6 ms·
I spent a little bit of time on the doordash subreddit, and I know just as a matter of fact that there is an insane churn rate of dashers (not exactly a surpris
by rty32 2y ago
I spent a little bit of time on the doordash subreddit, and I know just as a matter of fact that there is an insane churn rate of dashers (not exactly a surprise). Many people who don't have a stable job (and often don't have skills) start to deliver food order, hoping it gives some income with some flexibility (family, illness etc). Then they discover lots of issues with the platform and the delivery model itself, and they end up earning less than minimum wage. Then they realize it's not worth the effort and quit.
With that in mind,
> An Uber spokesperson, for example, said the report proves that the law was a "job killer" because there are now 12,000 fewer delivery workers.
My guess is that 10k out of 12k would have quit anyway within a few minths in the old model, and the total amount of orders delivered isn't reduced by that much. I don't view this as a negative.
- namaria 2y ago'Job killer' is such a weird way to say 'exploitation blocker'.
- loa_in_ 2y agoIt sounds like pandering to some kind of deity that demands jobs filled above all else, at all costs, and a job description be deemed a word of the deity itself.
- namaria 2y agoCorporate capitalism in a nutshell... I should really get around to reading that tech feudalism book I keep hearing about. As a historian, sounds plausible.
- ryandrake 2y agoI mean, look at what a lot of these business owners refer to themselves as: "Job Creators". Almost god-like. They are The Creators. As if they will entirety of civilization into existence by waving their magical staff around and Creating Jobs. When they do their holy work, jobs spring up like lettuce from the fertile ground. Give them more subsidies and tax breaks, and they'll Create even more.
- bombcar 2y agoJust as McDonalds and Walmart perfected a method for using almost entirely untrained workers immediately, the “gig economy” has discovered that they can run continuously off of a few weeks work from most “employees” before they realize it’s a scam.
- scotty79 2y ago> said the report proves that the law was a "job killer" No every job and not every company should exist. If your job can't provide minimum wage then either your business in not productive enough to deserve place in the market or you are exploiting your employees.
- vidarh 2y agoI like to see it this way: If a worker can't live a decent life without benefits on what you pay them, then society as a whole is subsidizing you. And in doing so, we're biasing competition in favour of businesses that depend on subsidies over businesses that are well run enough to be able to pay a livable salary. We'd be better off with companies like that not existing, even if it means paying better benefits to some people to make up for some lost jobs - it improve the chances of success and ability to create more jobs for companies that payer a living wage.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoYes, that's what we've decided as a modern society. If you're too old, too young or too unhealthy to be a productive member of society, a civil society will provide you with the basics of life anyway. And it's not black or white. There are lots of people who can contribute a little, but cannot contribute their full share. But we've set up the rules in a way that makes it very difficult for them to work and contribute. If you have income, your welfare often gets cut off completely. That's counter-productive. There are lots of people who should be able to get some of their income from work and some from welfare, and that's the way things should be, a gradual change from "all from welfare" to "all from work".
- scotty79 2y agoHe wasn't talking about subsidizing people. Letting companies pay people too little is subsidizing those inefficient unproductive companies. Society might subsidize inefficient people because of humanity. Subsidizing inefficient unproductive companies is just dumb.