Another example of tech "disruption", which typically just means siphoning money from an established system and adding little in return.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/12/08/do...
[1] https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-co...
[2] https://laist.com/2020/08/10/why_so_many_restaurants_hate_fo...
Until on-demand delivery companies like Doordash/Postmates came onto the scene, the vast majority of places I could have ordered delivery from were the standard fare of pizza, Chinese, Indian, and Thai food within a half mile radius from my home.
What this generation unlocked was the ability to pay someone to grab you House of Prime Rib on Van Ness and deliver it halfway across the city. The value add here was "quality from halfway across the city, not just restaurants within a tiny radius who had large enough margins to afford to keep a driver on payroll".
This also resulted in what we now see as the normalization of national fast food brands having a coordinated delivery offering.
We will first have to wait and see whether the on-demand delivery business model will work out in a cheaper country, e.g. GrabFood in Indonesia. Even in such country, my sense is that the restaurants are still getting charged too much to cover for the subsidy given the customers, while the delivery riders are still being paid too little and have to rely on infrequent big tips.
So who is benefiting here? Where is the true value for society being created? Yes I can get any restaurant meal delivered to my home in 30-45 min, but is that one small benefit really enough to sustain a $60bn market cap?
Looking at the entire system there was very little added, there's just a lot of money being shifted to a small group of people.
When the drivers worked for one restaurant only, they would be sitting around most of the time waiting for an order.
By delivering for many restaurants at once on DoorDash, they would be able to make more money and have less idle time.
I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
Except, you know, the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid, cheated out of tips and hazard pay etc. etc.
With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone. So far Doordash has been settling those for millions of dollars ($5 mln in California, $2.5 in Washington).
If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they have been underpaid? What is the standard that defines underpaid? If we agree that this is an issue that DoorDash has done better on than historical alternatives, should they receive as much flak as they do?
> With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone
I would never argue that DoorDash isn't acting in its own self-interest and has been quite misleading when it comes to tips, to the point where they should be losing lawsuits. When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch of DoorDash, and it seems to have instead fulfilled its pitch to help drivers make more money than they did previously.
Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space."
And this statement is false. Now you're trying to wiggle out of this by pretending that "being underpaid" is undefined because we haven't decided the concept of paid/underpaid and other demagoguery.
1) Delivery drivers are underpaid
2) Doordash and all the rest of gig economy businesses systematically underpay and make conditions even worse because they force people into becoming external contractors with zero rights and protections, and shift many additional costs to these contractors.
> When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch
The pitch doesn't matter in the least. Especially if you essentially argue that "Doordash's pitch is true because the common view of "underpaid" isn't consistent with the history of the space."
1) Delivery drivers are underpaid
2) Doordash and all the rest of gig economy businesses systematically underpay people who work for them
No wriggling. :)
To me, that statement would be backed by evidence that DoorDash allows drivers to make more than they previously made as drivers for specific restaurants.
To you, that wouldn’t satisfy the notion that they are fairly paid, because you believe they have always been underpaid.
I’m looking at “underpaid” through a lens of historical data, but you’re looking at it through a different lens, so I asked how you define underpaid.
Do you see what I mean?
You keep saying "historical data" as if that should make everyone node their head in agreement: "hmmm, yes, yes, you're right, historical data".
I'd love to see the "historical data" you allude to.
> but you’re looking at it through a different lens
Nope. I'm looking through the same lens: history tells us that couriers are underpaid and overworked, especially in the US. And they keep being underpaid and underworked with DoorDash and other vultures.
You pretend that DoorDash is somehow good.
If it paid more to have a minimum wage job, why are there so many drivers on the platform?
- There are not that many jobs to go around
- More and more companies force people into the gig economy
Migrant workers consistently show up at farms too; it doesn't mean they're paid well.
Uber/DD/Postmates/... all do citizen verification checks.
Many of the restaurants had to repackage their food in such a way that it could be sealed so that they could deny claims for theft.
That's not the sign of well-paid employees.
To say that the only reason someone steals food is for hunger is to say that nobody has ever stolen food for any reason other than hunger. Otherwise, there would necessarily be multiple reasons to steal food. I don't think that could possibly be true.
You are trying to justify THEFT.
Not IP theft. Not Copyright theft. Real, actual, physical theft.
Of someone's food. And there was so much theft that companies retooled their packaging.
Go back and contemplate on your ethics. Like ... a lot.
I wasn't saying they should be stealing. The only thing I was saying was that there is more than one reason to steal food. If anything, I was arguing against theft (but in the moment, I was just responding to GP).
I take it you have never worked in the food service industry.
I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in the middle of a pandemic and something like 85%[1] of restaurants have closed in some areas. For most restaurants, something like Doordash is the only way they're actually staying alive at this time.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/It-s-decimated-down-here...