This article seems to ignore the added revenue from a driver having a car and driving people around for Uber. The better metric is probably the average profitability of a driver with a leased vehicle.
Isn't there some debate as to whether there is profitability though? Or have they definitively made the turn away from investor money subsidizing below cost rides?
In most markets, Uber is also losing money on a per-ride basis. So, the lease subsidy is offset by the rider subsidy ... to give a larger negative number.
There's also debt servicing that Uber needs to pay for the billion dollar line of credit it received and tapped. It's possible the true metric is actually worse.