Seattle Law Mandating Higher Delivery Driver Pay Is a Disaster(reason.com)
reason.com
Seattle Law Mandating Higher Delivery Driver Pay Is a Disaster
https://reason.com/2024/03/16/seattle-law-mandating-higher-delivery-driver-pay-is-a-disaster/
10 comments
> Making a per order tax/fee isnt the right method to achieve their goals [...] route delivery can keep the costs down.
The Seattle ordinance doesn't call for per-order fees! It requires minimum per-mile and per-minute rates, along with a per-offer minimum of $5. An "offer" is "one or more online orders presented to an app-based worker as one opportunity to perform services for compensation that the app-based worker may accept or reject."
Delivery companies have long had the opportunity to optimize and batch deliveries to reduce costs. The ordinance only further incentivizes them to do so! Adding extreme per-order fees is not something they're being forced to do, but is more of a punitive response to the legislation instead of building more efficient and sustainable systems.
https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=55448...
The Seattle ordinance doesn't call for per-order fees! It requires minimum per-mile and per-minute rates, along with a per-offer minimum of $5. An "offer" is "one or more online orders presented to an app-based worker as one opportunity to perform services for compensation that the app-based worker may accept or reject."
Delivery companies have long had the opportunity to optimize and batch deliveries to reduce costs. The ordinance only further incentivizes them to do so! Adding extreme per-order fees is not something they're being forced to do, but is more of a punitive response to the legislation instead of building more efficient and sustainable systems.
https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=55448...
A minute/mile fee are fees per order. Now the companies and employees are being punished as consumers are leaving. So, 40,000 app workers are impacted by the "helpful" bill.
But i wouldnt say the bill is the only cause of hardship, inflation has hit everything from doubling car insurance, and the companies costs for employees is probably a big issue also.
But i wouldnt say the bill is the only cause of hardship, inflation has hit everything from doubling car insurance, and the companies costs for employees is probably a big issue also.
I can't say I'm sad about properly pricing in the externalities of the world's least efficient and most wasteful food delivery mechanism.
Seriously.
>> On cue, news stories started popping up of $26 coffees, $32 sandwiches, and $35 Wingstop orders in which taxes and the new fee comprised nearly 30 percent of the total.
If people aren't leveraging below-minimum wage labor to get a single coffee delivered by a driver, whatever will we do?
There was a time before food delivery apps, and it was better.
>> On cue, news stories started popping up of $26 coffees, $32 sandwiches, and $35 Wingstop orders in which taxes and the new fee comprised nearly 30 percent of the total.
If people aren't leveraging below-minimum wage labor to get a single coffee delivered by a driver, whatever will we do?
There was a time before food delivery apps, and it was better.
> There was a time before food delivery apps, and it was better.
This is such weird revisionist history. Was it really better to always have to walk to the restaurant, place an order, wait 15-30 minutes, and then walk home with cold food? Were people magically unexploited in 2010 because apps didnt exist yet?
This is such weird revisionist history. Was it really better to always have to walk to the restaurant, place an order, wait 15-30 minutes, and then walk home with cold food? Were people magically unexploited in 2010 because apps didnt exist yet?
Conflating multiple issues here.
Apps to order food efficiently are fine. Everyone wins. It's easier for the restaurant, it's easier for you.
Having food delivered to your door, however, is incredibly expensive. A lot of the cost has been masked: for a while paid-in-part by VC-style below-cost funding hoping to for winner-take-all success, and by giving drivers no benefits & terrible pay.
Apps to order food efficiently are fine. Everyone wins. It's easier for the restaurant, it's easier for you.
Having food delivered to your door, however, is incredibly expensive. A lot of the cost has been masked: for a while paid-in-part by VC-style below-cost funding hoping to for winner-take-all success, and by giving drivers no benefits & terrible pay.
> “A lot of the cost has been masked: for a while paid-in-part by VC-style below-cost funding hoping to for winner-take-all success…”
Thank you for reminding me about the browser wars 25 years ago. People were scratching their heads at the time about how internet companies like Yahoo and Google were making money, despite not having clear income streams. In the end, what? Advertising and our data.
I’ve been working in the food service industry for the past 15 years. Back in the day I was scratching my head at the rise of delivery apps, mostly wondering how a business can be making money with 20-25% of the sale price as cost to participate. Now, we see it’s volume and low income delivery.
Thank you for reminding me about the browser wars 25 years ago. People were scratching their heads at the time about how internet companies like Yahoo and Google were making money, despite not having clear income streams. In the end, what? Advertising and our data.
