Seattle hates jobs

[Alefroth]

The government in Seattle has now actually driven people to imbibe. Good for beer sales, not so much for soda sales.
https://fee.org/articles/seattle-s-nann ... udy-shows/

Seattleites can still afford beer? Huh.

[Moliere]

'It's definitely backfiring': Seattle ordinance intended to help app delivery workers is 'hurting' them

The Pay Up Legislation, as the city regards it, was meant to improve wages for gig workers by entitling them to "minimum pay," or in other words, pay based on the time worked and miles traveled for each offer.

Doordash, as we've reported, has stated their Dashers will get paid more: at least $26.40 per hour before tips, in their estimation.

"They’re not telling the whole story," Shagen said. "Assuming that you are working constantly, then yes, you're going to be making that much money. But that's not what's happening right now. Because people are not ordering as much anymore. The tips are going down because they think we're making all this money."

One driver shared how much he made on this week last year: $931. But this week, he only made $464.81.

I think the solution is to raise the fees even more to guarantee the desired wages.

[GreenGoo]

I think the solution is to raise the fees even more to guarantee the desired wages.

Why? I had no idea app delivery businesses had such razor thin margins. You would think it would be almost all pure profit, given the small operating costs of supporting an app while pushing health care and car maintenance onto their "employees".

Pure. Profit.

Note: Uber does offer health care benefits in some countries.

Note: Doordashers "helps" their drivers sign up for government offered health insurance. L.O.L.

The article is such bullshit. Interview 3 drivers, write down their anecdotes as fact and universal, and bam, the entire industry is getting screwed in Seattle.

Can we please get some fucking data on this, you policy propaganda spewing news mills?

[LawBeefaroni]

They are barely profitable, if profitable at all. They're still in the phase where they try to kill all other delivery services. They spend a ton on marketing, advertising, and promotional credits to get customers and businesses in their infrastructure.

[Isgrimnur]

And then comes the enshittification of the winner(s).

[GreenGoo]

First, I don't actually believe that. Operating an app is 90% upfront costs, and app maintenance is significantly less. They have none of the traditional expenses or operating costs of a traditional business. No manufacturing materials, minimal HR, no shipping, R&D etc. They push some operating expenses onto the employee already.

If they are unable to compete without starving their drivers, then fuck that business model. It's broken. You offer your employees nothing but a shitty wage, then cry when one of the only operating costs you have increases. ALL operating costs go up, all the time, forever! This has to be part of your business model.

So no, I don't believe that they are barely scrapping by, but if they are, they deserve to die and the drivers find something else that is less shitty.

Some business models are untenable. I'm sick of building business on the sweat and blood of the employees, while giving them as little as legally possible, then crying when that legal limit is moved slightly.

[Isgrimnur]

https://s22.q4cdn.com/280253921/files/d ... ncials.pdf

[GreenGoo]

They are barely profitable, if profitable at all. They're still in the phase where they try to kill all other delivery services. They spend a ton on marketing, advertising, and promotional credits to get customers and businesses in their infrastructure.

Looking at DoorDash, when you have annual revenue over 2 billion but can't make a profit, perhaps the issue is not your employees.

edit: Bammed by izzy.

[LawBeefaroni]

First, I don't actually believe that. Operating an app is 90% upfront costs, and app maintenance is significantly less. They have none of the traditional expenses or operating costs of a traditional business. No manufacturing materials, minimal HR, no shipping, R&D etc. They push some operating expenses onto the employee already.

If they are unable to compete without starving their drivers, then fuck that business model. It's broken. You offer your employees nothing but a shitty wage, then cry when one of the only operating costs you have increases. ALL operating costs go up, all the time, forever! This has to be part of your business model.

So no, I don't believe that they are barely scrapping by, but if they are, they deserve to die and the drivers find something else that is less shitty.

Some business models are untenable. I'm sick of building business on the sweat and blood of the employees, while giving them as little as legally possible, then crying when that legal limit is moved slightly.

They aren't trying to turn a profit. They are trying to generate revenue and use debt to pour into taking over markets. It's not a broken business model, it's their strategy. Uber, Walmart, Family Dollar, Tesla...

