Agreed. Food delivery is a luxury that should only be afforded to the wealthy. There are far too many delivery drivers serving low income areas. We must price out those neighbourhoods immediately.
Poor people can't afford luxuries. It is an unfortunate truth. Having another human do something for you requires you be able to afford their labor. Sometimes we subsidize if you cannot afford it (healthcare). Sometimes we don't (fast food delivery). If you believe you're entitled to undervaluing someone else's labor below a living wage while being poor yourself, can't help that. Belief systems are weird.
If I get food delivered for less than some definition of a living wage, the delivery person is still better off than if I had walked to the restaurant myself. If the delivery person had a better job available, he or she would have taken it.
Depends on the markup. As a person who earns a decent wage I cannot afford to eat delivery food casually as the markup on a per item basis is steep. Even the good pizza place costs near me is $43 for a single large with 4 toppings, with delivery it is closer to $50.
Sure but delivery mark ups and high delivery fees are a recent thing. Plenty of restaraunts offered the same price in-store as for delivery, and the fee was usually $2-4 plus tip. It's not like technology has gotten worse or cars have gotten slower. So it was sustainable, and now they want us to believe it's not sustainable.
Right now yes food delivery is a luxury. I guess the point is... how and why did that happen?
Sort of? Even as a college student, getting crappy pizza delivered at midnight on a cold night versus walking 15 minutes to pick it up ourselves was some definition of luxury.
Seems to be more of a exploitive targeting of mentally ill people. Super sad to see how many young people are ordering from apps like this and not able to afford any sort of decent quality of life without some for of subsidies.
So the suffering of the sick and disabled is of higher value (by some measure) than that of DoorDash gig workers? Why not both? DoorDash can have less profits, and government can provide some support, and everyone comes out ahead except shareholders getting a bit less return (oh noes) and management having lower comp (again, oh noes). These are the people doing the actual work.
You are pitting the wrong socioeconomic strata against each other via your argument.
I don't remember the sick and disabled being able to pay such high premiums on take out. My friend is a dwarf (his preferred term) and spent a summer working for a company out in California. He had to Uber to and from work, just to contribute to the economy.
Meanwhile, in sane countries that invest in their populace, he would have gotten on the bus or train, and he would have kept more of his income.
Maybe instead of gifting entire sectors of the economy to private entities through complete governmental apathy and purposeful neglect, we could work to invest in our own communities without the requirement that it pad someone's bank account who had connections early in life. Maybe we could build a better society if it wasn't a requirement that every service come with a minimum ten percent graft (profit) system attached, with nowadays the extra requirement that profit goes up year over year.
If the economic of delivery apps are unviable in the first place, then it's unlikely these services would exist without the funding of venture capitalists.
