It's hard for a local pizza shop to compete with this kind of thing and the sheer scale of Uber Eats.
I mean, Uber Eats is losing cash at a phenomenal rate. So, more accurately:
>It's hard for a local pizza shop to compete with obscene amounts of venture capital subsidised delivery
I did this in lieu of going to the gym daily a while back ago. Adds a bit of gamification and social interaction, although takes a bit longer for the same intensity. I can't imagine having to live off that wage though.
The argument is not that these people shouldn’t be able to find work, but that they should get paid fairly for the work they do.
A backpacker who just wants to make enough money to get to their next destination probably doesn't want to deal with the overhead of taking on a full-time job and is happy to have the flexibility in exchange for less money.
Fair is determined by the two people who are party to the transaction. If they both agree to it, then they consider it to be fair. If it is unfair, they are free to decline. The opinions of unrelated third-parties about whether a transaction is "fair" are irrelevant.
Then we can deduce that if we remove the option they have chosen by making it illegal they will necessarily be left with a worse option. Since if there had been a better one, they would have taken it.
If we feel that the best option they have is not good enough because it makes us feel bad or whatever, then the question we should ask is "How can we make better options available?", not "How can we take away the best of the available options?"
Legislating a price floor does not magically change the underlying economics of a business. It just makes the jobs below that floor go away.
It may make some of those jobs go away. The price of the product/service will go up a bit, which will reduce a demand a bit, so the market will get oversaturated supply-side until some of the companies in it scale down or close up. Those who lose jobs will be worse off, those who will keep jobs will be better off. Yes, it sucks for those who lost jobs, but we can cater to them elsewhere in the system (e.g. different industry).
Competition will happily push the salary floor to as low as legally possible, so it's up to the legal system to ensure that floor doesn't go too low; in fact, I'd argue laws should be always set up in a way so that doing unsustainable business off unlivable wages should not be possible. The market is good at figuring out solutions to multifaceted problems, so let it deal with that constraint.
That's a big assumption to make, especially on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum; desperation often leads to suboptimal decisions:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/poverty-makes-financial...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/underba...
No, it doesn't _just_ do that. It also makes the jobs that are viable above that floor pay at least that floor.
Economist Thomas Sowell has argued that point and more about how the minimum wage enables racism, so, potentially?
https://www.aei.org/economics/thomas-sowell-on-the-cruelty-o...