5 ms·

I don't understand what is wrong with Uber Eats charging whatever price they want to charge. If $4.4 is too low just don't work for them. There are probably peo

I don't understand what is wrong with Uber Eats charging whatever price they want to charge. If $4.4 is too low just don't work for them. There are probably people for which this is a good price. If not, it's Uber Eats problem, not yours.

moxious 9y ago
It's not black and white. What looks to you like the free choice of people choosing to work for $4.4 may look to others like a forced situation. What I think you're missing is that your assumption that everyone can freely choose and has alternatives is clearly mistaken.
- reustle 9y ago
  > may look to others like a forced situation. What I think you're missing is that your assumption that everyone can freely choose and has alternatives is clearly mistaken. Could you please elaborate? I don't exactly follow. Nobody is forcing them to work for Uber. If what you mean is they have bills to pay, etc, it's not like Uber can just magically decide to pay $9/hr, they will likely need to cut most of the jobs at that point anyway.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Uber takes advantage of a lack of (or poor quality) social safety nets. Like Walmart. Its exploitative.
    - reustle 9y ago
      But is that the fault of Uber (or Walmart)? Isn't them having a crap job better than no job? Yea it's not awesome that the pay is low, but at least they are employing some people. If the pay was higher they probably couldn't create the same service at a sustainable price point?
      - door 9y ago
        it's not necessarily the fault of any individual company, it's the nature of capitalism to drive down wages to the absolute bare minimum that an employer can pay their workers.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        The 'at least they get paid' argument is the one also being used by those who order takeaway food, and those who buy blood diamonds, blood gold, and entire clothes industry alike. Nevermind the fact these people work in terrible conditions. Nevermind the fact these people work with chemicals which are unhealthy. Nevermind the fact these people ignore traffic regulations because they need to arrive on time. Nevermind the fact these people are children who go down in dangerous mines with gas which can also implode at any time. It is a fallacy. The real solution to the issue is far more simple: let those who desire takeaway food (or who desire diamonds, gold, or clothes) pay a fair price, so that the workers get paid a fair price.
    - troupe 9y ago
      So would you describe Sweden as a place with poor quality social safety nets? According to the article people who want to deliver have at least two choices and one pays significantly more than the other because Uber doesn't have enough volume right now and the volume they do have tends to go to people who have been delivering for some time. The article says that with Foodora you can make more money starting out, but they schedule when you work. With Uber you just work whenever you want. People trying to decide which service they want to work for are going to use those factors to make a decision. I think it is hard to claim it is exploitative when people clearly have a choice where they work. Keep in mind Sweden doesn't have particularly high unemployment either, so there are a lot of other options out there in addition to these two.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        > So would you describe Sweden as a place with poor quality social safety nets? No, but a proposition like that doesn't address the details. Reading through this thread its clear that Sweden doesn't have minimum wage; they have strong unions instead (FWIW, I don't see how those are mutually exclusive). Problem is that unions are circumvented partly or completely by freelance constructions like the one we're discussing (another example would be MLM constructions). That needs to be addressed, by law enforcement or lawmakers (politicians). In order to achieve that, publicity like this may aid that goal.
  - Matt3o12_ 9y ago
    There are some jobs which need to be filled by humans who have very little skills. These jobs need to (or can) exist (because they cannot be automated, yet). Fortunately, cutting the workforce also means there will be less delivers and thus less revenue, so these people would get hired anyways. So paying the people really comes down to how much to charge the customer. I would think that most customers would not mind a $3 delivery fee (whether this is included in the price or a extra markup does not matter). Assuming the delivery person can deliver to 4 people (which should be possible in cities), they make an extra $12. The $3 markup only becomes apparent when a competitor is cheaper then the other players, in which case the competitor gets more orders