At least in DoorDash's YC application, they pitched that delivery drivers wanted to make more money.
When the drivers worked for one restaurant only, they would be sitting around most of the time waiting for an order.
By delivering for many restaurants at once on DoorDash, they would be able to make more money and have less idle time.
I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
> I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
Except, you know, the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid, cheated out of tips and hazard pay etc. etc.
With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone. So far Doordash has been settling those for millions of dollars ($5 mln in California, $2.5 in Washington).
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
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.
I mean, there's a lot of reasons they might have been stealing food. To presume it must have been because they were so poor and not because they had delicious smelling food in their car and a near-guarantee that theft wouldn't be noticed is, imo, disingenuous
To say that the only reason someone steals food is for hunger is to say that nobody has ever stolen food for any reason other than hunger. Otherwise, there would necessarily be multiple reasons to steal food. I don't think that could possibly be true.
This is such a wildly incorrect interpretation of what I said. After re-reading my original comment I'm honestly confused as to how you arrived at the conclusion you did (that I was attempting to justify theft).
I wasn't saying they should be stealing. The only thing I was saying was that there is more than one reason to steal food. If anything, I was arguing against theft (but in the moment, I was just responding to GP).
Drivers can easily put in consistent overtime which is harder to do at a traditional job. Removing some of the friction of overworking themselves while giving the illusion of choice.
Migrant workers consistently show up at farms too; it doesn't mean they're paid well.
I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in the middle of a pandemic and something like 85%[1] of restaurants have closed in some areas. For most restaurants, something like Doordash is the only way they're actually staying alive at this time.
At the moment Doordash is an elaborate scheme to funnel VC money to the restaurant/grocery business. So yes, it's good for customers and those businesses now. But their valuation implies that at some point that's going to change and they're going to start extracting ~$10 billion a year in value. It's hard to see how they're going to do that in a way that ultimately is good for customers.
