> The problem is that most are not making much money [0] and most would be better off working a min wage job.

$40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage. Most of the drivers I've talked to explain that it does usually equate to between minimum wage to $20-$25 an hour after expenses depending on how effective you are at getting surge priced rides. But, unlike a minimum wage job you can set your own hours which is a huge advantage.

> Most Uber/lyft drivers are recent immigrants , working poor who end up taking on a lot of risk for little if any reward.

Yeah, and what would poor recent immigrants be doing instead? Probably work that is much riskier (e.g. farm work).

> Uber also uses psychological tricks to trick drivers into driving more then is rational

I don't see any "psychological tricks" in this article. Telling drivers where the most riders are and where surge pricing is happening helps drivers get more money. And I'm supposed to think this is a bad thing?

Also, I would advise against trusting the NYT when it comes to reporting on the tech industry - especially large tech companies. I have observed grossly exaggerated stories and even outright falsehoods portraying tech companies in a negative light with enough consistency that I do not consider them a reliable source on this topic. Remember, traditional media like the New York Times is being decimated by Google and social media. Fanning the fires of the "techlash" is in their best interest.

Inferiorhuman pointed to a marketwatch article where Uber drivers make $11 on average - that is less then min wage in California

Nyt is the paper of record , what do you recommend ? Can you point to the exaggerated/falsehood stories ?

I've identified some in other comments. The New York Times is overall still a reputable and rigorous publication, and I read it regularly. Just be aware that they have a vested interest in portraying large tech companies, especially social media, in a negative light and be cognizant of that conflict of interest when you read their content.

>>$40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage.

No, but it gets pretty close when you factor in all the expenses that contractors have to deal with.

Expenses are tax deductible. The article reports that his adjusted income was $22,378. The article did not mention how many hours he worked per year, so determining his hourly post-expense earnings is not possible.

And regardless, this is exactly one data point. Hardly enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. And as I have said before, I am not inclined to trust the New York Times' coverage of large tech companies.

you allege bias without giving any semblance of a factual proof, only an alleged motive.

The above author did not ask for specific examples. Prominent I have seen in the past, among others:

* Attempting to depict high profile YouTubers as promoting Nazism despite the given examples unambiguously not promoting nazism in context.

* Alleging YouTube pushes users towards right wing content when quantitative analysis shows left-leaning content outnumbers right leaning content more than 2:!, and a slim minority of recommendations going to right leaning content.

Here's one recent example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-wo...

The NYT is portraying Google's use of contractors as some nefarious and unfair system of two tiers of employees. In reality this not at all specific to Google, or even tech companies. Most companies use contractors for security, office maintenance, and recruiting. This is not new. Nor is it secret. Calling it a "shadow" workforce is deceptive.

The pattern of portraying large tech companies (especially Google) in a negative light is a consistent pattern I have observed for years. Bias is inevitable when there is a conflict of interest like this. Established media and news organizations are losing huge amounts of money and influence to technology companies. Trusting them to be unbiased in their reporting face of such a conflict of interest is highly naive.

So in your deranged conspiracy theory, the New York Times hates Uber because Uber is "a technology company" and therefore competes with the New York Times?

I can't speak to the validity of the conspiracy theory, but there is a stronger basis for it than that:

The writers at the NYT are unionized and consequently derive above-market wages as a result of labor regulations.

Gig economy companies like Uber undermine labor regulations, like the kind that empower unionized workforces like the NYT's.

Still the theory has a pretty flimsy basis of support.

If you think I am accusing the New York Times of engaging in a "deranged conspiracy theory" then you either have not read my comments, or you are deliberately stuffing words into my mouth. A conflict of interest is not a conspiracy theory. If you want to get a response from me, read my comments and make a response based on what I actually wrote.