4 ms·
> The local restaurants, the local drivers, the local renters 1) Restaurants are making extra money they wouldn't have made otherwise, with zero upfront risk o
by mbesto 6y ago
> The local restaurants, the local drivers, the local renters
1) Restaurants are making extra money they wouldn't have made otherwise, with zero upfront risk of hiring additional employees, capital equipment, etc.
2) Drivers are making extra money on capital equipment they've already purchased and time they would have otherwise not used to be compensated for.
3) Buyers are spending more money on food as a result.
> These markets won't work either.
But no one is forcing people to buy food using food delivery apps. They're actively choosing to do so. I recently ordered a value meal from Wendy's via Doordash. It was nearly twice as much as I would have paid if I walked into the restaurant (because of fees, etc). But I chose to spend that much. At some point, that's unsustainable and I won't be able to afford doing that for much longer.
The only people at a loss here are sharedholders. I'm desperately confused why so many people think this is a bad thing for the common person.
- vertex-four 6y agoUhh, you realise food delivery was a thing before all these startups, right? The startups built an app, they didn't invent the concept nor the demand of food delivery.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> I'm desperately confused why so many people think this is a bad thing for the common person. Because it's not sustainable. It's the food market equivalent of stripmining. At some point, the restaurants will collapse or quit offering delivery this way, and you'll be left with less restaurants and more expensive delivery (if any at all), and Doordash will implode. Longer-term, the owners of the company are the only ones benefitting here (worth remembering that when startups talk about an exit, it usually means the top employees dumping the company and getting away with riches; the company is going to eventually die, as intended to).