Hacker News Reader

Comment by awillen | Hacker News Reader

This is nice in theory and wildly out of touch with reality. Should Grubhub pay drivers more? Yes. Yes they should. But we live in a world where Grubhub does not pay enough to drivers. That means as a consumer of the service, you should be aware of that and tip. You're outright saying that we should punish workers because Grubhub is shitty.

I encourage you to go do something about the system, but until then, advocating for hurting delivery workers because you don't like the system is a bad approach.

View on HN

By not tipping, the poster is doing something about the system. If you make less money as a driver because people are not tipping, you're going to either go to another service or stop delivering altogether. That's a slow change, and some drivers will be adversely affected by it, but just because a solution isn't instant and affects parties not directly at blame doesn't mean it's not a solution.

It’s not a solution because a critical mass of consumers aren’t going to boycott tipping in the absence of a massive and effective collective action.

Organize this movement, give workers fair warning before acting, and then act – and then you can say you were being honest and principled.

Stiff an individual worker as a grumpy, self-righteous individual consumer, and all you are doing is exploiting a tacit agreement and risking someone’s ability to pay their bills. Someone who doesn’t have that many options for employment, otherwise they wouldn’t be working in such a risky arrangement to begin with.

I'm sure the cashier at the gas station is underpaid as well. Is it my responsibility to tip them to ensure they have a livable wage? What about your grocery bagger? Do they get a tip? Why are some jobs given this consideration, but others aren't?

How am I punishing anyone as a consumer when their employer isn't paying them enough?

By supporting their employer.

What employers can I ethically support without damaging exploited workers? Do I need to only patronize worker co-ops, partnerships without non-partner employees, and sole proprietorships?

Dude by setting the default to $0 they are definitely punishing workers, so the question is whether or not to reward Grubhub with drivers if they are going to be so greedy.

Tipping is ethically required in some instances such as when a lower wage is permitted and paid to in-house servers. That is fine, but tipping culture is out of control in the USA. When a tip becomes required it is no longer a tip and we should stop pretending it is. Grubhub has the ability to change this situation right now, over night. Simply add a new 20% delivery charge onto their fees.

We are not pretending it's a tip, we're acknowledging the reality that these workers are exploited and attempting to ensure they can make a living. This can be at the same time as we try to pressure companies to do right by their employees, or government to force them to.

> we're acknowledging the reality that these workers are exploited

So, we're acknowledging... capitalism? Getting rid of tipping isn't the answer. Getting rid of capitalism is.

Capitalism and regulation can coexist.

Regulation won't get rid of the exploitation. Capitalism is the source of it.

I think I can safely say that I disagree with both of those claims (speaking as someone who's no fan of capitalism).

Unless by "get rid" you mean "completely eradicate", which is not feasible under any system.

Capitalism is an emergent phenomenon. It is not “instituted” or enforced by any party or organization, though its practice may be supported or suppressed by them. It is the naturalᵃ consequence of private exchange.

So long as two, consenting parties—who are never symmetrically informed—engage in nonbroadcast (“private”) transactions, you have capitalism.

__________

ᵃ By “natural” I only mean determined.

Capitalism needs a puissant state to enforce property rights, at the very minimum. Without private property, you don't have capitalism. However, small scale barter is not the problem. Capitalism at scale is the problem, and that can certainly be torn down ("suppressed," in your terms).

As for private exchange, let's just not have private property, shall we?

You don’t need a state to enforce property rights. Humans do that all their own. Humans defend—and invade—land they wish to occupy.

If such notions as private property emerge, I reckon it’s because the benefits of the idea are greater than the blood costs of defense.

It’s wishful thinking descendants of families who died over, negotiated, settled and established a history in a particular terrain—no matter how unfairly acquired—will relinquish it without force.

What makes the family homestead valuable are the costs incurred to keep it.

Then what prevents me from coming and making a "private exchange" of your life for your stuff?

I dig a deep hole somewhere. I incurred significant costs to do so. Is that hole now valuable?

> a "private exchange" of your life for your stuff?

What stops you from attempting that now? Consequences. You're assuming you would not also be putting your life at risk attempting to do so? (I'm not talking about state enforcement or punishment. We are all free to protect ourselves.)

As for your "deep hole", note I said the homestead is valuable because of the costs incurred to _keep_ it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com