3 ms·

> the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they

by akarma 6y ago

> the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid 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.

dmitriid 6y ago
> 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? 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
- akarma 6y ago
  > Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space." 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?
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > through a lens of historical data 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.

by akarma 6y ago

dmitriid 6y ago

> 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? 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

akarma 6y ago
> Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space." 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?
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > through a lens of historical data 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.