I’ve been working in the food service industry for the past 15 years. Back in the day I was scratching my head at the rise of delivery apps, mostly wondering how a business can be making money with 20-25% of the sale price as cost to participate. Now, we see it’s volume and low income delivery.
It used to be uncontroversial to expect people to look up the phone number of a restaurant and call it, then leave their house for a short time. That people won't take the initiative to complete a task more complicated than clicking on an app anymore isn't great. That people don't want to leave their houses and are starting to resemble the Wall-E society isn't great.
I still do this. Lately though I've noticed more and more places I call have an automated prompt directing me to order online. While I can still pick it up, this flow invariably means I can't use cash, have to decide on the tip upfront, before I receive service, and removes all of my privacy and anonymity. In practice, the sphere of resturaunts I can get takeout from is steadily shrinking.
Yeah I'm a little worried about a future where I can't show up at a place unannounced and just order and eat there or take it home.
You could order a proper loaf of groceries and pop something in the microwave or toaster. Doordash isn't serving lifesaving food emergencies.
That sounds disgusting and unhealthy
Indeed. These food delivery apps/services don't seem to be able to survive without screwing over outlets, drivers/riders, and customers... which says to me that they're not real businesses, they aren't a benefit to society, and the sooner they disappear, the better.
Not following. Restaurant wanted the deal flow. Drivers wanted the business. Customers bought in app.
It seems like everyone was in on the take otherwise someone would have put an end to it vokuntarily
How were they getting screwed exactly?
It seems like everyone was in on the take otherwise someone would have put an end to it vokuntarily
How were they getting screwed exactly?
Apps don't create deal flow, they hijacked it.
Yep, I’m ok to see businesses fail if they can’t make a profit without everyone else subsidizing their model
I can totally survive without a $35 fast food order. Can they?
I can totally survive without a $35 fast food order. Can they?
Food delivery has existed for a long time at much lower cost than today. What recent developments has made it so much less efficient?
It only existed for pizza -- easy to deliver to many recipients on a run -- or local bike courier in dense cities.
When every restsurant delivers separately, and the delivery agent isn't based at that restaurant, the economy of scale vanishes.
When every restsurant delivers separately, and the delivery agent isn't based at that restaurant, the economy of scale vanishes.
This isn’t a mystery: we inserted a middle-middle man who extracts their own chunk of change.
Very very expensive middle man. Which for long time was only concern about minimizing costs in the delivery, but not at any other part of business.
We stopped exploiting high school kids?
Why is it exploitation for a high school kid to have a part time job? Teaching youngsters the value of a dollar and giving them some life/work experience seems like a good thing to me.
By paying them prison wages?
They didn’t make any less than any other service industry worker.
The scam was getting them to use their own vehicle without mileage fees for depreciation. But even that’s gone now with lots of pizza places having a fleet of delivery vehicles for the drivers.
To your snarky meta-point, yes, having people learn the market rates for labor is a good lesson. It’s really good for teenagers who don’t actually need the money because it’s about the lowest risk hands-on way to figure out that life is harsh to people who have limited skills for where society pours its money.
The scam was getting them to use their own vehicle without mileage fees for depreciation. But even that’s gone now with lots of pizza places having a fleet of delivery vehicles for the drivers.
To your snarky meta-point, yes, having people learn the market rates for labor is a good lesson. It’s really good for teenagers who don’t actually need the money because it’s about the lowest risk hands-on way to figure out that life is harsh to people who have limited skills for where society pours its money.
Because teenagers are much better off staring zombie like at a screen, instead of earning money providing a service for people in a task that requires at least a little social interaction.
Expiry of near zero interest rate.
I didn't see in the article or anything was properly priced. It looks like the price is so high now that there is little demand so little income to the drivers who clearly thought they were getting a good deal.
It would be useful if more people could look at this from the driver’s perspective (in a nonjudgmental way). Most drivers I know are well aware of the costs associated with delivering but they do it anyway out of necessity. The job market isn’t great out there and I know many people, myself included, who’ve been job hunting for over a year. And delivering has been a decent fallback to make some ends meet. These fees are absolutely nuking a lot of potential deliveries and hurting drivers substantially.
Gonna dump some hard truths here.
You don't have a fundamental right to having someone else pick up your latte.
Food delivery has very little economic value. Yes it saves you a small amount of time but the people doing it aren't somehow more efficient at it and their labor can't then be allocated to anything that does provide an efficiency.
