https://seattle.eater.com/2024/2/21/24079162/tony-delivers-seattle-delivery-app-fees-downtown
Tony Illes was working as an Uber Eats delivery person when an ordinance passed last year by the Seattle City Council came into effect in mid-January. The new rule required app companies to pay workers like Illes a minimum wage based on the miles they travel and the minutes they spend on the job. The apps say that this amounts to around $26 an hour, and both Uber Eats and DoorDash responded by adding $5 fees to every order (even when the customer is outside Seattle city limits) while calling for the law to be repealed. According to a recent DoorDash blog post, the ordinance has resulted in an “unprecedented drop in order volume,” a drop that Illes felt personally. He told Geekwire that “demand is dead” and told local TV station KIRO 7, “I didn’t get an order for like six hours and I was done.”
So Illes had an idea: Who needs these apps, anyway? He printed up signs with QR codes directing people to a bare-bones website with his phone number, promising that he would deliver food by bike in Uptown, South Lake Union, Belltown, and a chunk of the downtown core for $5 a pop from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. daily. All you had to do was order the food and send him the screenshot. He called himself “Tony Delivers.”
The good side of a free market
This is a good side? Because Tony most likely can't afford health insurance and probably isn't going to be able to save much for retirement.
This sounds like the desperate side of the non-corporate people involved in the so-called free market to me.
He knows what is worth his own time to him. He can take routes only when they make sense to him. I looked at the map and it's an 8 Minute bike ride from middle to corner. That's $20 an hour worst case and $50 an hour on average.
He's making more by cutting out the middleman of Doordash who was profiting off his work.
That doesn't address anything I said.
If Tony gets hit by a car while making deliveries, how is he going to afford the hospital bills in a for-profit healthcare system?
If Tony dies and has a family, how are they going to survive until they adjust to the loss of income when he doesn't have life insurance?
Will Tony ever be able to retire or will he have to be riding a bike, making deliveries when he's 80?
That's why this is not a good side of the so-called free market.
There is no good side.
We need universal healthcare but Doordash doesn't provide healthcare for drivers so he hasn't lost anything. Companies pay for healthcare from your paycheck. The executives aren't taking lower salaries to pay for everyone's healthcare.
Doordash doesn't provide life insurance for drivers nor do companies do it for free. Again it comes out of your paycheck even if it isn't listed as a line item.
Doordash doesn't have a retirement plan. Nor do most companies. You put a part of your paycheck in a 401k. The only guaranteed retirement is working for the government. You cannot depend on private companies lasting long enough for your retirement.
Yes, I know Doordash doesn't have any of those things either, that was my point.
Tony is not beating the so-called Free Market system. He's still getting fucked by the system. He's just not getting fucked by Doordash as well.
Sounds like a good argument for a government pension plan.
You could say the same things about anyone who is starting their own business
Not in countries with universal healthcare or welfare
No argument, but we will probably never get there.
VBNMW!
Oh look, it's the guy who told me that I made up a nonexistent queer child to excuse Israel's genocide that I never excused.
Who I have apparently been making up for over a year. All the way back to Reddit.
Yeah, sorry, not going to let you bully me again.
I hope this isn't a double post, my last post didn't show up:
Did you reply to the right thread? There's nothing about Israel. This is about a person cutting out a large corporation from profiting off his labor.
No, we have a history.
I replied to the person who has spent a lot of time bullying me that now wants to have a casual discussion about free market capitalism and I'm not going to put up with that shit after what happened.
I've also blocked them now because I forgot to do that, but someone like that who thinks I'll just move on from that bullshit and have a friendly discussion? No fucking way.
Until his profile gets high enough that they find some permit he doesn't have and he gets shut down.
That's how it was ideally supposed to work, if humans wouldn't be trainable to follow brands and ads.
Sadly they are, so I dunno. Maybe abolishing trademarks and outlawing unrequested ads would work.
After all, it is illegal to do to a person what they haven't requested, right? It is illegal to take a thing from your house without your permission. It should be illegal to put it in there also, it's the same thing mirrored. That would include unrequested ads.
Then we'll see how many people really want to see ads.
It's not about the ads, it's about regulations. The free market dies when regulations get introduced. Especially when these regulations were introduced through lobbying by big corpos, who are trying to protect themselves from competition.
The free market also dies when unregulated companies destroy their competition to become monopolies, destroy the environment and enslave people.
You're correct in that when companies essentially own politicians and get regulations passed that help them do the above, like the system we seem to have now, then that's a serious problem.
The answer to that isn't to get rid of regulations, though. An unregulated free market isn't going to stop factories from dumping toxic waste into rivers or spewing it into the air. It's not going to stop companies from paying employees slave wages. And it's definitely not going to stop companies from using dirty tactics to drive out their competition and become monopolies, as you seem to be suggesting.
A well regulated free market can both reward innovators that come up with new products or services that society values while also protecting the environment and the workers from exploitation, and ensuring healthy competition.
That's not the system we have now, for sure, but we're absolutely not going to get there by getting rid of regulations. We need to yank control of the government (and thus the laws) away corporations and the wealthy and give it back to the people.
RCV
This doesn't seem correct. Historically before IP and trademark laws monopolization was done mostly through actual warfare. The idea of free market doesn't allow that.
Free market does even more warfare, just less noticable
I don't think Apple won\lost any wars over US market. I'm talking Hanseatic-Danish wars, colonial wars etc.
If you want free market without regulations - go to south pole
It's about power.
If you get rid of all regulations, then eventually lying better and louder is a winning strategy. If you regulate the market so that it's no longer agile, then you have monopolies fortified by law.
And depending on who has power, it's shifted between these two extremes separately for every distinct thing.
So I wouldn't deal in absolutes.