I am not sure if this is exactly your intention, but you are advocating the position that "my convenience is worth your agony". I think we can do better than that. A person's role in society goes far beyond that of the mere consumer.
I need high quality supplies, restaurant food at my doorstep. If it somehow result in low wage/ worker agony, this is the sacrifice I am willing to make
That would probably be better phrased along the lines of, "that's a price I'm willing to make you pay."
Basically make it crystal clear the person speaking is not the one making the sacrifice, but rather perverting the phraseology of self-sacrifice.
Also, everyone may decide what to spend their money on, be it on vacations, hobbies, goods or … having stuff delivered.
> Also, everyone may decide...
A normative claim, not a substantive one. Besides, it's a misappropriation of what "liberty" means. Liberty is a collective phenomenon: it is not enough for each person to express it individually, but in order to stand for liberty we must act in such socially beneficial ways as to promote liberty for all. "Liberty for me, not for thee" is a contradictory statement.
I can't hire myself in the past, but there are other people who are in other places in their lives than I am.
It doesn't have to. But it does, often, nonetheless, currently.
Do you know anyone who does gig work for their main or only income? Are they happy with their lives? For now we are leaving aside "externalities" such as all the extra cars on the road creating traffic and extra emissions and focusing on the topic of TFA.
One has to wonder: what sort of systemic, material forces sustain this imbalance? which companies are propped up with subsidies, investment, etc.? why do people put money into those companies in which ways and for which reasons? how are those companies incentivized to operate given their positions in the economy? what does that mean for the people who are dependent on the money they are paid in wages from the only company willing to employ them to avoid a destitute life of food and housing insecurity? what could we do differently to alleviate this very real pain felt by millions every day?
Paying people "accordingly" for running Doordash orders would result in a complete collapse of Doordash because its business model is unsustainable without 1) subsidies a la venture capital and 2) minimizing compensation (wages, liabilities, wear&tear on personal property) paid to the drivers vis-a-vis the maximization of quarterly profits. Delivery fees would cost absurd amounts and no one would be able to afford the service without these factors.
Some people make arguments in favor of the company surviving at the expense of the workers; others prefer to insist in the opposite direction.