
Uber and Lyft drivers' median hourly wage is just $3.37, report finds - pmoriarty
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft-driver-wages-median-report
======
davebryand
I question the authenticity of the $3.37 number when I see that the paper this
article references was published by an organization funded by these bodies:

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, BP, ClearPath Foundation, Conoco
Phillips, Duke Energy, Electricité de France, EnBW, ENGIE, ENI, Eversource,
Exelon Corporation, ExxonMobil, Gas Natural Fenosa, GE, Golden Spread Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Iberdrola, IHI Corporation, EDPC J-Power, Kiewit Energy
Group Inc., National Grid, Norwegian Ministries, PSEG, Southern Company,
Swedish Energy Agency, Toyota Motor Corporation, TransCanada Corporation

I think Uber/Lyft economics are problematic, but these guys have pretty solid
incentives to make Uber/Lyft look unviable.

[http://ceepr.mit.edu/support/associates](http://ceepr.mit.edu/support/associates)

~~~
Clanan
Instead of giving in to a gut reaction, you should read the paper. All
research must get funding in one way or another. If you exclude research due
to funding sources and potential conflicts of interest, you wouldn't be left
with much.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
How exactly would you suggest people read the paper? The article linked to a
brief [1] which says literally absolutely nothing about how they conjured up
their numbers. And the paper itself is here [2]. It's rather worse than a
paywall. Instead the paper is restricted to their "sponsors" until an embargo
of up to 6 months.

This sort of behavior should not instill confidence in the paper's
conclusions. And I think it was completely reckless of the Guardian to run an
eye catching headline with absolutely 0 justification given to the numbers
other than an implicit appeal to authority by calling it an MIT paper. Though
such is the state of the media today.

[1] -
[http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf](http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf)

[2] - [http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-
papers/681](http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-papers/681)

~~~
shakna
I'm not sure if it's purposeful, or how long the hole will remain open, but
you can see the full paper. Remove the "-Brief". [0]

The paper is fairly open about their methodology, and give access to things
like the actual survey being answered, rather than just saying "a survey
matching these criteria was used".

Most of their data apparently has come through Harry Campbell [1], and his
yearly survey, which has it's own data and methodology out in the open [2].

I'm not remotely qualified to analyse it, but you can see the data from
therideshareguy's survey if you're looking to critique the results of this
paper. (I've edited this paragraph to try and get less push/offensive. I'm
still not happy with it, but the aphasia is kicking my butt. Rest assured, I'm
just trying to be helpful, and just wanted to point the direction to
discussing the data. Still not happy with this phrasing either.)

[0]
[http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf](http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf)

[1] [https://therideshareguy.com](https://therideshareguy.com)

[2]
[https://therideshareguy.com/2018SurveyReport](https://therideshareguy.com/2018SurveyReport)

------
UncleEntity
> “The companies are losing money. The businesses are being subsidized by
> [venture capital] money … And the drivers are essentially subsidizing it by
> working for very low wages.”

Last time I pointed that out I was downvoted for some unknown reason.

My neighbor was talking about buying a new car to drive for lyft/uber and I
was like "the trick is to tear up _somebody else 's_ car." We'll see if he
heeds my advice though I kind of doubt it since he has an MBA and I'm just the
resident slacker who happens to know the business.

~~~
foobarian
I don't get it. Taxicabs such as in NYC are famously expensive to buy into,
and yet drivers somehow afford it and make livings on them. So if they are
clearly not losing money, why is it that a company that's supposed to be
vastly more efficient due to use of computers can't make a profit? Are the
tech overheads really that high?

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Taxicabs such as in NYC are (were) monopolies. The price you paid was far
above what the market rate should have been, which is why drivers were able to
make livings on them. Uber/Lyft are simply forcing prices back down to the
market rate which is where the prices should be in a free market. Driving
isn't really something that should be a career.

> "Why is it that a company that's supposed to be vastly more efficient due to
> use of computers can't make a profit?"

Well Uber/Lyft are probably focused on growth now. They will make plenty of
profit once they dominante every city with driver-less cars.

~~~
robbick
> "Driving isn't really something that should be a career."

Why not?

~~~
visarga
This question would have made sense 10-20 years ago.