and make more revenue. Now if there was a law, called minimum wage, which forces employers to pay enough to make a living, there would be no extreme price cutting. Still, about the same amount of people would be employed (maybe slightly less, but most people will still order the meal whether it is $20 or $23 assuming there is no cheaper alternative which fits there needs). If we do not have those protections, we end up in a situation similar to the Industrial Revolution in Europe where people (and their children) work for 12+ hours a day and still starve to death. Those jobs would exist anyways because the demand does not decrease significantly if the wages rise (this is of course not true for every industry) but by having two competitors cutting down each other at the expense of the employee is bad for everybody if you consider the long term consequences.
  - waisbrot 9y ago
    Simplistically: people can either work or not work. Nearly everyone will chose "work" because it's nice to feel useful, even if that work doesn't pay a living wage. If people are not earning a living wage, societies can either let them die in the street or subsidize them. Most societies will choose the later, because they're made of humans and not monsters. That means that there really is a minimum wage, but it's paid in part or in full by the society. Companies that pay less than a living wage exploit the "humans don't like watching children starve to death" vulnerability and effectively steal from society. Additionally, paying a lower wage lets them offer a lower price to consumers which can drive out companies that were paying their customers an actual wage.
    - fiatjaf 9y ago
      So you would rather have no UberEats than UberEats pahying $4.4?
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      Whether or not the statement "nearly everyone will chose to "work" is true, the problem that must be solves is how to incentivize someone to do the work that no one wants to do. It's entirely possible that providing a "living" wage to a food delivery person just isn't worth it for consumers so they would rather just go get it themselves. The conundrum is creating a system where there enough incentive is created to do the work no one wants, but at the same time distribute resources so that everyone is provided some definition of "standard of living". This is difficult when the value of (most) human's work is ever decreasing.
justaaron 9y ago
you are in the extreme minority in advocating NOT having a minimum wage. your approach also essentially nullifies any possibility of collective bargaining, as any desperate person may actually accept such a low offer thus driving the market price down. I could just as easily propose contracts for sales of kidneys from living donors. You have 2 of them, after-all, and if you happen to be mentally incompetent enough to sell one of them for a few bucks, who the heck does the guvment think they are interfering, eh?
- eru 9y ago
  Iran has a market for kidneys, actually. And it's the only country in the world without a long queue for donations.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    There's a reason the first world hasn't implemented a marketplace for organs.
    - eru 9y ago
      Moralising? EDIT: See http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ for some more background.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        We draw lines where society deems them to be drawn. Its okay for Iran to sell organs. Is it okay for women to be property as is the case in some countries? Child brides? Of course morality is subjective. I don't want to live in a country where slavery is required for people to barely survive. I'd like to be on the right side of history. And if part of the tech industry has to be gutted or burned down, so be it.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        You didn't actually explain why. You just mentioned unrelated issues. 'moralising' is actually a pretty good answer. When it comes to certain actions like organ donations, we're utterly terrified of the idea that someone will feel like they 'have' to do it. Getting a million dollars, even though it would have an amazing impact on your life, is bad because you'd feel pressure toward doing it. Getting a small payment would also be bad because you're being taken advantage of. But you can do it for free if you so desire!
therealasdf 9y ago
The problem is people will prefer Uber Eats over competitors because they are able to deliver food for such a low price. The employees of Uber Eats are the ones paying for this not Uber.
- troupe 9y ago
  If that is the case then you would expect that the article would talk about how busy Uber Eats was. Instead it says the opposite. He didn't make money because not many people were using the service. He lays out two ways people can work in delivery. One pays significantly less for starting out, but doesn't require you to work specific shifts. The other lets you work whenever you want, but you are very much subject to what demand comes in. You have a lot more consistency when you don't have control over your schedule.
