Hacker News Reader

Comment by Maken | Hacker News Reader

Indeed, they are ignoring the much more efficient and eco-friendly "low-paid worker on a bike" alternative.

This is a policy problem, not a tech problem. People need to be paid a living wage, period. The lack of this and the subsidizing of delivery fees by VC money has led people to believe it's somehow sustainable to sit on your lazy ass, order food and have it delivered within 30 min for next to nothing. Or maybe people know that it's not sustainable but just don't give a shit. Greedy corporations and unethical people will always exists, that's why we need better laws.

I'd say it IS a tech problem as much as it is a policy problem. Technology historically has allowed humanity to develop society in a way that constantly minimises risk, reduces "hard labour" tasks, and delegates repetitive "brainless" work to computers. Only with technology could these policies come into fruition. Otherwise, we would be effectively shutting down industries completely, and as far as I am aware this rarely if ever happens.

I do believe minimum wage should be set at the local living wage standard, and that companies like Uber are exploiting their workers through weak labour laws, but unless the market is much more tightly controlled, in a somewhat-free market (which is most of the world) economy, it is a tech issue.

No, no. We're talking about food delivery here, which is a purely luxury need and market. This is not a problem tech needs to solve.

It is absolutely a policy problem because technology doesn't come out of nowhere, is not free for everyone to use, and not anyone benefits the same way.

Automating all work, sure. Removing people's mean of subsistance (a wage) and keeping the money for yourself, no. In a capitalistic society, technology only helps people if capitalists give away the product of (automated) labour, and that is not what is happening.

> This is a policy problem, not a tech problem. People need to be paid a living wage, period

false. no one is forcing these people from taking those jobs (uber eats, grub hub, etc) at the agreed upon wages. tell me how somehow it would be better for those folks if these jobs didn't exist at all given that unemployment in the USA is incredibly low.

Creating a regulatory environment in which a large fraction of the population end up on wages that don’t sustain a reasonable standard of living is a problem for everyone, not just those experiencing low wages. from a utilitarian perspective we could easily be better off as a society taxing tech bros enough to pay them UBI rather than doing food deliveries on serf wages.

Again, unemployment is low and no one is forcing anyone to take those jobs. If someone is that is a problem, yes.

UBI is never going to happen

If we want to optimize economic growth with the most powerful force in the universe, compound interest, shouldn't we pay people the market rate which is usually some combination of the scarcity of labor and the economic value of that labor?

If this rate is too low, then that is what the welfare system is for. Forcing employers to pay a "living wage" for jobs that don't generate a "living wage's" economic value simply retards the economy and robs our children of a wealthier future.

Or the even more efficient and eco-friendly "make and bring your own lunch", but somehow this isn't considered, instead it's a long thread of drones vs cars vs mopeds and low-wage delivery people.

Or low-paid worker on a moped, which is very common around the world, though maybe less desirable in America's suburbia.

Also low-paid worker sounds strictly better for employment than autonomous drone.

Are delivery people that drive cars that well paid?

No, but not quite as badly paid as those on bikes.

But you have to take into account the low-paid worker’s environmental impact! You can’t beat an autonomous EV’s eco-friendliness. /s

Starship robots come to mind as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com