~~~
gambiting
No, I'm still confused. What is the problem with being a taxi driver for life
and expecting a good wage?

~~~
Nursie
Only middle class professionals have "a career" and therefore deserve to have
enough money to live on, don't you know.

It's the primary reason we don't need a minimum wage - working in the service
industry or any other relatively unskilled work isn't "a career" so it doesn't
matter if it only pays 2 bucks an hour, so goes the reasoning because nobody
should be expecting to do it for long or make a life out of it.

It's myopic.

~~~
xauronx
If teachers can’t be expected to support their family off their income, why
should someone doing something that can be crowd sourced as a side gig? Just
because I can make $15 tying peoples shoes doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to
support a family off of it.

~~~
gambiting
Because it is in your(society) interest that people can support themselves and
their families with just one job. Otherwise you end up spending more on
benefits and support not to mention on all the problems that come with chronic
unemployment.

------
astrodust
Uber is losing billions and their drivers are making peanuts. That sounds
sustainable.

~~~
maxharris
It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle
revolution. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/technology/driverless-
car...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/technology/driverless-cars-
california-rules.html)

This is similar to how the huge army of people stuffing DVDs into envelopes at
Netflix is going away. It might be slow, but I don't think there will be tons
of people watching DVDs from them in 2030...
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/netflix-dvd-business-
still-a...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/netflix-dvd-business-still-alive-
what-is-it-like-to-work-there.html)

~~~
Steeeve
> It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle
> revolution.

We still have drivers on subway trains. When those drivers lose jobs to
autonomy, maybe we can think about being on the cusp. Until then, I see it as
a fantastic story that can be used to milk VCs for cash.

At <$4/hour, it's a better investment to automate a fast food restaurant like
McDonald's or Burger King. They pay twice as much for labor. Pouring a coke
and cooking burgers and fries should be a pretty straightforward challenge.
They've already done Pizzas.

~~~
DanielDent
The SkyTrain in Vancouver, Canada does not have drivers.

It has been in service since it was built for the 1986 World Expo.

Autonomous trains are not nearly as widespread as they could be, but this is
not for technical reasons - it is for political reasons.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Pretty sure one of the Boston subway lines is autonomous (from the airport?),
along with a smattering of subway lines around the world.

~~~
hanklazard
Blue line? Nope, it has a driver.

------
cm2012
That seems too low. Most drivers I use have been doing it for years. They
wouldn't at those rates.

~~~
trendia
The recent internal Uber study found that long-term drivers learn how to
optimize their rides for the highest fares. So there are significant
differences between what the median driver makes and what the "pro" Uber
drivers make.

~~~
Tiktaalik
This is the concern I hear from policy makers. If Uber/Lyft drivers are
"optimizing" their rides and only seeking out the most profitable routes and
areas, then cities no longer have a egalitarian transportation system.

Need a ride and you're in an obscure part of town? Welp too bad.

~~~
cm2012
Taxis did this 100x worse.

------
jrs95
As a former pizza delivery guy, this seems odd to me. Before expenses, I’d
make between 12 and 20 an hour depending on the night. The car I drove then
had a KBB value of less than $3000 and it would have been eligible to use as
an Uber. I just don’t see how you could possibly have such high levels of
expenses unless you were paying like $600 a month for your car.

~~~
lsc
As a passenger, I'm very often in $40K+ vehicles. Even on a 60 month loan,
that'd be over your $600 number just on car payments.

~~~
timcederman
In 200+ rides, I don't think I've ever once been in a $40k+ Uber vehicle
unless I've used Uber Select.

~~~
lsc
hm. It appears I'm off on my car prices. I thought japanese minivans were in
that range, and with pool, those are really common. looking, they look closer
to $30K than $40K if you don't spring for the extras. doing a survey of car
manufacturer websites, my impression of how much vehicles cost appears to be
around $10K high across the board. The base model honda accord is only $23K?
that is way less than I thought.

I use uberx to work, and pool home most days; I've used select once. I think I
get a Mercedes C-class at least once a week, some of them looking pretty new.
Oddly, I almost never see BMWs. I remember the other night I got in some giant
four door American pickup that looked new and very expensive, but I don't know
enough about trucks to recognize the model to verify that impression.

Still, the standard Prius is gonna be like $400/month on a 60 month loan, and
that's just the loan. I imagine that there would be much value in the vehicle
after those 60 months, if you drove full time in it, and I imagine the Prius
has lower operating costs than most vehicles in it's class.

I do occasionally get tiny economy cars... but not very often, which seems
weird, as if the major cost was the car, you'd think drivers would optimize
for that by buying smaller cars, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

