Your local restaurant might make less (I'm not sure I buy that), but the delivery driver likely makes more per hour.
If it was a net loss for everyone except GrubHub or Uber, it wouldn't exist.
If it was a net loss for everyone except GrubHub or Uber, it wouldn't exist.
I don't know what Uber pays their drivers, but I happen to know the place in question pays a good wage, comparably. I seriously doubt it driving Uber beats it.
>If it was a net loss for everyone except GrubHub or Uber, it wouldn't exist.
And yet, here we are. Econ 101 only takes you so far; why do you choose to ignore the other pressures? Once the econ brain worms take hold, people stop thinking.
And where's your evidence that restaurants are profiting off of Uber Eats / GrubHub / Door Dash / whatever? Restaurants are suing to be removed from these services. Presumably it's not profitable for the restaurant.
Let's not forget that in most states these "gig" jobs hire people as contractors who are then ineligible for unemployment and social security and are not guaranteed a minimum wage. Restaurants typically hire folks as employees.
Insufficient knowledge of the wear and tear on ones car.
Desire to "work for themselves" (despite the fact it really isn't).
TL;DR actors in an economic system are often not fully informed.
and whenever there's a knowledge gap, the "market" exploits it for arbitrage. But eventually (which may be a long time), this exploit would stop working as more people try to exploit it causing the profits from it to go down, or the lack of knowledge for which this exploits exist starts to disappear.
There's no rule to say that the market is super efficient at all times - just that it tends towards efficiency.
Seriously, though - we do. But regulations take time to catch up. As they should.