- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
A first-of-its kind law requiring a minimum wage for app-based delivery workers will take effect after a judge rejected the companies’ bid to block it.
Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub won’t be able to get out of paying minimum wage to their New York City delivery workers after all, following a judge’s decision to reject their bid to skirt the city’s new law. The upcoming law, which is still pending due to the companies’ ongoing lawsuit, aims to secure better wage protections for app-based workers. Once the suit settles, third-party delivery providers will have to pay delivery workers a minimum wage of roughly $18 per hour before tips, and keep up with the yearly increases, Reuters reports.
The amount, which will increase April 1 of every year, is slightly higher than the city’s standard minimum wage, taking into account the additional expenses gig workers face. At the moment, food delivery workers make an estimated $7-$11 per hour on average.
Honest question to the lemmy users here, but do people believe the solution to the affordability crisis in the US is to raise the salaries of every single job out there (menial or skilled)?
Looking to have a real conversation and not just a ‘fuck capitalism’ one (and yes, I know it sucks, but I’m looking for a real conversation).
No, the optimal solution is to have a society where all the blood and sweat equity that has been put into the system by workers is finally repaid, and the capitalist leeches of the world are knocked off their thrones. Workers created the abundance that allowed the billionaires of the world to get fat while they let others starve, and only once that misappropriation of resources is ended can we fix the issues that the oligarchs have created.
I agree. I’m having a hard time understanding how raising the salary of delivery workers to what an entry level doctor, engineers or lawyer is going to solve the problem. There are two things that might happen, either all the other salaries in the world will then also increase (and thus services too), keeping the wealth disparity the same, or, since these delivery companies already operate on such thin margins (GrubHub net profit for past years have been negative $millions), they are going to pass the cost to the consumer. It creates an interesting problem where then it’s too expensive to get delivery so you don’t order food, which means less delivery jobs are needed so people are laid off, preventing people from making money. Also, from what I’ve seen, most of the workers seems to be immigrants. While I’m not saying we take advantage of immigrants, but these low barrier to entry jobs have always been helpful for those who have complicated statuses.
I’m not bashing any delivery worker (I used to work at a wings shop in my youth), but the amount of interaction you spend with a delivery worker is usually minimal. It doesn’t require any formal training and neither being a bad one is going to affect whether you are in the mood for Thai food.
The federal minimal wage is still the same. $18 an hour is still low in New York. If anything, the law just gets rid of jobs people should not have been going for in the first place.
Yes, wages need to proportionally keep up with the rate of inflation, otherwise you are literally getting paid less to do the same work every year.
This part I haven’t figured out. Seems chicken and egg to me. If we keep raising wages to match inflation, the costs of good measured to match inflation will also go up and we end up with higher inflation right?
I dont think raising minimum wage will help. It just forces the service to raise the cost of the delivery fee. I don’t know the answer to the affordability crisis, but it ain’t that!
I come in peace, because you wanted an honest answer/real conversation. .
deleted by creator
Very good points. I hadn’t thought of the downfall of delivery to be an option, but I can understand that. The inflation stuff is a little over my head but if we constantly target higher inflation, what is the end game? We can’t raise all salaries realistically and have a loaf of bread cost $20 in the end. Is the future meant to have less humans?
Yes @missveeronica, love peace, love discussion! I am curious what other alternatives we have or what people can think of. It’s obviously a very tough problem since the US government can’t seem to (agree to) fix it. Things that pop in my mind:
I understand this is a basic overstatement, but in general, people work so that they can afford a house. I think housing prices have gone bonkers in recent years, partially due to foreign investors and the flipping houses/Airbnb craze. One thing that pops into my mind is to impose a flip tax, where unless the owner personally lives in a house for 4-5 years, they pay a large tax when selling the home. This of course applies to corporations as well but with the added spice of larger tax if the inventory was empty the entire time. If we can make housing affordable again, I think the need for higher salaries is less of an issue.
Revamp the food stamp system and make it universal to everyone. This ties into universal basic income, but I think if everyone was part of a food stamp program, it would make it less stigmatized and there would be a wider offering of choices available. This could be very cool.
Aside from the usual tax billionaires/term limits/socialize healthcare ideas, it seems that we have an issue where things can get out of hand from people who are greedy. I don’t know how to solve this problem, but I feel like if there was some website that showed what companies are owned by who, we could vote with our dollars and level the playing field. I hate that I found out after years the gym I belong to is owned by some nutjob and I’ve been patronizing him. If there was some visibility into where my money was going, it might educate people where their money is going.
Well. It doesn’t force the service to do so, the higher ups just decide they want to preserve their pockets and charge the customer more.
Yes. Higher wages actually is the solution.
It’s the wrong question. The question isn’t “why shouldn’t people get paid more” but “why should profit even exist?”
Profit exists only as excess value and does nothing to help anyone except those already so rich they can’t spend it.
I don’t think it’s the wrong question. Profits exists in every society and many countries are capitalist or have their own flavor of capitalism. If the idea is to create a system where those who excel are rewarded, then profits need and should exist. In a capitalist economy, this drives better products, better services, etc. Additionally, the opposite of profit (loss), serves as a great metric to determine whether something is worth doing. If the customer wants a pure gold toilet, but only has $50 to spend, your going to offer them spray paint instead of the real thing.
There are some bad apples that abuse profits, and disproportionately hoard all the value, but I’m looking to discuss my original question.
I’d argue a meritocracy is impossible. how does one determine the best person at writing marketing copy, or mowing lawns, or cleaning gutters? You end up creating a race to the bottom of speed, price and lack of safety or security. Only the most ruthless, manipulative, careless end up winning.
Profit is excess — so it’s not a natural byproduct. No one ever lowers prices, but you can, no one ever splits out excess wealth to workers but you can. It’s not impossible.
I’d ask you does captialism create a better product? We’re here on Lemmy, so its especially pertinent to ask whether reddit was better as a free product for the benefit of everyone, or is it better as a for-profit model with ads, gold, awards, data vending, paid tiers etc?
Same for privatization of railroads, water, power. When is an example of (long term) improvement of private ownership?
Same for Healthcare, why is it better to have more expensive service, less access, more barriers but a better paid middleman?
The current way we determine those things are clickthroughs for marketing copy, ratings or repeat clients for landscapers and gutter cleaners. I’ve definitely hired someone before and said, damn they did a good job, I’d have paid more for that.
I’d disagree profit is excess. At most companies, if a product or job is profitable, the extra money is used for R&D, taking risk on new things and giving bonuses to people who really stood out. Profit is required for products in services so then you can reinvest and provide more value to users.
I think that capitalism generally does create the best product. In the US we are leaders in technology, research, aerospace and infrastructure. I’m not saying we are #1 in everything, but the process does work and time and time again companies and countries use products developed from the US.
The most talented people in their fields come here because they have the ability to earn money for their talents. While it’s not a perfect meritocracy, generally the best in their field stand out.
Regarding healthcare, railroads or other private services. The best thing is that they are private, and if something comes to disrupt the status quo you are free to take your dollars elsewhere. Same thing with lemmy; while I’d argue reddit (at the moment) has a lot more engaging and varied content because of it’s user base, I chose to stick with lemmy because I like it’s value propositions.
Privatisation isn’t terrible, look at what SpaceX has done, completely turned the space industry sideways. For healthcare you have new companies like Oscar, which have given people immediate access to telemedicine. In Japan, the Japan Railways (JR) is a massive private railway organization that provides bullet trains and local trains across the country: it can be done.