~~~
jrs95
Honestly, if you're buying a new vehicle to use for Uber you're insane.
Perhaps they got more people roped into that or leasing than they ought to
have and that's responsible for these issues. But you can get a used car
that's more than adequate at a reasonable price even with terrible credit.

At least in my area, most of the vehicles have been 5+ year old Toyotas
(almost entirely Camrys, and a Prius or two) that were likely purchased with
over 100k miles on them. The nicest thing I was ever in was a new Honda Civic.

~~~
lsc
That'd be like 10K for another 100K miles? probably more with maintenance. I'm
not sure that's a better deal than a $18K civic brand new, if you really
planned for driving a few hundred thousand miles, especially when you factor
in gas differentials.

My impression is that the cost per mile on new cars is pretty good if you
actually drive them for a few hundred thousand miles. The savings on used cars
mostly comes in if you don't plan on driving enough to wear a new car out
before getting your next car; otherwise transaction costs can be...
significant.

------
throwawaylyfty
I ran these numbers when I had access to the data. Varies by region but this
number is still much too low. Even if 30c/mile in costs is correct the hourly
is still way off

------
kerkeslager
It seems that yet again, "efficiency" in startup-speak just means "offloading
cost onto other people".

------
msoad
Lyft rents out cars on a weekly basis. If a driver completes enough rides they
don't have to pay a rental fee. Rental includes maintenance and driver only
pays for gas.

That is much simpler to calculate. Someone should do the math on that.

------
SamReidHughes
Any Uber drivers want to chime in?

~~~
dnautics
This seems rather low. Granted it's been almost two years since I drove for
(primarily lyft) and I was making 50k/year for about 70h work a week. And also
I gave myself about 6 weeks of vacation over that year and half.

~~~
tachyoff
$50,000 per year for 70 hour per week works out to $28,571.43 if it were a
standard 40-hour work week. Oh, and no benefits and you get to pay for gas and
wear-and-tear on your car. So I guess if you're okay spending almost every
waking hour working for peanuts and no health insurance, then sure.

~~~
dnautics
Honestly it was more like 60 h a week and it's not so bad because that
"includes commute", and also the schedule is really flexible (includes working
around logging off for social events, for example). It was some of the least
stressful years in my life, if for no other reason than I got to sleep in
every day (not waking to an alarm ever).

------
resalisbury
The economist behind the study admits this is wrong and has adj the figure to
$8.55 from $3.37. Here is the response he posted.

[https://twitter.com/StephenZoepf/status/970754550968676352/p...](https://twitter.com/StephenZoepf/status/970754550968676352/photo/1)

He also admits to using "donated" labor from students. $0 is even less than
$3.37 ;)

------
felixk42
[https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-
delive...](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-
one-understanding-ubers-bleak-operating-economics.html)

I have always thought Uber drivers are either mispricing their vehicle cost,
or doing some sort of tax optimisation.

If you have a nice car that you only drive a little bit on the weekend, so
that most of the cost is in the fixed stuff (age based depreciation (a 5 years
old Porsche with 0 mile is still 5 years old), insurance, parking etc), and
the tax man let you allocate cost based on miles driven (I am not based in the
US), then Uberring where you "try to get business" by driving up and down a
highway would be great.

------
makecheck
I guess what makes driving different than other low-wage jobs is that it’s a
_relatively_ easy job to obtain if you already have the vehicle: you don’t
have to do a bunch of interviews, you don’t need a huge amount of ability, you
can start making money pretty much immediately. Having a _reliable_ income can
be important (as opposed to jobs that limit your hours, etc.).