If you want to reduce the amount of time it takes you to get food you should stop fighting mixed zoning and start supporting the construction of walkable communities.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough people willing to make slave wages to hand deliver a burger to you, it's that the burger is in a strip mall five miles away across an eight lane highway.
You don't have a fundamental right to having someone else pick up your latte.
Food delivery has very little economic value. Yes it saves you a small amount of time but the people doing it aren't somehow more efficient at it and their labor can't then be allocated to anything that does provide an efficiency.
If you want to reduce the amount of time it takes you to get food you should stop fighting mixed zoning and start supporting the construction of walkable communities.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough people willing to make slave wages to hand deliver a burger to you, it's that the burger is in a strip mall five miles away across an eight lane highway.
If it was a “hard truth”, it wouldn’t need a law forcing it into existence.
Economic efficiency isn't automatic. An obvious example would be slavery in the US, which was a tremendous economic drag for everyone except the slaveholders specifically and still required a civil war to even nominally remove.
It’s not a “hard truth” if it wasn’t true until a law that just passed in one city.
On the contrary, if it were easy to accept (not "hard"), it wouldn't need any enforcement.
That's...the point of a law...
Hard truth: running over people you deeply hate with your car isn't ok.
Hard truth: running over people you deeply hate with your car isn't ok.
> Yes it saves you a small amount of time but the people doing it aren't somehow more efficient at it and their labor can't then be allocated to anything that does provide an efficiency.
For the record, them being more efficient at it than you has nothing to do with it. This is one of the insights of economics that many people don't know about - the principle of comparative advantage.
> You don't have a fundamental right to having someone else pick up your latte.
People should have a fundamental right to agree to a business transaction without it being anyone else's business. If someone wants to pick up my latte and I want to pay for it, it's our fundamental right to agree to that exchange.
> If you want to reduce the amount of time it takes you to get food you should stop fighting mixed zoning and start supporting the construction of walkable communities.
Eh. Maybe that works for some cases, but food delivery is still important in many situations - people who have mobility issues (handicaps or just age), people who have kids and can't just walk around with them easily this second, etc.
For the record, them being more efficient at it than you has nothing to do with it. This is one of the insights of economics that many people don't know about - the principle of comparative advantage.
> You don't have a fundamental right to having someone else pick up your latte.
People should have a fundamental right to agree to a business transaction without it being anyone else's business. If someone wants to pick up my latte and I want to pay for it, it's our fundamental right to agree to that exchange.
> If you want to reduce the amount of time it takes you to get food you should stop fighting mixed zoning and start supporting the construction of walkable communities.
Eh. Maybe that works for some cases, but food delivery is still important in many situations - people who have mobility issues (handicaps or just age), people who have kids and can't just walk around with them easily this second, etc.
This is just pricing being adjusted to reflect reality. It’s always been clear if you looked closely that if you’re getting food delivered for super cheap, something doesn’t add up.
There were a lot of delivery drivers in seattle last year when I lived there - many I saw delivering trivial amounts of product.
Maybe the law is just disguised as improving driver pay but the real objective is to decrease traffic congestion.
If that is the real reason then I support it. If it’s an unintended effect then I’m against.
Maybe the law is just disguised as improving driver pay but the real objective is to decrease traffic congestion.
If that is the real reason then I support it. If it’s an unintended effect then I’m against.
This can and does happen when a law pits one city (or other subset of the nation) against national (or international) corporations. Basically, management will maintain or deploy policy to see the franchisees in this jurisdiction wither on the vine: this contains the legal "contagion" in order to preserve longterm capital.
I daresay if this were a federal regulation evenly administered -- like, say, the 32-hour workweek Sen. Sanders is proposing -- corporations would more likely expend some capital to keep prices reasonable enough to stay in business.
I daresay if this were a federal regulation evenly administered -- like, say, the 32-hour workweek Sen. Sanders is proposing -- corporations would more likely expend some capital to keep prices reasonable enough to stay in business.
Yes, every corporation will try to stay in business. But there are many labor intensive industries operating on thin margins and a rise in labor costs (whether forced by market or regulation), will inevitably push the price high enough to drop demand and hurt the business and completely wipe some out.
Sanders is effectively proposing a 25% raise for everyone. That will definitely destroy a lot of these businesses.
You might say “good riddance, they weren’t good businesses anyway”, which is a fine political opinion. But don’t pretend everyone can drop their work hours by 20% and not have a huge impact on what we produce as a society.