tyingq 9y ago
Uber doesn't make that clear up front though. I imagine new drivers do the math a few times before figuring it out.
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  That's the only reasonable argument in this thread.
amelius 9y ago
Why do you think the concept of minimum wage exists?
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  Have you read the basic economic theory behind minimun wages?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
quickben 9y ago
You can probably make that argument for slavery too. Both would be wrong. Back at my first university where we went over macro economy and countries, they told us every county must at some point step in and set some basic rules. Not setting these basic rules means going backward in civilization benefits (Not to mention other countries stepping in because they simply advanced more). So, we evolved out (in economic and civilization sense) of slavery, as we evolved out of unreasonable minimum wages, with the help of governments (enough people saying: no). In a complex system such as a modern western economy, one can has these cracks (work for an hour to buy a loaf of bread and milk), which is very close to slaving, and because these economies are modern in other aspects, they can buffer than. But, the road is still downhill. The government that doesn't care about it's people, will self destruct eventually. No matter the form. It's a historical fact. In this very narrow case of Uber, Uber will self destruct eventually, as they subsidize prices to ensure growth. Once they stop doing that, then they are just another Taxi company with an app. And most of the Taxi companies already have apps. So it will be down to the drivers (who in the case of Uber will be paid even less). The above hypothesis will be tested fairly soon, as Uber is having their IPO this year in fact.
- atom-morgan 9y ago
  > You can probably make that argument for slavery too. Uber is consensual.
  - 1_2__3 9y ago
    Okay replace slavery with indentured servitude. Does that sound any better?
  - adultSwim 9y ago
    Wait until our jobs are uber-ized. You might not think it's such a great model when you're the one getting squeezed. Low wage + no benefits + pay employers share of the taxes + no room to complain
    - atom-morgan 9y ago
nkkollaw 9y ago
That's not how it works, luckily. There are laws to protect workers from this kind of crap. If it wasn't for minimum wages, companies would make deals to pay workers lower and lower and there would be nowhere to work for a decent salary.
- driverdan 9y ago
  > If it wasn't for minimum wages, companies would make deals to pay workers lower and lower and there would be nowhere to work for a decent salary. You outlaw collusion to lower wages and let the market work.
  - Noos 9y ago
    The market will work to price everyone to free. We see this with creative work, where most people have an effective negative minimum wage. You're better off working at a mcdonalds than write, draw, or create, and many places essentially pay nothing for creative work like reviewing. For many creatives, they literally had to abandon capitalism and go back to the feudal patronage model with Patreon and kickstarter. The market priced even skilled labor down to effectively zero, since there was just so much produced.
codedokode 9y ago
There is always less unskilled jobs than people willing to get them therefore the salary will go down to some minimal value if not regulated. For example there are people who don't have to pay for an apartment and they can agree to work for $500/month and people who have to rent won't be able to compete with them.
adultSwim 9y ago
> just don't work for them Easy to say. I can move anywhere, work at almost any company, get a great wage, etc. We are the exceptions. 1.5 million American families, including 3m children, live on less than $2/person/day. That's not by choice. Half the planet lives on less than $2 a day. That's $2 in our buying power. What would you buy with $30/month where you live? Not rent. Not gas. Flour? Bag of rice? Hope you can find a cheap source of (probably not clean) water.
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  > Half the planet lives on less than $2 a day. So it is better if they could work for $4.4 an hour, right? I honestly don't understand why UberEats is a bad.
  - meheleventyone 9y ago
    Right but that's $4.40 in Sweden, you need to scale that down to the equivalent for other countries. It would be significantly less in places where it's common to live on $2 a day.
    - fiatjaf 9y ago
      I don't think any scaling will turn $2 a day into $4.4 an hour. That's about $35 a day.

