NYC food delivery gig workers score a big minimum wage victory(theverge.com)
theverge.com
NYC food delivery gig workers score a big minimum wage victory
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/12/23757900/nyc-food-delivery-minimum-wage-uber-eats-doordash-postmates
9 comments
Paying people who aren't doing any work is generally the cost of providing 24/7 service coverage for a business, yes. Many people hired to do night shift have very little to do for most of the night.
Maybe Door dash et al shouldn't 'overhire'.
They pay for it with their health, though.
Maybe Door dash et al shouldn't 'overhire'.
They pay for it with their health, though.
It is not clear to me that delivery companies have the agency to deny people's ability to work, however. If you must pay people for time that they are working, but there is no work to do, then you face a challenge with many people signing up to be paid for nothing. What do you do if 100 drivers start saying they're waiting for orders and there are no orders coming in?
What do you do if 100 drivers say they're waiting for orders, and a paltry number of orders come in that, unbenownst to Uber, get delegated to just 5 of those 100 while all 100 collect pay checks?
What do you do if 100 drivers say they're waiting for orders, and a paltry number of orders come in that, unbenownst to Uber, get delegated to just 5 of those 100 while all 100 collect pay checks?
Of course they have the agency. They can limit the # of active drivers that can log in. Nobody is forcing them to have an unlimited number of drivers, just like nobody is forcing the Best Western down the road to hire an unlimited number of people to work their night desk.
It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size.
It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size.
>It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size.
OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc.
I think there's a fine line between "our labor is underpaid, we should be paid more" and "let's destroy the entire business model" and I'm certainly excited to see how badly this will go. If I were to be cynical, I would say that there's a certain slice of the labor rights movement for whom any combination of the above would be a good outcome.
OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc.
I think there's a fine line between "our labor is underpaid, we should be paid more" and "let's destroy the entire business model" and I'm certainly excited to see how badly this will go. If I were to be cynical, I would say that there's a certain slice of the labor rights movement for whom any combination of the above would be a good outcome.
> OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc.
You've just realized why most employed people aren't paid by the keystroke, and why 'on-call' contractors that don't have reliable, consistent 9-5 work charge an incredible premium for their services.
You've just realized why most employed people aren't paid by the keystroke, and why 'on-call' contractors that don't have reliable, consistent 9-5 work charge an incredible premium for their services.
If you've ever had yard-work done by unskilled labor or taken a taxi, you know that ain't the truth.
> OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc.
I don't understand exactly which workers are supposed to be angry about sitting somewhere and getting paid that wouldn't be angry about delivering something and getting paid. Or which ones are desperate to work on another app while they are currently being paid by the app they're on.
> "let's destroy the entire business model"
What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model?
I don't understand exactly which workers are supposed to be angry about sitting somewhere and getting paid that wouldn't be angry about delivering something and getting paid. Or which ones are desperate to work on another app while they are currently being paid by the app they're on.
> "let's destroy the entire business model"
What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model?
>What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model?
I have no opinion on that - I'm simply assuming that the workers that are part of "this shitty business model" are not looking for it to be destroyed and feeling that there may not be an alignment of interests. What can be a win for "the worker" in the large abstract can be a loss for "these workers" in the specific.
I have no opinion on that - I'm simply assuming that the workers that are part of "this shitty business model" are not looking for it to be destroyed and feeling that there may not be an alignment of interests. What can be a win for "the worker" in the large abstract can be a loss for "these workers" in the specific.
That is not obvious to me at all. If they feel empowered to do that, they could, in theory, play it very tightly to short term demand and toggle people's "working status" and dodge this new law entirely. We don't want people idling around with apps that try to log in to uber every 10 seconds rather than people idling around logged in waiting for uber to send them a job. It's the same problem as before. This law is effectively saying uber must pay people for asking if uber has any work to do, in addition to doing it.
And maybe we're just saying no to the gig model. Sure, I'm for it. But this indirect approach is going to be an awkward way to get there imo.
And maybe we're just saying no to the gig model. Sure, I'm for it. But this indirect approach is going to be an awkward way to get there imo.
they can do whatever every other company does when it overhires or has too many people working during a dead shift. this is a solved problem.
As far as I can tell, workers are not being paid for just being online. They get paid a prorated amount of this "hourly" wage during an active order.
