4 ms·

Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to wal

by strken 5y ago

Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. There's no point streamlining a process at a cost of e.g. $35k/year if you can pay someone $30k/year to do it.

gruez 5y ago
>Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. Do we need someone to farm food for us? If farming was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to grow their own vegetable garden.
- tibbar 5y ago
  And then you might decide to pay some one to help you in your vegetable garden part time, and before you know it...
- strken 5y ago
  The point here is that jobs are elastic and can be automated or shuffled around, we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. We will always need someone to deliver packages. However, maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. The same thing applies to the agricultural industry, which abuses immigrant labourers doing backbreaking work for low pay to provide you cheaper luxury goods. Maybe if strawberries reflected a livable wage you'd choose to eat more easily harvestable crops, like apples.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. Is that bad? Like it or not, different types of work provide different value to the economy. >maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. Sure, that MANGA programmer could have gone to the supermarket himself, but why should we stop him from spreading the wealth around by paying someone else to do it for them? Would the delivery guy be better off if he had 20 minutes of his time back but was $5 poorer?
    - strken 5y ago
      It's a reply to the claim that "a society consisting exclusively of highly specialized welders and accountants can't operate." I don't think it's bad that labour has a market value, but I do think it's bad that we can't imagine a future where most or all of the jobs are higher paid. Again, this isn't an attempt to dunk on anyone who gets a package delivered. It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector, and an attack on the idea that a low-paid underclass is necessary.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector I don't see how this can be solved by the market. At the marginal level, raising wages can do a little to push the income of the lowest earners slightly higher, but it's not really a solution to the general problem of "people who can't earn enough money to afford some minimum standard of living". For one, it actually doesn't increase overall earnings, because businesses end up cutting hours[1]. Second, it only affects people who are employed, so the policy does nothing for the unemployed/disabled. If society wants to guarantee a minimum standard of living to their members, they should just do it (ie. redistributive policies), rather than trying to coerce the labor market into doing so. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532
        strken 5y ago
        Rising wages for the lowest earners are the consequence of more policy changes than just minimum wage increases: subsidised training programs, public infrastructure projects, lowering full employment rate targets for reserve banks, etc. Anything that increases competition for the pool of available workers. I'm not even advocating for any of these things here, or in my earlier comments. I'm saying that if by some unspecified means the wages for last-mile delivery drivers doubled or quadrupled or more, society would absorb the difference instead of collapsing. It wouldn't fail to operate. Even agriculture would be survivable if it happened slowly enough to mitigate the sudden shock.
whatshisface 5y ago
If people are walking to the depot, the delivery work is still being done, but for $0/hour.

by strken 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>Do we need someone to deliver packages? If last mile package delivery was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to walk/drive/bus to the depot. Do we need someone to farm food for us? If farming was a skilled profession that earned workers $200k a year, more people would choose to grow their own vegetable garden.

tibbar 5y ago
And then you might decide to pay some one to help you in your vegetable garden part time, and before you know it...
strken 5y ago
The point here is that jobs are elastic and can be automated or shuffled around, we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. We will always need someone to deliver packages. However, maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. The same thing applies to the agricultural industry, which abuses immigrant labourers doing backbreaking work for low pay to provide you cheaper luxury goods. Maybe if strawberries reflected a livable wage you'd choose to eat more easily harvestable crops, like apples.
- gruez 5y ago
  >we just choose not to do so because we don't value the time of the worker enough. When you get a package delivered for $2 instead of $3 you're implicitly putting a lower value on the time of someone else. Is that bad? Like it or not, different types of work provide different value to the economy. >maybe we do not need someone to deliver a package of rice from Amazon for an unlivably low wage to a recipient who could have just gone to the supermarket. Sure, that MANGA programmer could have gone to the supermarket himself, but why should we stop him from spreading the wealth around by paying someone else to do it for them? Would the delivery guy be better off if he had 20 minutes of his time back but was $5 poorer?
  - strken 5y ago
    It's a reply to the claim that "a society consisting exclusively of highly specialized welders and accountants can't operate." I don't think it's bad that labour has a market value, but I do think it's bad that we can't imagine a future where most or all of the jobs are higher paid. Again, this isn't an attempt to dunk on anyone who gets a package delivered. It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector, and an attack on the idea that a low-paid underclass is necessary.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >It's a defence of the market's ability to stretch to accommodate rising wages in a sector I don't see how this can be solved by the market. At the marginal level, raising wages can do a little to push the income of the lowest earners slightly higher, but it's not really a solution to the general problem of "people who can't earn enough money to afford some minimum standard of living". For one, it actually doesn't increase overall earnings, because businesses end up cutting hours[1]. Second, it only affects people who are employed, so the policy does nothing for the unemployed/disabled. If society wants to guarantee a minimum standard of living to their members, they should just do it (ie. redistributive policies), rather than trying to coerce the labor market into doing so. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532
      - strken 5y ago
        Rising wages for the lowest earners are the consequence of more policy changes than just minimum wage increases: subsidised training programs, public infrastructure projects, lowering full employment rate targets for reserve banks, etc. Anything that increases competition for the pool of available workers. I'm not even advocating for any of these things here, or in my earlier comments. I'm saying that if by some unspecified means the wages for last-mile delivery drivers doubled or quadrupled or more, society would absorb the difference instead of collapsing. It wouldn't fail to operate. Even agriculture would be survivable if it happened slowly enough to mitigate the sudden shock.

whatshisface 5y ago

If people are walking to the depot, the delivery work is still being done, but for $0/hour.