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/char ... net-income
DoorDash net income for the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $-0.073B, a 75.25% decline year-over-year.
DoorDash net income for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $-1.044B, a 18.64% increase year-over-year.
DoorDash annual net income for 2022 was $-1.365B, a 191.67% increase from 2021.
DoorDash annual net income for 2021 was $-0.468B, a 1.52% increase from 2020.
DoorDash annual net income for 2020 was $-0.461B, a 30.99% decline from 2019.

[GreenGoo]

Operating at a loss until you have a monopoly and can hold the customer hostage is an anti-capitalist strategy.

I thought America was capitalism greater than everything?

Yeah, the problem is greedy "employees" and socialism.

[Isgrimnur]

edit: Bammed by izzy.

[Isgrimnur]

Operating at a loss until you have a monopoly and can hold the customer hostage is an anti-capitalist strategy.

I thought America was capitalism greater than everything?

Yeah, the problem is greedy "employees" and socialism.

Marketing isn't just advertising.

[GreenGoo]

Marketing isn't just advertising.

Agreed. Please elaborate.

[LawBeefaroni]

Operating at a loss until you have a monopoly and can hold the customer hostage is an anti-capitalist strategy.

I thought America was capitalism greater than everything?

Yeah, the problem is greedy "employees" and socialism.

It's what they're doing. I don't like it but it's the new way.

[Isgrimnur]

Marketing isn't just advertising.

Agreed. Please elaborate.

Lobbying, anti-union activities, community outreach, greenwashing, supply chain manipulation/integration, etc.

[GreenGoo]

Lobbying, anti-union activities, community outreach, greenwashing, supply chain manipulation/integration, etc.

No, I mean why are you telling me/us this?

[GreenGoo]

It's what they're doing. I don't like it but it's the new way.

Fair enough.

I have zero sympathy for them so when Moliere posts that Seattle is a problem because they are letting corporations abuse their employees slightly less than everywhere else, I get annoyed.

edit: I realize I haven't written it out, even though I think it's acknowledged in my follow up posts, but I'll write it out so it's clear.

I was wrong about their profitability. They aren't profitable. Which is hilarious.

[Pyperkub]

Oh, they are profitable... for some. Look at the tripling of Administrative costs in a year. Someone's getting paid...

[Isgrimnur]

Lobbying, anti-union activities, community outreach, greenwashing, supply chain manipulation/integration, etc.

No, I mean why are you telling me/us this?

Operating at a loss until you have a monopoly and can hold the customer hostage is an anti-capitalist strategy.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not following. Monopolies are inherently anti-capitalism, which is predicated on healthy competition ensuring fairness for the consumer because they have a choice.

What has marketing to do with this?

Or are you saying they have more expenses than I implied? Fine, but it's STILL far less than most industries. FAR less.

Lawbeef wanted to distinguish between business model and business strategy, which is fine, but doesn't change much from my perspective, because strategy is part of the model.

[Pyperkub]

Eh, if one posits the UK as the origination of capitalism, then the East India Trading Co. (explicitly a monopoly, was the archetype.

Monopolies are definitely anti-competitive, but a lot of capitalism is based on monopoly behavior, and checks on that impulse.

[GreenGoo]

Eh, if one posits the UK as the origination of capitalism, then the East India Trading Co. (explicitly a monopoly, was the archetype.

Monopolies are definitely anti-competitive, but a lot of capitalism is based on monopoly behavior, and checks on that impulse.

Adam Smith.

Without competition a corporation is hardly different from a government enforced monopoly. Where do government monopolies fall in the capitalism spectrum?

Does it change anything if you starve your competition to death or the government shoots it in the head?

Capitalism is more than the exploitation of resources.

[Pyperkub]

Eh, if one posits the UK as the origination of capitalism, then the East India Trading Co. (explicitly a monopoly, was the archetype.

Monopolies are definitely anti-competitive, but a lot of capitalism is based on monopoly behavior, and checks on that impulse.

Adam Smith.

Without competition a corporation is hardly different from a government enforced monopoly. Where do government monopolies fall in the capitalism spectrum?

Does it change anything if you starve your competition to death or the government shoots it in the head?

Capitalism is more than the exploitation of resources.

Well familiar with Adam Smith, but while he argues for free markets, the reality is that what he was describing was very much informed by the East India Trading Co. Gov't granted monopoly, which he hated, but it still persisted.