I don't think so. Door dash is complaining that this will result in a $33/hour pay rate for trip time. The law seems to be that you may pay however you like, but it must average out to $18/hour (overall? per person??). So even if you're paying for trip time only, if 10 people are active and doing no trips it would imply the average pay rate for the one guy doing trips must rise to accommodate the non-workers.
So the scheme above doesn't work too well for those folks but the economics for door dash remain the same. It also kind of implies you can create surge pricing for workers by having an overabundance of supply, which is a nightmare scenario for them.
So the scheme above doesn't work too well for those folks but the economics for door dash remain the same. It also kind of implies you can create surge pricing for workers by having an overabundance of supply, which is a nightmare scenario for them.
it's only $33/hr if you don't account for idle time (aka on call) and if the company chooses to pay based on trip time instead of per hour.
I feel like I explained that pretty clearly.
The problem is that you cannot easily define people on call. If $33/hr is the average comp for trip time when just one person is working at $18 overall, then they're saying an average worker works 55% of the time. If you add another person who just idles on call for the whole hour, you must now pay the one worker guy $66/hr for his working time.
The game theory here is not going to work.
The problem is that you cannot easily define people on call. If $33/hr is the average comp for trip time when just one person is working at $18 overall, then they're saying an average worker works 55% of the time. If you add another person who just idles on call for the whole hour, you must now pay the one worker guy $66/hr for his working time.
The game theory here is not going to work.
why is the company allowing someone to sit idly on the app and jack up prices? they're able to determine surge pricing based on demand, surely they can just use that exact same algorithm to determine the number of workers they need and will allow to deliver orders?
simple checks like "did this person do >X number of deliveries in Y amount of time?" should let the company know who to "send home" the exact same as food service and retail currently works. the companies are not forced to allow anyone onto the app, just as businesses are not forced to allow any employee who shows up unscheduled to sit around and collect an hourly wage.
simple checks like "did this person do >X number of deliveries in Y amount of time?" should let the company know who to "send home" the exact same as food service and retail currently works. the companies are not forced to allow anyone onto the app, just as businesses are not forced to allow any employee who shows up unscheduled to sit around and collect an hourly wage.
If you allow the company to "send people home" when there is no work then that is the same thing as allowing them to be waiting for work without getting paid. Because uber is not requiring them to be anywhere or do anything while waiting.
being on call and not working are not the same thing. if my boss tells me i need to be on call for our datacenter from 8pm-4am all week, i expect to get paid during that time regardless of if there's a critical incident or not. it means i have to be tied to my phone, cannot make plans with friends or family, and cannot stray too far from my home in case i need to dial in. same deal here.
Nothing you just said applies to delivery drivers. They are going to be paid while being "around to work" but not "on call". Or even more specifically this law is saying the ones actually driving need to be paid based on the number of people who are "around to work" regardless of whether they actually drive.
> 2) All friends log on to deliver food from 2am to 5am. Sleep and get paid.
Why would they let everybody log in if they don't get very much delivery business between 2am and 5am? There isn't a law yet that says that companies have to hire everyone who walks in the door for any shift.
Why would they let everybody log in if they don't get very much delivery business between 2am and 5am? There isn't a law yet that says that companies have to hire everyone who walks in the door for any shift.
Controlling the hours people work would make their labeling of people as not employees would be very contentious. And there's little difference between trying to log in and get work vs waiting for work.
Not really. The service itself can just close at night. It doesn’t have to operate 24/7 and accept all people working at all times in order to exist as a “marketplace” or whatever they are calling themselves legally.
That is probably true. But controlling when individuals can and cannot work during business hours is a different thing.
I blame this partly on tipping culture.
I just do not understand why the tip amount is proportionate to the value of food being delivered.
The fee should be set based on factors that impact LOE and time that impact delivery. That's it. Just like in the rest of the civilized countries.
Want $9 happy meal delivered to your house? $5 bucks. Want $30 sushi next door to the McD? $5 bucks.
I don't know why we make things so complicated.
I just do not understand why the tip amount is proportionate to the value of food being delivered.
The fee should be set based on factors that impact LOE and time that impact delivery. That's it. Just like in the rest of the civilized countries.
Want $9 happy meal delivered to your house? $5 bucks. Want $30 sushi next door to the McD? $5 bucks.
I don't know why we make things so complicated.
