So the suffering of the sick and disabled is of higher value (by some measure) than that of DoorDash gig workers? Why not both? DoorDash can have less profits, and government can provide some support, and everyone comes out ahead except shareholders getting a bit less return (oh noes) and management having lower comp (again, oh noes). These are the people doing the actual work.

You are pitting the wrong socioeconomic strata against each other via your argument.

I don't remember the sick and disabled being able to pay such high premiums on take out. My friend is a dwarf (his preferred term) and spent a summer working for a company out in California. He had to Uber to and from work, just to contribute to the economy.

Meanwhile, in sane countries that invest in their populace, he would have gotten on the bus or train, and he would have kept more of his income.

Maybe instead of gifting entire sectors of the economy to private entities through complete governmental apathy and purposeful neglect, we could work to invest in our own communities without the requirement that it pad someone's bank account who had connections early in life. Maybe we could build a better society if it wasn't a requirement that every service come with a minimum ten percent graft (profit) system attached, with nowadays the extra requirement that profit goes up year over year.

Someone at the top should be paying for that, not someone at the bottom

If the economic of delivery apps are unviable in the first place, then it's unlikely these services would exist without the funding of venture capitalists.

What did they do before DoorDash?