Why Is Uber Like Farming?

Megan McArdle had an op-ed this morning arguing that Uber and Lyft were losing money because they weren't charging enough for rides.

Boosters of the ride-share revolution like to point out that most of the nation’s cars spend most of their time parked; there ought to be money in liberating all that unused capital. True enough — except that someone has to drive the car, including the time spent circling as they wait for rides.
In 2014, journalist Timothy B. Lee spent a week driving for Lyft. He drove for 50 hours but spent only 14 of those hours actually ferrying passengers. All that circling wears out the car and burns both gas and the driver’s valuable time.

The other day I noticed someone tweeting, I think, defending the usefulness of Uber.  The woman was divorced, supporting kids and with an odd work schedule (might have been an adjunct academic, I forget).  The point is that not only did she already have a vehicle, she had free time but at odd hours, odd enough she couldn't work a regular job, but she could drive for Uber and make money.

In a way she was similar to a farmer, someone who has land and equipment available and the decision is whether to use it to the fullest or not.  She, like the farmer, did, because that's what the market provides incentives for. When you look at what the farmer or driver is earning with the extra work, it may be very little, but as long as it covers the extra expenses incurred, if there's positive cash flow, the farmer or driver will likely work the hours.

A side issue:  I think cars are more reliable these days and last longer.  And in some cases, like mine, there's a mismatch.  All of my cars have become obsolete before they really became uneconomical to drive.  Repair bills were creeping up, partly because of age issues, not so much wear issues.  To the extent that's true for many people, Uber and Lyft will enable fuller usage of assets.  At least until the advent of self-driving cars which may change the paradigm again.