If this massively increases the cost of online deliveries, won’t it reduce demand significantly? Unless they limit or freeze who can do online deliveries (like they do for uber and lyft), I am not sure if the workers will really be better off.
I suspect that a. Adequate pay for the delivery person, and b. Adequate profit for both the restaurant and delivery app result in a price few would be willing to pay, yes.
You can only slice this pie so many times.
You can only slice this pie so many times.
[deleted]
I've only ever ordered gig-economy delivery a handful of times and stopped because of how expensive it was. That being said I have some friends who order restaurant delivery upwards of five times a week. They must not be deterred by the cost and I genuinely wonder how much more prices would need to increase in order to break their habit.
Demand and tips. I tip my delivery drivers because I know they aren't making $20 an hour. I won't anymore.
In New York City you need to leave a tip otherwise the delivery worker won't pick up the order (found this out when trying to tip in cash one time). Tips don't seem to be optional when it comes to delivery in urban areas.
I've a feeling the delivery fee will increase, customers will continue to tip otherwise they won't receive their food, and overall the price of delivery will increase and the number of customers willing to foot the cost will lower.
I've a feeling the delivery fee will increase, customers will continue to tip otherwise they won't receive their food, and overall the price of delivery will increase and the number of customers willing to foot the cost will lower.
I live in NYC, but I've always tipped. I thought that they couldn't see the tip until after. Factoring that in, I read it the same way as you. That said, I order food less than once a month simply because I find it such a rip off (already).
I wonder whether Fresh Direct / grocery delivery prices will go up as well.
I wonder whether Fresh Direct / grocery delivery prices will go up as well.
I think probably some workers are better off and some worse, with weighted average being worse.
If I had to guess I’d say it’s people doing this as a side gig and that are good at gaming the system that will come out ahead. Those trying to do it full time for all of their income will come out behind.
If I had to guess I’d say it’s people doing this as a side gig and that are good at gaming the system that will come out ahead. Those trying to do it full time for all of their income will come out behind.
I'm assuming that there may be a large drop off in delivery orders as the costs will by borne by the consumer. Maybe people will have to go out like ye olden days and get food themselves. Maybe not, some people are willing to pay more for convenience...
I haven't found delivery to be any cheaper than it was 20 years ago. It actually seems more expensive, which makes sense because an entire business model with thousands of employees added itself to the process.
Virtually all of the cost of delivery is borne by the restaurants. So they can and will just pass the increased costs onto the restaurants and the consumer is unlikely to see any change.
That assumes a margin in restaurant pricing that simply doesn't exist.
Parent comment is talking about how prices are increased artificially on delivery menus especially those listed on Doordash. If you order pickup from the restaurant (via their actual website or a phone order) you won't face this.
An example would be 5 Spice in Brooklyn: their menu (1) vs. the Doordash menu (2) have significant price differences.
(1) https://5ivespicebk.com/home-5ivespicebk#865c19de-ce54-43a2-...
(2) https://www.doordash.com/store/5ive-spice-brooklyn-132997/
An example would be 5 Spice in Brooklyn: their menu (1) vs. the Doordash menu (2) have significant price differences.
(1) https://5ivespicebk.com/home-5ivespicebk#865c19de-ce54-43a2-...
(2) https://www.doordash.com/store/5ive-spice-brooklyn-132997/
> won’t it reduce demand significantly?
Of course it will. Supply+Demand, it's the law.
Of course it will. Supply+Demand, it's the law.
I am unsure if this is a wage that workers receive while clocked in maneuvering to "hot zone" activity areas in order to get orders OR if it only applies when a worker has accepted an order.
Browsing reddit.com/r/ubereatsdrivers and /r/ubereats has led me to believe that the majority of these workers spend their time waiting between orders and that they will not receive an order waiting in a stationary location for too long (i.e. they could be ready+willing to accept an order for hours and would be penalized if they did not actively drive or if camped out in a parking lot/home).
If it is the latter case, then these workers can still receive a sub federal minimum wage if there aren't many orders placed or if the algorithm decides to prioritize one worker over another.
With the new able bodied working requirements for SNAP and other benefits, I wonder if it is possible that gig workers can be engaged in work activity for 80+ hours per month while not technically meeting that requirement. That would mean they would make less than minimum wage and be cut off from healthcare and food assistance.
