Hacker News Reader

Comment by killtimeatwork | Hacker News Reader

> Now, heavy loads and a strict time limit on each delivery make the job incredibly dangerous

C'mon, delivering groceries across town in a first-world country is "extremely dangerous"? I wonder how would he qualify the jobs that actually ARE extremely dangerous, such as soldiers deployed to a combat zone, underwater welders etc. I wonder if this was merely a hyperbole, or if the author is genuinely out of touch with reality.

View on HN

Here are a few links for ur reading pleasure:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/26/ubereats...

https://fbiradio.com/the-delivery-riders-dying-to-work/

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/24/food-...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-09/exclusive-uber-eats-d...

Hopefully these bring you closer to my reality :)

Re: soldiers, you'd be surprised how many deaths and serious injuries of service personnel are due to vehicle accidents, either on or off duty.

Just as the the top two causes of US police deaths are COVID and cars: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/data-shows-covid-19-... (the third is the one you'd naievely expect, gunfire)

Is it a rate greater than the general population? (Once you adjust for the fact that they might have a higher-than-average number of people only recently trained to operate vehicles significantly larger and different than they're used to)

I think an important factor to consider is that soldiers and underwater welders get paid more than minimum wage.

They usually also have other options for income if they wanted, and walked eyes wide open into their role knowing the risks involved. Most of that doesn’t apply to minimum wage couriers.

Also, in theory, they get a fair compensation in case of injury.

Soldiers, at least US Army, make significantly less than minimum wage.

Yes and no. They aren't paying for health care, get housing allowances, and at least part of the time, don't have to pay for food. Despite all this, the starting pay is still 20,000 a year for the most basic of military jobs, which is more than the minimum wage worker is bringing home when they work 40 hours - and the minimum wage worker still needs to pay for basic things. And this is, of course, assuming that someone is just starting out in boot camp and doesn't get any special education to make their pay go up faster. (A lot of people start above minimum, after they get out of boot camp anyway).

All that said, the hours might work out to be less than minimum wage, but it might be difficult to figure out that number when you add in cost for housing, medical, and all the little details (like bonuses for being deployed or on presently on a submarine).

Consider that, in the US military, you may work eight hours a day, five days a week, but you're on call every hour until you separate. Including nights, weekends, and vacations a thousand miles away. Failure to show up can potentially lead to jail time, fines, or other punishments. It's hard to directly compare active duty military life to a civilian job, and I don't know how to adjust compensation for an accurate comparison.

Delivery drivers have amongst one of the most dangerous jobs in the western world.

https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-j...

Ok, but it's still not "extremely dangerous". Logging jobs have 4x the accident rate of delivery workers, what are they then - "omg, extremely, extremely for real dangerous"?

I think all of those jobs are relatively safe - a job with an accident rate of 0.027% per year is actually very safe - it's just less safe than say office jobs, which I would qualify as "extremely safe". For an actual extremely dangerous job, try working in Carnegie's steel mills around 1900, when hot metal or gravel would sometimes spill on happless workers, people would often get crushed or maimed etc.

I don't understand why comparing to needlessly unsafe workplaces of the past (or inherently dangerous jobs of the present) is useful. Is your argument about more than just the semantics of what constitutes "extremely dangerous"?

The point being made is that the number of deaths attributable to grocery shopping (!) will rise sharply due to these ventures. Would you support a policy that every employer over 10000 employees has to sacrificially murder an employee annually (0.01% fatality rate per year), because "it's not as dangerous as being a policeman so it's fine"?

The funny thing is that every job we've been talking about, including delivery driver, is more dangerous than being a police officer (may his service be thanked).

> Is your argument about more than just the semantics of what constitutes "extremely dangerous"?

Basically, yes. Words have meaning, and misusing is bad writing, or worse (i.e. conscious manipulation).

Sure the %'s are lower, but it's still a pretty small workforce comparatively. I expect the accident rate to increase over the next few years as they services become more abundant globally. Additionally, do you think it's worth sacrificing human lives/causing people injury just to deliver your groceries on a silver platter? From my perspective I think even a single death in this industry is too much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com