Here's how much Uber pays drivers in 16 different cities, according to a new study

Len Sherman’s analysis of about 1.8 million Uber trip offers from March 2025 to March 2026 estimated that drivers in six of 16 US cities earned less than the $7.25 federal minimum wage after major expenses; estimated net pay ranged from $3.18 per active hour in Orlando to $21.87 in Boston. Before expenses, median offers in Orlando were $0.72 per mile and $19.30 per active hour, versus $2.15 per mile and $46 per active hour in Los Angeles. Uber disputed the methodology, saying it may overcount rejected low-paying offers and exclude tips and other payments; it said pay per engaged hour averages more than 25% above Sherman’s figures.

Analysis

Assessment — modest negative signal for Uber’s labor-market durability, not yet an earnings estimate. The key mechanism is driver supply: if net earnings after costs are unattractive in high-volume markets, drivers may reject more offers or shift hours elsewhere. Uber could respond with higher incentives, raising cost per trip, or with fares that risk lower conversion and trip frequency. Either response could pressure marketplace efficiency; the effect is unlikely to be uniform across cities.

The evidence is not clean enough to translate into a margin adjustment. The analysis includes rejected offers, while Uber disputes its assumptions and cites tips and local adjustments; active-time pay also differs from total time drivers devote to the platform. Conversely, Uber’s refusal to provide comparable company estimates leaves a disclosure gap that can amplify scrutiny. Local pay floors are the clearest 1–3 month catalyst: implementation or expansion could force higher payments, with pass-through and demand elasticity determining the net impact. Over 6–18 months, persistent driver dissatisfaction could weaken availability and service quality, while competitors face similar labor-market constraints; there is no basis here for a relative call on Uber versus Lyft.

Contrarian view: headline-level earnings comparisons may overstate the economic problem if drivers selectively accept better offers and supplemental payments close the gap. This is a reputational and regulatory watch item, not proof that consolidated profitability is deteriorating. Reassess if city-level driver retention, incentive expense, trip completion, or guidance moves adversely; thesis weakens if comparable audited data show stable driver supply without rising incentives or fares.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Do not trade UBER solely on this analysis; its disputed methodology and mismatch between active time and total working time make the immediate earnings signal weak.
• For the next 1–3 months, monitor local pay-rule developments and Uber disclosures on incentives, driver availability, and marketplace take rate. A confirmed increase in incentive expense or deterioration in trip completion would strengthen the downside case.
• Keep UBER exposure sized for regulatory and labor-cost headline risk rather than treating the reported city estimates as a company-wide margin shock. A sustained adverse guidance revision tied to driver costs would be a more actionable catalyst.
• Avoid a UBER-versus-Lyft pair trade absent comparable city-level pay, driver-supply, and incentive data; the article does not establish which platform has the greater exposure.