Browsing reddit.com/r/ubereatsdrivers and /r/ubereats has led me to believe that the majority of these workers spend their time waiting between orders and that they will not receive an order waiting in a stationary location for too long (i.e. they could be ready+willing to accept an order for hours and would be penalized if they did not actively drive or if camped out in a parking lot/home).
If it is the latter case, then these workers can still receive a sub federal minimum wage if there aren't many orders placed or if the algorithm decides to prioritize one worker over another.
With the new able bodied working requirements for SNAP and other benefits, I wonder if it is possible that gig workers can be engaged in work activity for 80+ hours per month while not technically meeting that requirement. That would mean they would make less than minimum wage and be cut off from healthcare and food assistance.
In the long term, one or both of the following is going to happen:
1. Delivery fees will go up.
2. Delivery companies will put strict limits on how many drivers can be online at once, crippling the narrative in their marketing that drivers can choose their own hours.
The latter is especially likely if companies are required to pay drivers when they're just sitting around and waiting for an order.
1. Delivery fees will go up.
2. Delivery companies will put strict limits on how many drivers can be online at once, crippling the narrative in their marketing that drivers can choose their own hours.
The latter is especially likely if companies are required to pay drivers when they're just sitting around and waiting for an order.
> Delivery companies will put strict limits on how many drivers can be online at once, crippling the narrative in their marketing that drivers can choose their own hours.
They already do this, if there are too many people online in an area the app will tell you to move to a different region before it will let you go online.
They already do this, if there are too many people online in an area the app will tell you to move to a different region before it will let you go online.
3. Delivery companies are forced to extract less value from the people actually doing the work.
A driver recently shared with me that he made $5 on a $23 ride I booked recently. Uber's margins are absolutely mad.
A driver recently shared with me that he made $5 on a $23 ride I booked recently. Uber's margins are absolutely mad.
It's much better than what he would have made under the old medallion system Uber disrupted.
Pre-Uber/Lyft, either the driver rented the car from a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). Sure back then the dispatch only took a 15-20% cut, but medallion payments took at least a 50% cut on every ride. That money didn't get re-invested or re-distributed as incentives to drivers, no. It went straight to the pockets of the local rent-seeker.
The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber/Lyft brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
Pre-Uber/Lyft, either the driver rented the car from a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). Sure back then the dispatch only took a 15-20% cut, but medallion payments took at least a 50% cut on every ride. That money didn't get re-invested or re-distributed as incentives to drivers, no. It went straight to the pockets of the local rent-seeker.
The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber/Lyft brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
And this is how Uber somehow is taking the upper hand while Lyft is in a downward trend. Nobody was expecting this a few years ago during the boycott Uber scandal.
Food delivery is way more lucrative than taxi business
Food delivery is way more lucrative than taxi business
> A driver recently shared with me that he made $5 on a $23 ride I booked recently.
Unless the driver went over a toll bridge, that payout rate should be downright criminal.
Unless the driver went over a toll bridge, that payout rate should be downright criminal.
NYTimes post and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307496
I'll preface this by saying I expect to get downvoted all to hell, but: if these jobs are so bad and so underpaid, why are people doing them in a period of what is reported to be incredible labor market tightness?
I believe none of them require proof of employment eligibility e.g. immigration papers so it's a way for those on the fringes of society to make a living. It's basically the same as why people work bad jobs for cash that is less than minimum wage. There are several layers of illegality here but nobody dares speak up.
Perhaps the reported data on the prosperity of the average person isn't as accurate?
Labor stats are not as good as they're advertised, and these jobs aren't as bad as we're told. Both sides exaggerate (while still being kinda true)
In either case, it's interesting though, right? I may be coming across as the free market zealot here, but I don't really understand why special pleading for a class of workers is the right solution here.
If labor conditions are not as good as they're advertised, then isn't the expected outcome here that more people will try to find delivery jobs, resulting in more workers chasing fewer deliveries (assuming prices go up)?
If labor conditions are not as good as they're advertised, then isn't the expected outcome here that more people will try to find delivery jobs, resulting in more workers chasing fewer deliveries (assuming prices go up)?
I can't afford food delivery as it is now, I'm afraid this will just push it to skyrocketing prices and demanding tips.
He said it 90 years ago but I still agree with FDR:
"no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country"
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html
"no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country"
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html
The problem is that "living wage" is such a subjective litmus test. A student living at home and a single mother of 5 have completely different standards.
