Oh give me a break. He's basing his entire analysis on the assumption that it costs $22.80/hr to operate a vehicle. They way he comes up with that is by including the up-front cost of the vehicle.
That's not quite the right logic. Most people do not go out and purchase a vehicle just to become a Lyft drivers. Certainly that's not what you should do.
A better economic analysis is to look at Lyft as a way to make your existing personal car a more productive asset. The car is a sunk cost. What you should analyze is the incremental costs of fuel and wear-and-tear for the additional miles driven vs. the Lyft proceeds.
Econ geek footnote: This is assuming there is little-to-no opportunity cost for being a Lyft driver. But for the unemployed that holds true. Lyft may be a more compelling option for unemployed/underemployed car owners.
Still counts. As long as you would have bought the vehicle for your own use anyway, it's a sunk cost. Whether or not it's profitable to rent it out via Lyft depends solely on the incremental costs of the extra driving -- not how much extra driving you do. And if it is profitable, then driving more is more profitable, not less.
That's not quite the right logic. Most people do not go out and purchase a vehicle just to become a Lyft drivers. Certainly that's not what you should do.
A better economic analysis is to look at Lyft as a way to make your existing personal car a more productive asset. The car is a sunk cost. What you should analyze is the incremental costs of fuel and wear-and-tear for the additional miles driven vs. the Lyft proceeds.
Econ geek footnote: This is assuming there is little-to-no opportunity cost for being a Lyft driver. But for the unemployed that holds true. Lyft may be a more compelling option for unemployed/underemployed car owners.