6 ms·

I am willing to pay the workers accordingly? Explicitly stated that. I don’t get it why convenience _has to_ translate into agony for someone else.

edflsafoiewq 4y ago
I don't know about agony, but your ability to pay for it depends on having an underclass whose time is significantly less valuable than your own. You're talking about having servants (servants as a gig of course).
- anonyfox 4y ago
  That’s not how division of labor works actually. Also, everyone may decide what to spend their money on, be it on vacations, hobbies, goods or … having stuff delivered.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Reality does not follow the dictates of models. The notion of "division of labor" comes so underspecified that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. > Also, everyone may decide... A normative claim, not a substantive one. Besides, it's a misappropriation of what "liberty" means. Liberty is a collective phenomenon: it is not enough for each person to express it individually, but in order to stand for liberty we must act in such socially beneficial ways as to promote liberty for all. "Liberty for me, not for thee" is a contradictory statement.
- tomjen3 4y ago
  That's hardly an issue if you think about it: my time, as a student, was significantly less valuable than my current time as a senior software engineer. I can't hire myself in the past, but there are other people who are in other places in their lives than I am.
uoaei 4y ago
> I don’t get it why convenience _has to_ translate into agony for someone else. It doesn't have to. But it does, often, nonetheless, currently. Do you know anyone who does gig work for their main or only income? Are they happy with their lives? For now we are leaving aside "externalities" such as all the extra cars on the road creating traffic and extra emissions and focusing on the topic of TFA. One has to wonder: what sort of systemic, material forces sustain this imbalance? which companies are propped up with subsidies, investment, etc.? why do people put money into those companies in which ways and for which reasons? how are those companies incentivized to operate given their positions in the economy? what does that mean for the people who are dependent on the money they are paid in wages from the only company willing to employ them to avoid a destitute life of food and housing insecurity? what could we do differently to alleviate this very real pain felt by millions every day? Paying people "accordingly" for running Doordash orders would result in a complete collapse of Doordash because its business model is unsustainable without 1) subsidies a la venture capital and 2) minimizing compensation (wages, liabilities, wear&tear on personal property) paid to the drivers vis-a-vis the maximization of quarterly profits. Delivery fees would cost absurd amounts and no one would be able to afford the service without these factors. Some people make arguments in favor of the company surviving at the expense of the workers; others prefer to insist in the opposite direction.

edflsafoiewq 4y ago

I don't know about agony, but your ability to pay for it depends on having an underclass whose time is significantly less valuable than your own. You're talking about having servants (servants as a gig of course).

anonyfox 4y ago
That’s not how division of labor works actually. Also, everyone may decide what to spend their money on, be it on vacations, hobbies, goods or … having stuff delivered.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Reality does not follow the dictates of models. The notion of "division of labor" comes so underspecified that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. > Also, everyone may decide... A normative claim, not a substantive one. Besides, it's a misappropriation of what "liberty" means. Liberty is a collective phenomenon: it is not enough for each person to express it individually, but in order to stand for liberty we must act in such socially beneficial ways as to promote liberty for all. "Liberty for me, not for thee" is a contradictory statement.
tomjen3 4y ago
That's hardly an issue if you think about it: my time, as a student, was significantly less valuable than my current time as a senior software engineer. I can't hire myself in the past, but there are other people who are in other places in their lives than I am.

uoaei 4y ago

> I don’t get it why convenience _has to_ translate into agony for someone else. It doesn't have to. But it does, often, nonetheless, currently. Do you know anyone who does gig work for their main or only income? Are they happy with their lives? For now we are leaving aside "externalities" such as all the extra cars on the road creating traffic and extra emissions and focusing on the topic of TFA. One has to wonder: what sort of systemic, material forces sustain this imbalance? which companies are propped up with subsidies, investment, etc.? why do people put money into those companies in which ways and for which reasons? how are those companies incentivized to operate given their positions in the economy? what does that mean for the people who are dependent on the money they are paid in wages from the only company willing to employ them to avoid a destitute life of food and housing insecurity? what could we do differently to alleviate this very real pain felt by millions every day? Paying people "accordingly" for running Doordash orders would result in a complete collapse of Doordash because its business model is unsustainable without 1) subsidies a la venture capital and 2) minimizing compensation (wages, liabilities, wear&tear on personal property) paid to the drivers vis-a-vis the maximization of quarterly profits. Delivery fees would cost absurd amounts and no one would be able to afford the service without these factors. Some people make arguments in favor of the company surviving at the expense of the workers; others prefer to insist in the opposite direction.