FDR's statement was also clearly implied a constant wealth level of the country overall. But you could imagine lots of runaway economic situations were pulling people out of the workforce causes the "living wage" to rise which would require pulling people out of the workforce until you just do not have enough economic productivity to support your population (which is kind of a version of what Venezuela went through).
FDR's statement was also clearly implied a constant wealth level of the country overall. But you could imagine lots of runaway economic situations were pulling people out of the workforce causes the "living wage" to rise which would require pulling people out of the workforce until you just do not have enough economic productivity to support your population (which is kind of a version of what Venezuela went through).
> A student living at home
A student living at home is explicitly not supporting themselves. Their parents shouldn't be subsidizing your food deliveries.
A student living at home is explicitly not supporting themselves. Their parents shouldn't be subsidizing your food deliveries.
Consider the contrary idea from Thomas Sowell: “ Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.”
How many workers would work for less than a living wage and are prevented from doing so by minimum wage laws and instead denied jobs?
How many workers would work for less than a living wage and are prevented from doing so by minimum wage laws and instead denied jobs?
I often think about this in the context of the homelessness problem. Homeless people are often kind of bored during the day and spend most of the time just loitering and hanging out. If they had the option of doing something productive during the day, it would be a win-win-win. They would have something to do and a bit of extra cash to spend, someone gets cheap labor, and they get off the streets during the day. Perhaps this could even be leg up into an actual job and career?
There's no way to paint this as anything other than blatant extortion - just like prison labor. But at the same time it's a bit weird to me that we kind of set societal speed limits "unless you are providing at least $15/hr in value to society you are a ward of the state".
But I think an important caveat to Sowell's argument is that is he is kind of describing the intent of minimum wage. It's a tool aimed at labor monopsony and one of the purposes of minimum wage is to intentionally thin out the supply of low wage labor from the bottom. It was never about benefiting people making $0. It was about removing competition amongst the people making $15.
There's no way to paint this as anything other than blatant extortion - just like prison labor. But at the same time it's a bit weird to me that we kind of set societal speed limits "unless you are providing at least $15/hr in value to society you are a ward of the state".
But I think an important caveat to Sowell's argument is that is he is kind of describing the intent of minimum wage. It's a tool aimed at labor monopsony and one of the purposes of minimum wage is to intentionally thin out the supply of low wage labor from the bottom. It was never about benefiting people making $0. It was about removing competition amongst the people making $15.
Desperate people with no leverage against their potential employers? There are a lot of them in this country.
I can point you to hundreds of thousands of people risking their lives to cross the southern border for exactly that opportunity.
Who are these people and why are they willing to work for a wage they by definition literally can't afford to work for?
The argument could be made around required PPE as well. There are people willing to work without it, why aren't we jumping on that opportunity? Could probably employe another person or three if we didn't pay for PPE for the worksite.
The argument could be made around required PPE as well. There are people willing to work without it, why aren't we jumping on that opportunity? Could probably employe another person or three if we didn't pay for PPE for the worksite.
There are people that aren’t working in order to pay their living expenses. Think young adults, students, or retired folks picking up a side gig to pass time.
Should anyone under 20 and over 65 should have a different minimum wage? Is it really that much of a shame that seniors can't find jobs to pass the time? Assuming they don't need the money there are other options there, like volunteering. I'm also wondering why college students, who are famously short of cash, should be considered unworthy of a living wage just because of their age and because some of them live with their parents. Should employees be forced to prove they really need the money before they can have a living wage?
The reality is that minimum wage jobs will sink to whatever level they can get away with, forcing everyone who works at that minimum wage level to put up with the new decreased wage.
The reality is that minimum wage jobs will sink to whatever level they can get away with, forcing everyone who works at that minimum wage level to put up with the new decreased wage.
[deleted]
I agree. But we should make them nonexistent by giving better options to their workers. (I assume that workers would not take sub-living-wage jobs if living-wage jobs were available to them.) Making the jobs illegal without introducing a superior alternative is not the favor many people think it is.
If you can't afford food delivery I wouldn't blame the delivery workers. They make near nothing (this bumps them up to a little more than nothing for NYC).
I hear a lot of complaints about food delivery prices. And I can't help but fight back a little because:
1. Food costs more. If you go to fast food or local restaurants you will see prices have risen. The cause of this is debated but it doesn't change the fact that food costs more.