moxious 9y ago

It's not black and white. What looks to you like the free choice of people choosing to work for $4.4 may look to others like a forced situation. What I think you're missing is that your assumption that everyone can freely choose and has alternatives is clearly mistaken.

reustle 9y ago
> may look to others like a forced situation. What I think you're missing is that your assumption that everyone can freely choose and has alternatives is clearly mistaken. Could you please elaborate? I don't exactly follow. Nobody is forcing them to work for Uber. If what you mean is they have bills to pay, etc, it's not like Uber can just magically decide to pay $9/hr, they will likely need to cut most of the jobs at that point anyway.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Uber takes advantage of a lack of (or poor quality) social safety nets. Like Walmart. Its exploitative.
  - reustle 9y ago
    But is that the fault of Uber (or Walmart)? Isn't them having a crap job better than no job? Yea it's not awesome that the pay is low, but at least they are employing some people. If the pay was higher they probably couldn't create the same service at a sustainable price point?
    - door 9y ago
      it's not necessarily the fault of any individual company, it's the nature of capitalism to drive down wages to the absolute bare minimum that an employer can pay their workers.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      The 'at least they get paid' argument is the one also being used by those who order takeaway food, and those who buy blood diamonds, blood gold, and entire clothes industry alike. Nevermind the fact these people work in terrible conditions. Nevermind the fact these people work with chemicals which are unhealthy. Nevermind the fact these people ignore traffic regulations because they need to arrive on time. Nevermind the fact these people are children who go down in dangerous mines with gas which can also implode at any time. It is a fallacy. The real solution to the issue is far more simple: let those who desire takeaway food (or who desire diamonds, gold, or clothes) pay a fair price, so that the workers get paid a fair price.
  - troupe 9y ago
    So would you describe Sweden as a place with poor quality social safety nets? According to the article people who want to deliver have at least two choices and one pays significantly more than the other because Uber doesn't have enough volume right now and the volume they do have tends to go to people who have been delivering for some time. The article says that with Foodora you can make more money starting out, but they schedule when you work. With Uber you just work whenever you want. People trying to decide which service they want to work for are going to use those factors to make a decision. I think it is hard to claim it is exploitative when people clearly have a choice where they work. Keep in mind Sweden doesn't have particularly high unemployment either, so there are a lot of other options out there in addition to these two.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > So would you describe Sweden as a place with poor quality social safety nets? No, but a proposition like that doesn't address the details. Reading through this thread its clear that Sweden doesn't have minimum wage; they have strong unions instead (FWIW, I don't see how those are mutually exclusive). Problem is that unions are circumvented partly or completely by freelance constructions like the one we're discussing (another example would be MLM constructions). That needs to be addressed, by law enforcement or lawmakers (politicians). In order to achieve that, publicity like this may aid that goal.
- Matt3o12_ 9y ago
  There are some jobs which need to be filled by humans who have very little skills. These jobs need to (or can) exist (because they cannot be automated, yet). Fortunately, cutting the workforce also means there will be less delivers and thus less revenue, so these people would get hired anyways. So paying the people really comes down to how much to charge the customer. I would think that most customers would not mind a $3 delivery fee (whether this is included in the price or a extra markup does not matter). Assuming the delivery person can deliver to 4 people (which should be possible in cities), they make an extra $12. The $3 markup only becomes apparent when a competitor is cheaper then the other players, in which case the competitor gets more orders and make more revenue. Now if there was a law, called minimum wage, which forces employers to pay enough to make a living, there would be no extreme price cutting. Still, about the same amount of people would be employed (maybe slightly less, but most people will still order the meal whether it is $20 or $23 assuming there is no cheaper alternative which fits there needs). If we do not have those protections, we end up in a situation similar to the Industrial Revolution in Europe where people (and their children) work for 12+ hours a day and still starve to death. Those jobs would exist anyways because the demand does not decrease significantly if the wages rise (this is of course not true for every industry) but by having two competitors cutting down each other at the expense of the employee is bad for everybody if you consider the long term consequences.
- waisbrot 9y ago
  Simplistically: people can either work or not work. Nearly everyone will chose "work" because it's nice to feel useful, even if that work doesn't pay a living wage. If people are not earning a living wage, societies can either let them die in the street or subsidize them. Most societies will choose the later, because they're made of humans and not monsters. That means that there really is a minimum wage, but it's paid in part or in full by the society. Companies that pay less than a living wage exploit the "humans don't like watching children starve to death" vulnerability and effectively steal from society. Additionally, paying a lower wage lets them offer a lower price to consumers which can drive out companies that were paying their customers an actual wage.
  - fiatjaf 9y ago
    So you would rather have no UberEats than UberEats pahying $4.4?
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Whether or not the statement "nearly everyone will chose to "work" is true, the problem that must be solves is how to incentivize someone to do the work that no one wants to do. It's entirely possible that providing a "living" wage to a food delivery person just isn't worth it for consumers so they would rather just go get it themselves. The conundrum is creating a system where there enough incentive is created to do the work no one wants, but at the same time distribute resources so that everyone is provided some definition of "standard of living". This is difficult when the value of (most) human's work is ever decreasing.

justaaron 9y ago

you are in the extreme minority in advocating NOT having a minimum wage. your approach also essentially nullifies any possibility of collective bargaining, as any desperate person may actually accept such a low offer thus driving the market price down. I could just as easily propose contracts for sales of kidneys from living donors. You have 2 of them, after-all, and if you happen to be mentally incompetent enough to sell one of them for a few bucks, who the heck does the guvment think they are interfering, eh?

eru 9y ago
Iran has a market for kidneys, actually. And it's the only country in the world without a long queue for donations.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  There's a reason the first world hasn't implemented a marketplace for organs.
  - eru 9y ago
    Moralising? EDIT: See http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ for some more background.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      We draw lines where society deems them to be drawn. Its okay for Iran to sell organs. Is it okay for women to be property as is the case in some countries? Child brides? Of course morality is subjective. I don't want to live in a country where slavery is required for people to barely survive. I'd like to be on the right side of history. And if part of the tech industry has to be gutted or burned down, so be it.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        You didn't actually explain why. You just mentioned unrelated issues. 'moralising' is actually a pretty good answer. When it comes to certain actions like organ donations, we're utterly terrified of the idea that someone will feel like they 'have' to do it. Getting a million dollars, even though it would have an amazing impact on your life, is bad because you'd feel pressure toward doing it. Getting a small payment would also be bad because you're being taken advantage of. But you can do it for free if you so desire!