Of course, it’s obviously a terrible wage. Anecdotally, the drivers I’ve
encountered were all doing it for extra _side_ income and _not_ as a main job.

~~~
snakeboy
In addition, driving in the comfort of your own car with your own music is
genuinely more enjoyable than working in a greasy fast food kitchen.

------
throwaway0255
This doesn't surprise me at all and it's because of hidden costs incurred by
the driver, combined with an implicit bidding system that drives down wages.

Hidden costs:

1\. Vehicle wear and tear (cars cost you money when you drive them)

2\. Vehicle depreciation (cars cost you money even when you aren't driving
them)

3\. Interest and fees associated with auto loans and leases

4\. Insurance premiums

5\. Gas

6\. Unexpected/unplanned for tax bills

But the feedback you're getting about your income is just the dollar figure
that shows up in your account, which is vastly higher than the true amount you
could reasonably keep as profit. It makes $10 feel like $100.

Combine that with the implicit bidding system. And by this I mean, market
forces will naturally saturate Uber and Lyft with drivers until the price
falls low enough that drivers won't accept it. And because of the factors I
listed above, that natural price point is practically guaranteed to be well
below minimum wage.

The whole setup is just beautifully engineered to trick poor people into
thinking this can be a career. I've often thought about which is worse, this
or Herbalife. I think Uber and Lyft might impact more people than Herbalife,
and generally those people start with less, so I might give it to Uber and
Lyft.

Actually, it's also a profession that has one of the highest rates of
workplace fatalities, so I'd definitely give the title to Uber/Lyft over
Herbalife.

~~~
astronautjones
The insurance point deserves further discussion - in many states your normal
coverage is voided by driving for profit. So if you get into an accident where
they can prove you were working, you aren't going to get anything. I know many
people who are driving for Uber and Lyft and have no idea about this

~~~
tonyztan
Both Uber and Lyft have insurance policies that cover drivers and passengers
during rides, and in most cases the maximum coverage per accident is $1
million.

[https://www.uber.com/drive/insurance/](https://www.uber.com/drive/insurance/)

[https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115013080548-Insuran...](https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-
us/articles/115013080548-Insurance-Policy)

~~~
pzxc
However, the insurance provided by Uber and Lyft only cover when you have a
passenger in the car -- they don't cover you when you are driving to pick up
the next person. And your own insurance also doesn't cover you during that
period, unless you buy a separate commercial rider.

~~~
V-eHGsd_
that's not true. it covers the driver while the app is on.

[https://www.uber.com/drive/insurance/](https://www.uber.com/drive/insurance/)

> While you’re online with Uber before you accept a request, you are covered
> by our insurance policy for your liability to a third party if you are in an
> accident when you’re at fault

~~~
giancarlostoro
Only when you're at fault?

~~~
jachee
If the other party is at fault, _their_ insurance should cover _their_
liability for your damages.

~~~
DrScump
... _if_ they have valid insurance and _if_ they don't flee the scene.

------
Clanan
> Drivers earn a median of 59 cents per mile while incurring a median cost of
> 30 cents per mile, the report said, adding that for nearly a third of
> drivers, the costs are ultimately higher than the revenue.

> The paper reported the average driver profit to be $661 per month.

The posted $3.37 number is before taxes!

------
oh_sigh
This headline is a confusing a statement based on what the paper says. The
paper[1] claims "Results show that per hour worked, __median profit __from
driving is $3.37 /hour before taxes". The profit has subtracted from it
amortized losses associated with vehicle wear and tear/deprecation. This makes
sense knowing the nature of the business, but if a Domino's delivery driver,
who similarly uses his own car for the job, says to you that is hourly wage is
$9, would you assume that he was subtracting out vehicle deprecation?

[1] PDF:
[http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf](http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005-Brief.pdf)

------
BurningFrog
The median driver, huh?

I'd guess 90% of the Uber/Lyft miles driven are done by 5% of the drivers.