2. Delivery workers work pretty hard to do what they do. Due to a lack of good American public transportation (especially outside of NYC) most delivery workers have to drive their own cars which is a cost that gets more expensive with time as cars have a limited amount of miles and tend to break down somewhat randomly with age.
3. Maybe most importantly, you don't need food delivered. Unless you're disabled, it's inherently an out-of-touch argument because there's nothing stopping you from making your own food or going to pick up food. It's a luxury, so I believe the prices aren't really that crazy if it means the workers can make livable wages. And if you're disabled, we should have better systems in place for you than saying "use doordash".
- edited to account for disabled people.
I hear a lot of complaints about food delivery prices. And I can't help but fight back a little because:
1. Food costs more. If you go to fast food or local restaurants you will see prices have risen. The cause of this is debated but it doesn't change the fact that food costs more.
2. Delivery workers work pretty hard to do what they do. Due to a lack of good American public transportation (especially outside of NYC) most delivery workers have to drive their own cars which is a cost that gets more expensive with time as cars have a limited amount of miles and tend to break down somewhat randomly with age.
3. Maybe most importantly, you don't need food delivered. Unless you're disabled, it's inherently an out-of-touch argument because there's nothing stopping you from making your own food or going to pick up food. It's a luxury, so I believe the prices aren't really that crazy if it means the workers can make livable wages. And if you're disabled, we should have better systems in place for you than saying "use doordash".
- edited to account for disabled people.
Food costs are up overall because (assuming USA)
1. COVID and immigration enforcement severe restricted immigration (legal or otherwise) of farm workers who formed the backbone of farm labor.
2. Oil and gas is critical import for food production. Fertilizer comes from natural gas, farms burn diesel, etc. All of this adds up.
Food delivery always was a luxury especially when it's just for one or two people. Unfortunately, you can't generate exponential growth on wealthy families ordering Friday evening takeout.
Food delivery always was a luxury especially when it's just for one or two people. Unfortunately, you can't generate exponential growth on wealthy families ordering Friday evening takeout.
> Maybe most importantly, you don't need food delivered. Nobody does.
People with disabilities would beg to differ. There's a reason Meals on Wheels exists.
People with disabilities would beg to differ. There's a reason Meals on Wheels exists.
Yeah, I agree that there should be some sort of government subsidized program or resource rather than a privately funded company that can only exist by exploiting workers, restaurants, and customers to fulfill that need.
In the United States, there are in-home healthcare workers and adjacent support workers that can perform tasks such as grocery shopping and meal preparation, no?
In the United States, there are in-home healthcare workers and adjacent support workers that can perform tasks such as grocery shopping and meal preparation, no?
> exploiting workers
What would the workers do without those jobs?
What would the workers do without those jobs?
As an aside, do you think people should be forced to work for free so long as they have jobs and their work creates value for others?
I'm curious where you're going with this question, because what you're describing is literal slavery.
Yes, I was going to ask the above poster what line he believes is necessary to draw when arguing against unjust work conditions...
Ah...
Sadly, there are people that will never criticize a company for having shitty working conditions. Instead, they'll just say "If they don't like it, get a job somewhere else!", and it doesn't matter what extreme you take it to. They will never question the shitty conditions.
Sadly, there are people that will never criticize a company for having shitty working conditions. Instead, they'll just say "If they don't like it, get a job somewhere else!", and it doesn't matter what extreme you take it to. They will never question the shitty conditions.
not that poster, but allowing an arbitrarily low wage means those starving or struggling are, to avoid doing so, coerced into working for near-nothing
slavery, you say?
slavery, you say?
Yeah, I wish the anti-minimum wage morons understood that.
All they think of is the fact that eliminating minimum wage would create jobs, which is technically true, but imagine being one of those poor workers that cleans houses for $1/hr because they can't find anything else.
Paying someone minimum wage is sending the signal of "I would pay you less if I was allowed to". No minimum wage would create a race to the bottom on wages as employers are able to find more and more desperate people who just want to be able to eat.
All they think of is the fact that eliminating minimum wage would create jobs, which is technically true, but imagine being one of those poor workers that cleans houses for $1/hr because they can't find anything else.
Paying someone minimum wage is sending the signal of "I would pay you less if I was allowed to". No minimum wage would create a race to the bottom on wages as employers are able to find more and more desperate people who just want to be able to eat.