Unless Bernie has a mandate on dropping demand by 20% as well, a bunch of businesses will be destroyed.
Sanders is effectively proposing a 25% raise for everyone. That will definitely destroy a lot of these businesses.
You might say “good riddance, they weren’t good businesses anyway”, which is a fine political opinion. But don’t pretend everyone can drop their work hours by 20% and not have a huge impact on what we produce as a society.
Unless Bernie has a mandate on dropping demand by 20% as well, a bunch of businesses will be destroyed.
Seems like a lot of app economy friction boils down to two main things. (1) There's now a new middleman between the restaurant and driver. And (2) costs of living are so much higher today than before the app economy began that the delivery driver job may have been workable fifteen years ago but wouldn't be today even if not for a new predatory player in the mix.
Neither one is the right answer.
The right answer is that there's just not enough value in these delivery jobs to ever be enough to support even a lower-middle class lifestyle.
There is a zero-sum amount of value you can extract from a marginal order, and when you exceed it, you get the effect that is described in the article - e.g. people boycotting $32 fast food meals (or whatever it was) and demand collapse.
The right answer is that there's just not enough value in these delivery jobs to ever be enough to support even a lower-middle class lifestyle.
There is a zero-sum amount of value you can extract from a marginal order, and when you exceed it, you get the effect that is described in the article - e.g. people boycotting $32 fast food meals (or whatever it was) and demand collapse.
$26 for a cup of coffee, hand delivered. Is that an outrageous price? Compare with a circuit board I designed and had manufactured in China, and shipped to my front door for $10.
The difference, of course, is that my order wasn't the only thing on the boat. There were probably dozens of shipping containers full of stuff. Even the last mile, it was on a UPS truck, with dozens of other packages. Huge economies of scale mean low overhead per item.
I think this warps our perception of how much a delivery driver should be paid. Frankly, I'm amazed that delivering a single cup of coffee, to a single customer, where the driver had to drive to the store, buy the coffee, drive to the customer, and drive back, can even be done for that cheap really.
"But it was so much cheaper, and the drivers were making so much more money before this stupid law was passed!" you might say.
We'll.....I wonder whether they were really tallying up all of the externalities. E.g. if I fill out an expense report for a trip where I had to drive, I get comped 75 cents a mile for gas, insurance, wear-n-tear on the car, etc. If a driver has to drive 5 miles to the store, 5 miles to the customer, and 5 miles back to home base, that eats up a fair bit of the $26 right there. And that's before the driver even bought the $7.50 grande latte.
When the article reports the utopic amounts of money they were making pre-bill, I don't think either the reporter, or even the drivers themselves, were properly discounting those figures to reflect the true costs. Not to mention that venture capitalists are also subsidizing those prices, because they want keep prices low so they can expand fast enough to get a network-effect lockout of other competitors.
The article deftly deploys some fine rhetoric borrowed from bleeding heart liberals--"think of the elderly who are relying on these deliveries!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!" But yeah, not that long ago everybody was doing without delivery services, and we didn't even notice that we didn't have it.
I guess it would be nice if there were a permanent underclass, who you could afford to hire for this kind of thing. If you weren't in the underclass, of course.
The difference, of course, is that my order wasn't the only thing on the boat. There were probably dozens of shipping containers full of stuff. Even the last mile, it was on a UPS truck, with dozens of other packages. Huge economies of scale mean low overhead per item.
I think this warps our perception of how much a delivery driver should be paid. Frankly, I'm amazed that delivering a single cup of coffee, to a single customer, where the driver had to drive to the store, buy the coffee, drive to the customer, and drive back, can even be done for that cheap really.
"But it was so much cheaper, and the drivers were making so much more money before this stupid law was passed!" you might say.
We'll.....I wonder whether they were really tallying up all of the externalities. E.g. if I fill out an expense report for a trip where I had to drive, I get comped 75 cents a mile for gas, insurance, wear-n-tear on the car, etc. If a driver has to drive 5 miles to the store, 5 miles to the customer, and 5 miles back to home base, that eats up a fair bit of the $26 right there. And that's before the driver even bought the $7.50 grande latte.
When the article reports the utopic amounts of money they were making pre-bill, I don't think either the reporter, or even the drivers themselves, were properly discounting those figures to reflect the true costs. Not to mention that venture capitalists are also subsidizing those prices, because they want keep prices low so they can expand fast enough to get a network-effect lockout of other competitors.