The median driver is probably someone halfassing it like I did. Trying it
occasionally for an hour or two, without much of a plan. Seeing what it's
like.

~~~
malandrew
Part-time drivers are also likely to already own their own car so factoring in
100% of vehicle depreciation is disingenuous. It only makes sense to father
most if not all of vehicle depreciation for those drivers that are working
full time.

------
zouhair
But hey, they are free to choose their own times and rides. You surely cannot
put a price on Freedom. You get screwed a bit, well a lot but it is all for
the greater good.

------
BurningFrog
Statistics is tricky.

Remember that the median _driver_ drives very few rides.

The median _ride_ is driven by someone who does it more or less for a living,
and who makes a lot more money than this.

Also remember that this single fact was cherry picked from the report to make
a good headline, not to give the best understanding of the situation as w
hole.

------
bbd
Based on the numbers we have, the average earnings per mile is close to
$0.545, but the medium profit of $3.37 seems quite off.

------
vlovich123
If people truly were making $3.37/hour full-time I think you would see very
few drivers; it's grossly misleading to assume so many people aren't capable
of managing finances. It looks like the full paper itself is currently
embargoed so it's hard to examine the methodology. However, just looking at
the math (assuming I did it right) it seems the conclusion are misleading (the
numbers themselves indicate they probably just sampled all ride-share drivers
throughout the US rather than full-time ones):

revenue: $0.59/mile cost: $0.3/mile monthly profit: $661 Average fuel
consumption is ~26.4 mpg so let's round to 25mpg Average fuel cost:
$2.5/gallon Average number of working days/month: 21.75 Average number of
weekend days/month: 8.65

0.59 * x - 0.3 * x = 661 0.29 * x = 661

x = 2279 miles

2279 miles/22 days = 103 miles. 2279 miles/8.65 days = 263 miles 2279 miles *
0.59 = $1344/month in income or $16128/year. 2279 miles * 0.3 = $683/month in
expenses ($273/month in insurance, maintenance & repairs, $273/month in fuel,
& $136/month in depreciation). . Average fuel price is $2.5.

2279 miles/25mpg = ~91 gallons. 91 gallons * 2.5 = 227/month in fuel.

Where it gets tricky is we don't have data on the average speed of an Uber
driver & whether the 103 miles includes driving around waiting for rides.
Let's assume a conservative average speed of 40mph.

103 miles/day / 40 mph = 2.5 hours/working day/month. 263 miles/day / 40 mph =
6.575 hours/weekend/month.

The faster you drive the less you work so if my average speed of 40mph is too
conservative, then the average driver drives even less. It seems like this
builds an average profile of a driver is one who picks up a rider or 2 on
their way to/from their main job & then picks up some extra cash driving a bit
on the weekend. The average driver probably doesn't consider Uber as their
sole source of income but rather as extra income their making when they
otherwise wouldn't be doing anything. Now of course that's probably less money
per hour than they could pick up from picking up additional hours somewhere or
even something like Task Rabbit. However the average Uber driver probably sees
it as more reliable in terms of total revenue than Task Rabbit, it requires
minimal effort, & it has extreme time flexibility that a second job wouldn't
(just turn on the app whenever you want to make money).

Anecdotally the full time drivers I've asked in LA & the Bay Area told me
they're pulling in 60-120k depending on how many hours they put in & the area
they drive in. I didn't know this but apparently Uber & Lyft offer a lot of
incentive programs that only the most active drivers can t take advantage of
that significantly bumps your income (trips/day, trips/week, miles driven,
etc). If you're not doing it full time then you're not getting these bonuses
which is going to further impact your $/mile (of course I suspect the fares &
costs are higher in these areas too). Since 40% of your cost is fuel
consumption, drivers doing this full-time are going to prefer fuel-efficient,
cheap cars than the average driver doing this on the side. This is obviously a
more complete picture than the misleading news reporting might indicate.

*EDIT: As another comment pointed out, the cost numbers are artificially inflated. They're attributing to the entire cost of insurance to driving whereas from the model above the average driver already has a car. Thus they need to actually use the fractional increase in the more expensive insurance they need for the ride share vs what they would get otherwise. I suspect the same problem applies for depreciation where they're not using the fractional increase of depreciation cost due to driving more but just the overall vehicle depreciation which was going to happen anyway. Even the full time drivers probably would have bought vehicles anyway so the depreciation & insurance cost isn't reflective of that anyway.

TLDR: The main problem of the "study" can be summed up as follows: they take
income from those who do it occasionally & subtract the costs of the ones who
do it full time. Given the threat ride sharing poses to personal car