I don't know where you derived that from.
I did not derive anything with that question, in fact, I was asking you a question to derive something else entirely.
Solid point, edited.
Yeah, which is probably best, most of us would benefit from eating out a lot less.
It’s also better to have jobs that pay living wages than jobs that don’t.
That said, it sucks the government had to get involved at all.
It’s also better to have jobs that pay living wages than jobs that don’t.
That said, it sucks the government had to get involved at all.
If the thing you want can only be economical by exploiting laborers, then too bad, you have to live without that thing.
Solid point. It's like when Uber stopped subsidizing their rides as much and people started freaking out. We get complacent thinking we deserve these services with little cost, when real humans are the ones providing these services and we're essentially thinking they shouldn't make enough money to live well.
See, I completely disagree with this. I am absolutely certain that the economics for these services could work if they weren't piping a majority of profits back to the bloated mothership.
> A driver recently shared with me that he made $5 on a $23 ride I booked recently.
If I order Doordash, the food is already way more expensive than in the restaurant. The driver gets a delivery fee. The driver gets a tip. Somehow, a $10 meal turns into $25. And there's still not enough money to pay the driver to bring me food from 5 minutes away? (I'm blind and don't have a car.) Of course there is. It's just all going to corporate.
You thought Hollywood accounting was bad, wait until you learn about delivery business accounting.
> A driver recently shared with me that he made $5 on a $23 ride I booked recently.
If I order Doordash, the food is already way more expensive than in the restaurant. The driver gets a delivery fee. The driver gets a tip. Somehow, a $10 meal turns into $25. And there's still not enough money to pay the driver to bring me food from 5 minutes away? (I'm blind and don't have a car.) Of course there is. It's just all going to corporate.
You thought Hollywood accounting was bad, wait until you learn about delivery business accounting.
I don't see how you can pull enough fat out of the operation to reverse the terrible numbers that Doordash has had for years. Here is a link to their financials. They have had years of losses.
[1]:https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/dash/financials/
[1]:https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/dash/financials/
Thats the entire western way of life.
Look at Purism attempting to make a phone in the US: It costs 2000$...How many people would be willing to pay 2000$ for an iPhone? Lets say Apple can be more efficient than a startup like Purism, maybe they can get to 1500$?
The recent labor shortages in Florida were caused by undocumented migrants being scared by Desantis's stupid immigrant law.
Lets not forget the COVID supply shortages which in hindsight were not a complete collapse thanks to a lot of sacrifice by people who we never see and never think about.
China is going offline either now with greater tensions or later due to their demographic bomb and so far Apple and others are making progress transitioning to Vietnam, thailand etc to stave off the eventual truth that the west is structurally bankrupt. Maybe robots will save us? Thats what all the elites are banking on.
Look at Purism attempting to make a phone in the US: It costs 2000$...How many people would be willing to pay 2000$ for an iPhone? Lets say Apple can be more efficient than a startup like Purism, maybe they can get to 1500$?
The recent labor shortages in Florida were caused by undocumented migrants being scared by Desantis's stupid immigrant law.
Lets not forget the COVID supply shortages which in hindsight were not a complete collapse thanks to a lot of sacrifice by people who we never see and never think about.
China is going offline either now with greater tensions or later due to their demographic bomb and so far Apple and others are making progress transitioning to Vietnam, thailand etc to stave off the eventual truth that the west is structurally bankrupt. Maybe robots will save us? Thats what all the elites are banking on.
And then those workers are unemployed.
After having an issue with an order, I investigated reddit.com/r/ubereatsdrivers and /r/ubereats to discover than many of these drivers aren't really earning more than a base rate of a couple of dollars (literally ~$2) plus whatever we leave as tips.
It seems like these delivery platforms have positioned themselves in such a way that they are extracting a pound of flesh from restaurants, customers, and underpaying their workers.
It seems like these delivery platforms have positioned themselves in such a way that they are extracting a pound of flesh from restaurants, customers, and underpaying their workers.
Food delivery startups were a scam anyway.
It was always performed by under-the-table workers and somehow VCs thought there's money to be made there.
It was always performed by under-the-table workers and somehow VCs thought there's money to be made there.
I always found these companies weird. Like they bloat so much to grow fast, but that bloat just kills their whole model in the end.