therealasdf 9y ago

The problem is people will prefer Uber Eats over competitors because they are able to deliver food for such a low price. The employees of Uber Eats are the ones paying for this not Uber.

troupe 9y ago
If that is the case then you would expect that the article would talk about how busy Uber Eats was. Instead it says the opposite. He didn't make money because not many people were using the service. He lays out two ways people can work in delivery. One pays significantly less for starting out, but doesn't require you to work specific shifts. The other lets you work whenever you want, but you are very much subject to what demand comes in. You have a lot more consistency when you don't have control over your schedule.

tyingq 9y ago

Uber doesn't make that clear up front though. I imagine new drivers do the math a few times before figuring it out.

fiatjaf 9y ago
That's the only reasonable argument in this thread.

amelius 9y ago

Why do you think the concept of minimum wage exists?

fiatjaf 9y ago
Have you read the basic economic theory behind minimun wages?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

quickben 9y ago

You can probably make that argument for slavery too. Both would be wrong. Back at my first university where we went over macro economy and countries, they told us every county must at some point step in and set some basic rules. Not setting these basic rules means going backward in civilization benefits (Not to mention other countries stepping in because they simply advanced more). So, we evolved out (in economic and civilization sense) of slavery, as we evolved out of unreasonable minimum wages, with the help of governments (enough people saying: no). In a complex system such as a modern western economy, one can has these cracks (work for an hour to buy a loaf of bread and milk), which is very close to slaving, and because these economies are modern in other aspects, they can buffer than. But, the road is still downhill. The government that doesn't care about it's people, will self destruct eventually. No matter the form. It's a historical fact. In this very narrow case of Uber, Uber will self destruct eventually, as they subsidize prices to ensure growth. Once they stop doing that, then they are just another Taxi company with an app. And most of the Taxi companies already have apps. So it will be down to the drivers (who in the case of Uber will be paid even less). The above hypothesis will be tested fairly soon, as Uber is having their IPO this year in fact.

atom-morgan 9y ago
> You can probably make that argument for slavery too. Uber is consensual.
- 1_2__3 9y ago
  Okay replace slavery with indentured servitude. Does that sound any better?
- adultSwim 9y ago
  Wait until our jobs are uber-ized. You might not think it's such a great model when you're the one getting squeezed. Low wage + no benefits + pay employers share of the taxes + no room to complain
  - atom-morgan 9y ago

nkkollaw 9y ago

That's not how it works, luckily. There are laws to protect workers from this kind of crap. If it wasn't for minimum wages, companies would make deals to pay workers lower and lower and there would be nowhere to work for a decent salary.

driverdan 9y ago
> If it wasn't for minimum wages, companies would make deals to pay workers lower and lower and there would be nowhere to work for a decent salary. You outlaw collusion to lower wages and let the market work.
- Noos 9y ago
  The market will work to price everyone to free. We see this with creative work, where most people have an effective negative minimum wage. You're better off working at a mcdonalds than write, draw, or create, and many places essentially pay nothing for creative work like reviewing. For many creatives, they literally had to abandon capitalism and go back to the feudal patronage model with Patreon and kickstarter. The market priced even skilled labor down to effectively zero, since there was just so much produced.

codedokode 9y ago

There is always less unskilled jobs than people willing to get them therefore the salary will go down to some minimal value if not regulated. For example there are people who don't have to pay for an apartment and they can agree to work for $500/month and people who have to rent won't be able to compete with them.

adultSwim 9y ago

> just don't work for them Easy to say. I can move anywhere, work at almost any company, get a great wage, etc. We are the exceptions. 1.5 million American families, including 3m children, live on less than $2/person/day. That's not by choice. Half the planet lives on less than $2 a day. That's $2 in our buying power. What would you buy with $30/month where you live? Not rent. Not gas. Flour? Bag of rice? Hope you can find a cheap source of (probably not clean) water.

fiatjaf 9y ago
> Half the planet lives on less than $2 a day. So it is better if they could work for $4.4 an hour, right? I honestly don't understand why UberEats is a bad.
- meheleventyone 9y ago
  Right but that's $4.40 in Sweden, you need to scale that down to the equivalent for other countries. It would be significantly less in places where it's common to live on $2 a day.
  - fiatjaf 9y ago
    I don't think any scaling will turn $2 a day into $4.4 an hour. That's about $35 a day.