5 ms·

Far more restaurants are accessible for delivery to customers due to these apps. That's not worthless, it's an under served market. Just because our regulatory

Far more restaurants are accessible for delivery to customers due to these apps. That's not worthless, it's an under served market. Just because our regulatory frameworks allow DoorDash's workers to be taken advantage up does not mean that these apps have no value. DoorDash & others basically fed the whole young, well-off, urban dweller population that can't cook during lock down.

save_ferris 6y ago
I'm not arguing that DoorDash creates no value, I'm arguing that it creates a ton of value for executives and shareholders while exploiting workers who are vastly underpaid using opaque payment and tipping mechanisms. Yeah, affluent urban dwellers absolutely benefit from this system. But by choosing to use these services, you endorse this exploitation unless you choose to pay drivers anything close to a living wage, because the company sure isn't going to.
- mistersys 6y ago
  Of coarse the company is not going to pay more then the market-rate for gig workers. It's actually impossible for them, and will be even more impossible once DoorDash goes public, they'll be legally obligated by their shareholders to make the most money possible. Our legal system supports companies making the most money the market will allow, if they paid more then the market for delivery drivers the executive that made that decision would be fired. You aren't supporting exploitative practices by using DoorDash, you're giving somebody a job where they otherwise they wouldn't have any. You're funneling money from affluent city dwellers to the pockets of DoorDash's share holders yes, but also to their delivery drivers. Attacking a company for creating jobs where there weren't any before is silly. Attack the issues with the legal framework, not the people that are using it as designed.
lemax 6y ago
I can cook quite well but honestly living in NYC and going to the grocery store to serve my partner and I ~2 meals a day every day of the week is nearly impossible with our work schedule. If I wanted to do nothing else with my day but work and cook, that might be fine, but Doordash et al. are making life a whole lot better. When we were launching our company, we joked that it was often just a stream of delivery drivers bringing us stuff to sustain ourselves.
- istorical 6y ago
  The truth is though that if these apps and conveniences didn't exist, you'd adapt and find meals to eat that required 5 min prep time - things like a sandwich that are just assembling pre-ready ingredients in a bowl or in a piece of bread or in a wrap truly don't require cooking. Laziness is an adaption, and we adapt to whatever level of effort is required. Money is just an intangible so it's easy to be wasteful with it when it pretty much doesn't exist and is just a number somewhere we can't see. But if a particular luxury disappeared, you'd adapt just fine.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    When I was regularly in an office quite a few years ago, there certainly were days when I just didn't feel like cooking at all and would pickup takeout. However, I also had a stable of recipes that were generally in the vein of throw some things in a skillet and saute for 5-10 minutes. Especially with partially pre-prepped food in grocery stores these days, it's pretty easy to throw decent meals together quickly with very little time or effort given just a little bit of planning.
bobthepanda 6y ago
If it were underserved it should be paid for properly. The fact that they don't make a profit even with shitty labor practices probably means it's not very sustainable, in the same way that WeWork filled a need but was ultimately not sustainable.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Some delivery seems to work given sufficient density and/or volume, e.g. NYC Chinese food or Dominos. Of course, the delivery drivers/bikers still make very little. But the evidence suggests that given US labor costs and relative equality for much of the population, it's generally hard for middle-class or even upper-middle class to justify paying people to run errands for them generally. I'm not sure the economics of fast delivery are all that different from when kozmo.com was around.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Both WeWork and DoorDash proved their markets which is what is meant here. They found demand for something to fill a need irrespective of the services they offered to try and fill it.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    There's a market for a great many things offered at below cost. For example, there's probably a pretty robust market for a personal chef to come by your house and cook you a gourmet meal for $5. And private jets for the same price as commercial? Sign me up.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      It's more nuanced than that. It's not really about cost so much as it is a new kind of thing people want and would be willing to pay for. WeWork showed that individuals want and are willing to pay for communal office space and that small companies want and are willing to pay for "slices" of that space. DoorDash (and the like) shows that people want and are willing to pay for more than just pizza and American-Chinese takeout and restaurants were willing to take a large percent cut for delivery-as-a-service.