ownership, it's not surprising such a misleading study is sponsored by people
who would be impacted by reduced car ownership.

------
jonmc12
This article is not informative. It leans on an MIT Center for Energy and
Environmental Policy Research study, with no publicly described methodology
and a hidden "full" report. Its a waste of time for everyone imo.

This type of "science" journalism is everything that is wrong with the
intersection of media and research. Funding aside, the researchers are
isolating a non-transparent, non-reproducible data finding, out of context,
and feeding it to the press. On the other hand, the press is reporting this
finding, and weighting believability upon credential, instead of reasoning.
The head researcher of the article even lists his key credentials as follows:
"..His work has been covered in numerous popular press articles..". Good,
informative, transparent research? who cares, credentials are accumulating.

The output is statistical nonsense. Its a complete waste of time for anyone
looking for real information, because the findings are not contextualized in
any meaningful way. The article does not come close to offering apples-apples
comparisons of other surveys that would give the reader a working
understanding of the economic dynamic it talks about.

I'm so confident that the findings are meaningless because I used to own
several businesses where I hired 100s of professional drivers. It would be
easy to manufacture results like this $3.37 "median" finding. Many drivers in
any given year start and quit with no idea of what the job entails or the
economics, yes, even when you tell them explicitly up front. I've seen first-
time drivers that want to use vehicles that get 12 mpg. Some drivers just
shouldn't be drivers; they can't navigate, avoid traffic, or follow basic
instructions. Many drivers aren't ready to treat the situation as a business
with a profit and cost center - it's not trivial to quantify costs, and many
people don't think that way at all. Also, some new drivers that might make
good drivers, take some time to learn. They can take a while to work into a
rotation and earn more lucrative rides. Also, many drivers take time to
understand the principle that some times of day are busier and they will make
more money during that time.

Context matters, a lot.

Also, I frequently ask Lyft / Uber drivers what they make. In many different
cities. Its all about the same as I used to see in my businesses. It's not
magic, the drivers who stick with it understand the system and make anywhere
from nominally above minimum wage to maybe 3X minimum wage for the most
capable and most opportunistic drivers.

The basic economics of professional contract drivers has been about the same
for dozens of years. I'd speculate what might have changed, if anything, is
that Lyft / Uber have normalized driving as a profession, and have strong
brands that attract more people. Maybe that results in higher churn rates than
the industry has ever seen. That would actually be really interesting if a
university researched that trend and explained it through quality scientific
journalism.

I feel journalists who are serious about presenting research findings will
provide: 1) a complete and transparent understanding of the methodology of the
findings, 2) impartial reviews from believable research peers, 3) a concrete
and thorough description of the context of the finding. This seems like a
minimum journalistic standard. It shouldn't be good enough to point to a dude
associated with MIT and say "this dude says this thing so <press narrative>".
If journalists rely upon credential, without reasoning, to assert truth, its
just manipulation hiding behind assumed pedigree.

------
emmelaich
I've taken many Lyft and Uber trips in SF recently. It's amazing how many have
new, high end cars.

One driver was a PYT and recent immigrant driving a luxury Mercedes C class.
Wasn't hers. Sugar daddy's? Something else?

Doesn't make sense. I feel there's something else going on.

Many will have a story about being hired to transfer a bag or a box. Drugs?
Money? Guns? Even then there couldn't be enough business to make a good
profit.

~~~
s0rce
I haven't seen many. The few I have been in have been people just doing it for
"fun" if they were bored or to keep themselves out of trouble. They never
seemed to be the people coming in from Stockton or Reno and needed the money.

------
TangoTrotFox
I find articles like this dubious when they state an outlandish claim, even if
supported by a study, and make 0 effort to explain or justify the results.
Instead appealing to the implied authority of said study, that the reader is
apparently expected to unquestioningly believe.

That number is obviously going to be controversial. How was it calculated?
What assumptions were made? In their own article every single other source
they reference provided higher numbers. How much higher? What were the exact
reasons for the discrepancy? They did state that other studies showed higher
earnings because "there are numerous ways to report income and to calculate
costs and time and miles spent on the job." Why did this study report lower
income, more miles, or higher costs?

I wish the job of journalism was still to inform people, and not just to get
people to click on things.

