vehicle. Drivers either own their own vehicles or lease one from Uber or a third-party provider. Tolls, license, permit fees: Drivers pay for all of these fees. Passengers pay an added surcharge when drivers must incur toll fees. Gas: Since drivers are considered independent contractors, they must pay for their own gas, and are not reimbursed. Vehicle maintenance: Drivers are responsible for their own vehicle maintenance and upkeep. They will be reimbursed if a rider damages their vehicle, however."
- catalogia 7y ago
  Vehicle maintenance is not the same as depreciation.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    I think it's debatable whether vehicle depreciation is a cost that needs to be included. For the majority of Uber/Lyft drivers, the vehicle is a sunk cost — they would have bought a car Uber/Lyft or not. These drivers use these cars for personal use when they're not driving on gigs. There are even drivers that buy cars just so that they can drive for Uber, but if Uber/Lyft didn't exist, those folks would still need to buy a car to meet their own personal transportation needs. Depreciation is going to inevitably happen to anyone that owns a car, whether or not they are a rideshare driver. It's like saying that you need to include the cost of a daily lunch in the equation.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > Depreciation is going to inevitably happen to anyone that owns a car, whether or not they are a rideshare driver. Depreciation is partially a function of miles put on the car. Rideshare drivers put miles on their cars a lot faster than they would have otherwise. Either way, sfkdjf9j3j is right. Your source doesn't account for vehicle depreciation.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Compare the bluebook value of a typical car that might be used for this kind of work at ten years old with 120k miles (12k/year) vs. ten years old with a million miles (100k/year). The difference will end up being like $2500, because after ten years the car will be worth hardly any more than that no matter how many miles it has on it, and it can't lose more than 100% of its value due to higher mileage. ~$2500 amortized over 880k additional miles is <0.003/mile, and even less in net present cost because you don't lose it until you sell the car.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        Your typical rideshare car isn't nearly that old, though, and isn't going to make it to nearly a million miles either. You've cherrypicked every single variable to favor your case, and you did the calculation wrong besides (you need to use the starting value of the car, not the ending value). Do it again for a newer more valuable car, and a lot fewer miles put on it. You can easily see depreciation amounts in the thousands of dollars per year.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Your typical rideshare car isn't nearly that old, though Now, or when they stop using it? The average car in the US is 11.8 years old. > and isn't going to make it to nearly a million miles either This is a completely plausible number of miles for a vehicle driven full time over the course of several years. > and you did the calculation wrong besides (you need to use the starting value of the car, not the ending value). No, you use the difference in value between the car with fewer miles vs. more miles at the point where it is replaced, i.e. the amount you lost at resale by having more miles on it. The difference in value between the starting value and the ending value independent of miles is the loss due to age/time, which is a sunk cost since the car ages whether you drive it or not. > Do it again for a newer more valuable car, and a lot fewer miles put on it. You can easily see depreciation amounts in the thousands of dollars per year. Because then you're measuring the depreciation due to time (the sunk cost portion) rather than the depreciation due to additional miles, and the depreciation due to time is much higher during the first years of the vehicle's life. It is also naturally much less efficient to do that in general. How many taxi companies are you familiar with that buy new vehicles, drive them for 10,000 miles/year for two years and then sell them? You can make anything cost a lot if you're willing to waste money.

bhupy 7y ago

From the article: "These expenses include: Insurance: This includes personal insurance and a rideshare or commercial insurance policy. Car/lease payments: The amounts a driver pays to drive their vehicle. Drivers either own their own vehicles or lease one from Uber or a third-party provider. Tolls, license, permit fees: Drivers pay for all of these fees. Passengers pay an added surcharge when drivers must incur toll fees. Gas: Since drivers are considered independent contractors, they must pay for their own gas, and are not reimbursed. Vehicle maintenance: Drivers are responsible for their own vehicle maintenance and upkeep. They will be reimbursed if a rider damages their vehicle, however."

catalogia 7y ago
Vehicle maintenance is not the same as depreciation.
- bhupy 7y ago
  I think it's debatable whether vehicle depreciation is a cost that needs to be included. For the majority of Uber/Lyft drivers, the vehicle is a sunk cost — they would have bought a car Uber/Lyft or not. These drivers use these cars for personal use when they're not driving on gigs. There are even drivers that buy cars just so that they can drive for Uber, but if Uber/Lyft didn't exist, those folks would still need to buy a car to meet their own personal transportation needs. Depreciation is going to inevitably happen to anyone that owns a car, whether or not they are a rideshare driver. It's like saying that you need to include the cost of a daily lunch in the equation.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > Depreciation is going to inevitably happen to anyone that owns a car, whether or not they are a rideshare driver. Depreciation is partially a function of miles put on the car. Rideshare drivers put miles on their cars a lot faster than they would have otherwise. Either way, sfkdjf9j3j is right. Your source doesn't account for vehicle depreciation.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Compare the bluebook value of a typical car that might be used for this kind of work at ten years old with 120k miles (12k/year) vs. ten years old with a million miles (100k/year). The difference will end up being like $2500, because after ten years the car will be worth hardly any more than that no matter how many miles it has on it, and it can't lose more than 100% of its value due to higher mileage. ~$2500 amortized over 880k additional miles is <0.003/mile, and even less in net present cost because you don't lose it until you sell the car.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        Your typical rideshare car isn't nearly that old, though, and isn't going to make it to nearly a million miles either. You've cherrypicked every single variable to favor your case, and you did the calculation wrong besides (you need to use the starting value of the car, not the ending value). Do it again for a newer more valuable car, and a lot fewer miles put on it. You can easily see depreciation amounts in the thousands of dollars per year.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Your typical rideshare car isn't nearly that old, though Now, or when they stop using it? The average car in the US is 11.8 years old. > and isn't going to make it to nearly a million miles either This is a completely plausible number of miles for a vehicle driven full time over the course of several years. > and you did the calculation wrong besides (you need to use the starting value of the car, not the ending value). No, you use the difference in value between the car with fewer miles vs. more miles at the point where it is replaced, i.e. the amount you lost at resale by having more miles on it. The difference in value between the starting value and the ending value independent of miles is the loss due to age/time, which is a sunk cost since the car ages whether you drive it or not. > Do it again for a newer more valuable car, and a lot fewer miles put on it. You can easily see depreciation amounts in the thousands of dollars per year. Because then you're measuring the depreciation due to time (the sunk cost portion) rather than the depreciation due to additional miles, and the depreciation due to time is much higher during the first years of the vehicle's life. It is also naturally much less efficient to do that in general. How many taxi companies are you familiar with that buy new vehicles, drive them for 10,000 miles/year for two years and then sell them? You can make anything cost a lot if you're willing to waste money.