The article deftly deploys some fine rhetoric borrowed from bleeding heart liberals--"think of the elderly who are relying on these deliveries!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!" But yeah, not that long ago everybody was doing without delivery services, and we didn't even notice that we didn't have it.
I guess it would be nice if there were a permanent underclass, who you could afford to hire for this kind of thing. If you weren't in the underclass, of course.
> The difference, of course, is that my order wasn't the only thing on the boat.
The difference is the Universal Postal Union. China gets preferential treatment including $1 terminal fees and the ability to subsidize the cost for export. It’s only cheap because everyone else is required to pay more than their fair share.
Sounds a lot like food delivery.
The difference is the Universal Postal Union. China gets preferential treatment including $1 terminal fees and the ability to subsidize the cost for export. It’s only cheap because everyone else is required to pay more than their fair share.
Sounds a lot like food delivery.
Yeah, this article clearly has some significant bias on this issue.
There's not a warning sign big enough to hang in that domain name.
Food delivery has been happening for many decades, if not longer, and the price for delivery as a percentage of the overall cost has never been higher. Why has it become so much less efficient recently?
Food delivery used to be arranged by source, and multiple orders per outing. A pizza delivery driver would usually do 3, maybe 4 orders in a run. Similar with other places, if they had enough business to justify a delivery driver. Good delivery restaurants would coordinate kitchen and drivers so neither orders nor drivers would wait long for the other. Pizza in particular is ideal for delivery, because most people want to let it sit for a bit before they eat it.
Food delivery as an external service from anywhere has poor coordination. Many restauarants don't get enough orders to have a batch delivery. Many food items need to be eaten right away, so the driver needs to idle at the restaurant for best service, which kills efficiency.
Food delivery as an external service from anywhere has poor coordination. Many restauarants don't get enough orders to have a batch delivery. Many food items need to be eaten right away, so the driver needs to idle at the restaurant for best service, which kills efficiency.
> Pizza in particular is ideal for delivery, because most people want to let it sit for a bit before they eat it.
What kind of monsters do you know?
What kind of monsters do you know?
I guess it's just my circle of contacts, but we find it's nice when the cheese becomes more structural so the toppings don't all slide off. Ten minutes in the car is perfect.
Yes, we need to go back to this. Delivery should only be available when it makes economic sense.
Why? If I want to spend an extra 20 bucks on getting McDonalds delivered at 11pm isn’t that my prerogative? I’d rather go the legit route vs having some rando on Craigslist deliver it.
Food delivery used to be done mainly by employees of each restaurant. Not every restaurant offered delivery and the delivery area was usually limited to a few miles.
The only places I remember delivering food before 2000 were Chinese-food places and pizzerias. Other restaurants didn't even do takeout except for fast food.
I don’t ever recall seeing a restaurant in America besides the finest of dining that didn’t do takeout.
But did they deliver?
VC money dried up, and lighting piles of cash on fire stopped being as cool.
> The article deftly deploys some fine rhetoric borrowed from bleeding heart liberals--"think of the elderly who are relying on these deliveries!! Think of the CHILDREN!!!" But yeah, not that long ago everybody was doing without delivery services, and we didn't even notice that we didn't have it.
I see myself as very liberal, but this sounds like quite a straw man. What do I think of people deleting DoorDash, et al, en masse? "Good". Very good.
It's a wasteful racket.
Let alone dealing with the entitlement of some of the drivers who think that they deserve special treatment at stores and restaurants because they're "on the clock", or "late", or whatever. A non-trivial amount of times, I've had them ask to cut in line (or just straight attempt to), or serve up attitude to servers and other customers alike just to get back to the "hustle".
I see myself as very liberal, but this sounds like quite a straw man. What do I think of people deleting DoorDash, et al, en masse? "Good". Very good.
It's a wasteful racket.
Let alone dealing with the entitlement of some of the drivers who think that they deserve special treatment at stores and restaurants because they're "on the clock", or "late", or whatever. A non-trivial amount of times, I've had them ask to cut in line (or just straight attempt to), or serve up attitude to servers and other customers alike just to get back to the "hustle".
while you make your high-brow comment at how the $26 is a fair price for a cup of delivery coffee, the coffee shop owner, delivery driver, customer's are all worse off than before because some politicians thought they 'knew' better, as you purport to here.
Meanwhile, the rest of society is better off because they're no longer paying the societal cost of effectively subsidizing the infrastructure of rich people who're paying to have a single lukewarm diet coke hand-delivered from the McDonald's down the block.
Why the hyperbole? Restaurant delivery service has been around for decades but it’s never had such a high overhead as it does today.
