Personal data just isn't worth that much. You sometimes see people run around with high estimates where, like, Google's entire advertising revenue is attributed to personal data. But Uber doesn't run a massively popular advertising network, so even if that's a fair attribution it's not available to them.

There's a fairly common belief that "selling data" is a money-printing business, but it generally isn't.

Specifically, data is only worth as much as the buyer is able to exploit it to make money. Meta and Google have figured out how to immensely profit off of personal data - but that's because they own the largest ad networks on the planet.

Few other players can leverage personal data to this financial extent. More importantly, the players that can leverage personal data for immense profit also collect their own data, and so externally-sourced data is only of marginal utility.

And you see this in the discourse around this issue. We theorize for example that some grocery chain would "pay a lot" for personal data. But to what end? So they can offer just-in-time enticements to go to the store?

A lot of these supposed "applications" of personal data seem pretty flimsy, and even where they are genuinely useful, their monetary worth is marginal.

Data is worth something, but it isn't worth nearly as much as widely believed.

>the trip data alone has to be worth millions right?

Who is going to pay anything, let alone millions, for Uber trip data?

> What's with all the people that talk or even brag about how much money they make doing ridesharing, food delivery, etc?

Got any examples?

I can think of a few possibilities:

1. I wouldn't put it past a company like Uber to pay to produce propaganda where someone lies about much money you can make driving for them. After all, a steady surplus of naive and enthusiastic drivers is essential to their business model.

2. You might have some schmuck doing that for the for free, by trying to brag about themselves as personally successful on social media (either for ego reasons or just trying to get clicks).

3. I think a lot of the drivers are "misinformed, bad at math." I've read it's pretty common for casual drivers to be totally ignorant of some of the major costs they're paying indirectly (e.g. not factoring in the wear and tear on their car or (more egregiously) fuel costs).

4. Being a rideshare/food delivery driver may be profitable if you're really savvy and have unusual advantages (like you live near a stadium and only drive after a baseball game during maximum surge pricing).

Likely they don't calculate how much they are making after expenses or don't understand how expenses work.

For example, a reddit post I read a little while ago (can't find it again) the person said they do ride sharing so got to take a lot of deductions on their taxes so they said "on paper" it "looks like" they make "much less" than they "actually" do.

The comments rightly pointed out the poster's "on paper" income is their actual income, because they are deducting expenses they paid and it wasn't an accounting trick.

I worked deliveries a long time ago, before the age of food order apps, but at least at the time pretty much all drivers calculated their pay without considering expenses. It can easily be 30% of your pretax take-home, but the cost is mostly hidden until your car breaks, your tires wear, or you need to sell your car.

Have you ever seen an instagram post where someone flashes wealth they don’t truly have? Be it a rented Lamborghini or a stack of twenty dollar dolls? Or a stack of ones with a couple hundred obfuscating the other denominations?

There are more incentives to flaunt success then bankruptcy. Even if the success isn’t real.

Most of them are bad at math because they ignore a lot of variables like wear and tear on their vehicles and the fact that their car insurance doesn't cover them using their private vehicle for commercial purposes. It's one of those things that profitable in the short-term but only if you ignore long term costs. Granted some people might have somewhat legitimate reasons for ignoring those costs or may have made some cost benefit analysis in which it makes sense for them, but overall it tends to be a net negative if you actually include all of the costs.

Pretty sure it's becoming increasingly common that one person runs a fleet of drivers that they have imported from a foreign country. The primary person sets up all the accounts, and provides the cars, etc and the drivers do the deliveries and get paid a minuscule amount. In many cases they're akin to indentured servants that also live in packed housing owned by the "boss", to whom they also pay rent. The workers get their tiny sliver of money and send it home to help out their families, with the hope they can eventually establish themselves in the US.