3 ms·
Well the way I read it was the author poo poos $19 an hour because Uber originally claimed their drivers were making " $74,000 a year in San Francisco". $19/hou
by comrh 12y ago
Well the way I read it was the author poo poos $19 an hour because Uber originally claimed their drivers were making " $74,000 a year in San Francisco". $19/hour isn't great compared to $74,000 a year.
- swatow 12y agoI got that, but even in that context, it doesn't make sense to ask why Uber is still an attractive option when they only offer $19 an hour, when clearly that would be an attractive option to many people.
- comrh 12y agoThe gist of the article is that it isn't really even $19 an hour though with taxes and expenses.
- swatow 12y agoIt's difficult to have this discussion with you when you make the same confusing changes to the argument as the author does in the article. I'm well aware that the article went on to debunk the $19 an hour figure. But in that particular paragraph, the author did specifically claim that it was surprising that people would still find a $19 an hour job attractive. It was this claim I was discussing.
- comrh 12y agoI'm just struggling to see how the author says any $19 an hour job is unattractive. It reads as a comparison, that it is unattractive compared to the inflated figures Uber previously provided. "Uber’s no longer making those lofty claims"...
- BrandonMarc 12y agoIt's worth considering: $74K in the city that's just about the # 1 most expensive to live in ... I wonder how that compares with other cities. Of course, Uber drivers are going to be mostly in large cities since that's where most customers will be, but $74K in SF and $74K in Oklahoma City are two very different things.