It’s amazing how throwing all kinds of computing power and fancy apps at the problem has made the process so much less efficient than when someone picked up the phone and called the restaurant and food would show up at their door.
It’s amazing how throwing all kinds of computing power and fancy apps at the problem has made the process so much less efficient than when someone picked up the phone and called the restaurant and food would show up at their door.
>Restaurant delivery service has been around for decades but it’s never had such a high overhead as it does today.
Delivery used to be primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) pizza.
Pizza is a special, nearly optimal case for delivery because it translates to small volume, lightweight, uniform, packing efficient, equal temperature containers enabling a single driver to carry enough product for a large number of endpoints while maintaining the temperature and quality of the food. These conditions do not apply to most food options, and are critical to the cost efficiency of pizza delivery.
Delivery used to be primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) pizza.
Pizza is a special, nearly optimal case for delivery because it translates to small volume, lightweight, uniform, packing efficient, equal temperature containers enabling a single driver to carry enough product for a large number of endpoints while maintaining the temperature and quality of the food. These conditions do not apply to most food options, and are critical to the cost efficiency of pizza delivery.
> high-brow comment
You say that like its a bad thing :-)
> all worse off than before.
Let's stipulate, for sake of argument, that is true. Coffee shop owners are selling less coffee, delivery drivers are getting paid more per hour, but get less hours in, and erstwhile customers can no longer afford hand-delivered coffee.
Further stipulate that its this bill which us the cause.
The question is, wouldn't all of that happened anyways? The bill might have made it happen now, and not 6 months from now. But can you show everybody was not just living in a fool's paradise?
I know it's unusual these days to make public policy based on calculation and not ideological conviction, but lets do some math. If a driver is making $20 an hour, and it costs him 75 cents a mile to drive his car, how fast, in MPH, can the driver go before just running the car uses up the entire $20? I calculate 20/.75 = 26.7 MPH.
So anybody driving at over 30 MPH is already wearing their car out faster than they can earn money to maintain it. 6 months later, there will be no money set aside for replacing the tires. When the break pads are worn away, well, just hope that the calipers digging into the brake discs can keep you going. And we'll just hope the timing belt--which should have been replaced 50k miles ago, doesn't break, or we'll have to pay for an engine rebuild.
Seriously guys in what universe does it make any sense that you can get coffee hand-delivered to your house for a few bucks extra? If something looks too good to be true, that's because it is too good to be true.
You say that like its a bad thing :-)
> all worse off than before.
Let's stipulate, for sake of argument, that is true. Coffee shop owners are selling less coffee, delivery drivers are getting paid more per hour, but get less hours in, and erstwhile customers can no longer afford hand-delivered coffee.
Further stipulate that its this bill which us the cause.
The question is, wouldn't all of that happened anyways? The bill might have made it happen now, and not 6 months from now. But can you show everybody was not just living in a fool's paradise?
I know it's unusual these days to make public policy based on calculation and not ideological conviction, but lets do some math. If a driver is making $20 an hour, and it costs him 75 cents a mile to drive his car, how fast, in MPH, can the driver go before just running the car uses up the entire $20? I calculate 20/.75 = 26.7 MPH.
So anybody driving at over 30 MPH is already wearing their car out faster than they can earn money to maintain it. 6 months later, there will be no money set aside for replacing the tires. When the break pads are worn away, well, just hope that the calipers digging into the brake discs can keep you going. And we'll just hope the timing belt--which should have been replaced 50k miles ago, doesn't break, or we'll have to pay for an engine rebuild.
Seriously guys in what universe does it make any sense that you can get coffee hand-delivered to your house for a few bucks extra? If something looks too good to be true, that's because it is too good to be true.
Remember, kids: the real minimum wage is still holding steady at $0.
Once all of the Really Smart People are done bethinking themselves smarter than the market, voters can hopefully overthrow the RSP clique and get back to having, you know, an economy.
Once all of the Really Smart People are done bethinking themselves smarter than the market, voters can hopefully overthrow the RSP clique and get back to having, you know, an economy.
[deleted]
Thats why route delivery (like grocery/elderly meal delivery/lunch runs) can keep the costs down.
Truck drivers are also having lots of issues with lowering incomes also, and corporations are trying to push the expenses on them. Another area you need to look at the entire model and figure out how the truck driver makes money and what is hurting them. (dispatch services, gas prices, insurance, lines, etc)
Long wait times are hurting many delivery type services with rising expenses.