Most people have a threshold for costs. And the head count in tech and marketing doesn't help at all with keeping it under that cost.
Most people have a threshold for costs. And the head count in tech and marketing doesn't help at all with keeping it under that cost.
My perspective on this is a little different because I ride a bike in NYC and I do not order delivery food, ever. Thus, I only experienced the negative externalities of these apps on cycling in NYC, and I don't care about delivery food becoming more expensive or whatever.
With the possible exception of the people that ride the new gray Citibike e-bikes, delivery riders are almost unquestionably the worst behaved "cyclists" in NYC. I put "cyclists" in quotes because half of them are just riding mopeds now.
- They ride in whatever direction is most optimal, one-way streets be damned. This is called "salmoning" and it is universally loathed.
- They don't even slow down for red lights half of the time. Look, I know, it's NYC, almost everyone Idaho stops or Idaho slow-rolls, there's even a proposed law to officially legalize it now, but they really take it to another level.
- They have no awareness when starting, they will just fly into a bike lane without checking over their shoulder. Also includes right/lefts on red (also not legal, but everyone does it, and it's pretty much fine if you at least check), they do not check for something riding down the bike lane with the light.
- Less relevant since it's summer currently, but usage of lights at night by these riders is maybe 50% at best. They also wear black a lot... so black bike, no lights, riding the wrong way in a bike lane. Fun!
- The mopeds. Mopeds are unambiguously banned on bike lanes and especially on the bridge bike lanes, but it's impossible to ride over one of the East River bridges these days without being passed aggressively by a gas moped, not even an electric one (which are still banned!).
I don't know if this will make them behave better. I don't see why it would, if they can still maximize profit by putting everyone else in danger.
With the possible exception of the people that ride the new gray Citibike e-bikes, delivery riders are almost unquestionably the worst behaved "cyclists" in NYC. I put "cyclists" in quotes because half of them are just riding mopeds now.
- They ride in whatever direction is most optimal, one-way streets be damned. This is called "salmoning" and it is universally loathed.
- They don't even slow down for red lights half of the time. Look, I know, it's NYC, almost everyone Idaho stops or Idaho slow-rolls, there's even a proposed law to officially legalize it now, but they really take it to another level.
- They have no awareness when starting, they will just fly into a bike lane without checking over their shoulder. Also includes right/lefts on red (also not legal, but everyone does it, and it's pretty much fine if you at least check), they do not check for something riding down the bike lane with the light.
- Less relevant since it's summer currently, but usage of lights at night by these riders is maybe 50% at best. They also wear black a lot... so black bike, no lights, riding the wrong way in a bike lane. Fun!
- The mopeds. Mopeds are unambiguously banned on bike lanes and especially on the bridge bike lanes, but it's impossible to ride over one of the East River bridges these days without being passed aggressively by a gas moped, not even an electric one (which are still banned!).
I don't know if this will make them behave better. I don't see why it would, if they can still maximize profit by putting everyone else in danger.
I’m not sure if it’s worse for us or you, but as a pedestrian I couldn’t agree more. Ten years ago I thought the macho, aggressive sport riders were bad but they are nothing compared to all these illegal mopeds. The NYPD should just seize every single one without a license plate (and while they are at it all the cars with paper plates and those with license plate obstructors.)
I agree. I've seen all of the above and more. I've seen full-on motorcycles in bicycle lanes going the wrong direction. I've seen them ride right through a crowded sidewalk,
I was in China recently and it struck me how wide the bike lanes were and mopeds were allowed but everyone generally followed traffic signals.
I was in China recently and it struck me how wide the bike lanes were and mopeds were allowed but everyone generally followed traffic signals.
> They ride in whatever direction is most optimal, one-way streets be damned. This is called "salmoning"
As someone living next to a Salmon spawning creek, this put a huge grin on my face, I love that term.
As someone living next to a Salmon spawning creek, this put a huge grin on my face, I love that term.
1) Get 10 friends
2) All friends log on to deliver food from 2am to 5am. Sleep and get paid.
3) When someone actually gets an order, you, and only you, do the labor. You can adjust the logic to cover edge cases where you don't actually have enough labor to fulfill the demand. We could call it surge pricing.
Uber for Uber Eats.
AFAIK, unlike Uber, there's no user auth to make this hard to do for food delivery.