It'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.

I 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.

The gist of the article is that it isn't really even $19 an hour though with taxes and expenses.

It'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.

I'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"...