save_ferris 6y ago

I'm not arguing that DoorDash creates no value, I'm arguing that it creates a ton of value for executives and shareholders while exploiting workers who are vastly underpaid using opaque payment and tipping mechanisms. Yeah, affluent urban dwellers absolutely benefit from this system. But by choosing to use these services, you endorse this exploitation unless you choose to pay drivers anything close to a living wage, because the company sure isn't going to.

mistersys 6y ago
Of coarse the company is not going to pay more then the market-rate for gig workers. It's actually impossible for them, and will be even more impossible once DoorDash goes public, they'll be legally obligated by their shareholders to make the most money possible. Our legal system supports companies making the most money the market will allow, if they paid more then the market for delivery drivers the executive that made that decision would be fired. You aren't supporting exploitative practices by using DoorDash, you're giving somebody a job where they otherwise they wouldn't have any. You're funneling money from affluent city dwellers to the pockets of DoorDash's share holders yes, but also to their delivery drivers. Attacking a company for creating jobs where there weren't any before is silly. Attack the issues with the legal framework, not the people that are using it as designed.

lemax 6y ago

I can cook quite well but honestly living in NYC and going to the grocery store to serve my partner and I ~2 meals a day every day of the week is nearly impossible with our work schedule. If I wanted to do nothing else with my day but work and cook, that might be fine, but Doordash et al. are making life a whole lot better. When we were launching our company, we joked that it was often just a stream of delivery drivers bringing us stuff to sustain ourselves.

istorical 6y ago
The truth is though that if these apps and conveniences didn't exist, you'd adapt and find meals to eat that required 5 min prep time - things like a sandwich that are just assembling pre-ready ingredients in a bowl or in a piece of bread or in a wrap truly don't require cooking. Laziness is an adaption, and we adapt to whatever level of effort is required. Money is just an intangible so it's easy to be wasteful with it when it pretty much doesn't exist and is just a number somewhere we can't see. But if a particular luxury disappeared, you'd adapt just fine.
- ghaff 6y ago
  When I was regularly in an office quite a few years ago, there certainly were days when I just didn't feel like cooking at all and would pickup takeout. However, I also had a stable of recipes that were generally in the vein of throw some things in a skillet and saute for 5-10 minutes. Especially with partially pre-prepped food in grocery stores these days, it's pretty easy to throw decent meals together quickly with very little time or effort given just a little bit of planning.

bobthepanda 6y ago

If it were underserved it should be paid for properly. The fact that they don't make a profit even with shitty labor practices probably means it's not very sustainable, in the same way that WeWork filled a need but was ultimately not sustainable.

ghaff 6y ago
Some delivery seems to work given sufficient density and/or volume, e.g. NYC Chinese food or Dominos. Of course, the delivery drivers/bikers still make very little. But the evidence suggests that given US labor costs and relative equality for much of the population, it's generally hard for middle-class or even upper-middle class to justify paying people to run errands for them generally. I'm not sure the economics of fast delivery are all that different from when kozmo.com was around.
Spivak 6y ago
Both WeWork and DoorDash proved their markets which is what is meant here. They found demand for something to fill a need irrespective of the services they offered to try and fill it.
- ghaff 6y ago
  There's a market for a great many things offered at below cost. For example, there's probably a pretty robust market for a personal chef to come by your house and cook you a gourmet meal for $5. And private jets for the same price as commercial? Sign me up.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    It's more nuanced than that. It's not really about cost so much as it is a new kind of thing people want and would be willing to pay for. WeWork showed that individuals want and are willing to pay for communal office space and that small companies want and are willing to pay for "slices" of that space. DoorDash (and the like) shows that people want and are willing to pay for more than just pizza and American-Chinese takeout and restaurants were willing to take a large percent cut for delivery-as-a-service.