Hacker News Reader

Comment by gmisra | Hacker News Reader

It's disappointing to see that the biggest "disruption" in the logistics space involves shifting risk further down the economic hierarchy. The most difficult part of last-mile logistics has been capacity planning, both human and infrastructure. And yet, much of this risk is now being pushed down to the entities least capable of absorbing it - what is the opportunity cost of being "available" as a DoorDash driver for a given shift with non-guaranteed compensation?

The message that is emerging loudly from the SV VC community is that they believe this model is one that should be pursued, aggressively. Let's be clear that in terms of labor and risk management, this is not innovation, it is a return to the status quo of a century ago - one that we as a society fought hard to change.

I fear that the plan is to just fight the legal and PR battles, and hope that the robots arrive fast enough and make the situation moot (aka the Foxconn gambit).

View on HN

I've talked to the drivers for a lot of different services, and they seem to enjoy the work. In particular, these on-demand services offer a lot more flexibility than traditional jobs where you are expected to show up every day and sit in a chair for 8 hours.

Traditional jobs guarantee a wage for those 8 hours. Most on-demand services guarantee nothing. I'm glad DoorDash at least guarantees an hourly wage in some markets.

My brother-in-law quit a traditional job to drive for Uber, so he must think it's better. (also, he told me that for the first time, he's excited to work in the morning) It's a pretty competitive market -- if a service doesn't provide enough work, they won't be able to retain drivers (plus many people drive for multiple services, especially Uber/Lyft drivers).

This is a case where money and happiness aren't really correlated. Remember, people get addicted to variable reward schedules, and get bored of fixed reward schedules. Want someone to be more excited to go to work? Flip a coin to determine whether they get paid each day!

This is also why games put random drops in your grindable content.

And why despite the satiric premise behind http://progressquest.com/ it is weirdly addicting.

How long has he been doing it?

To be clear, there's another innovation here that you're not mentioning. The number of restaurants from which I can get food delivered to my doorstep is greatly increasing.

If we're going to critique the value of a service, we might as well include the benefit to consumers.

On the bright side, you can "work for" dozens of on-demand services at once, and take work as you like.

You reduce your opportunity costs by multiplying your availability (do Lyft and Uber for example).

You can't work 40 hours a week for 5 different companies, but you can be available to 5 different "sharing economy" companies at once.

app idea: manage all of your service economy employee interfaces through one interface.

hell, this probably already exists.

if it doesn't it will.

It isn't new.

Look up how the Leapforce/Lions Bridge raters who indirectly work for Google have inconsistent/unguaranteed work as independent contractors. When those programs started, the pay was near $20, as time has gone on, the output demands have increased and the hourly pay has decreased to ~$13 the last I heard.

Why not squeeze the IC's? They aren't represented and typically have no recourse besides quitting, to be replaced by another IC at possibly even lower pay. It just seems like a race to the bottom, with the primary victim being the most vulnerable parties to begin with.

You're right in that these new labor markets, while they remove friction for entities in need of labor, potentially reduce the relative demand for a full time worker.

On the other hand, I would have loved this labor market as a college and university student.

The sad part is that we have an economy where mature adults are in jobs a highschooler could accomplish. No experience or skills necessary. It should not be that way, ideally, but that's how it is.

> The sad part is that we have an economy where mature adults are in jobs a highschooler could accomplish. No experience or skills necessary. It should not be that way, ideally, but that's how it is.

As we continue to automate jobs away, the number of jobs everyone competes for is reduced (yes, yes, some new jobs will be created. How many employees did Whatsapp have?).

What do we do when those with a Bachelor's can't find a job? A Masters?

End game: Automation will continue to eat its way up the chain; we either figure it out with taxes, basic income, or some other form of redistribution, or you hope your robotic army stops mobs with pitchforks.

I'm seeing the same endgame. How long it will take to get there i don't know. And how we deal with that future reality you alude to where there are only a few with actual work with concentrated power and a sea of people without jobs and even less power, is unknown. To be sure maybe we'll find a way to avoid this weird dystopia. Going back to the land, certainly is not a solution. Not with this population.

Interesting times ahead for humanity, that's for sure.

I'm scratching my head on this. The service has been terrible so far. Whether it's getting lost because Google Maps misdirected them, or delivering cold food because they don't have insulated boxes, every delivery I've had has problems. In their defense I get a discount every time, but I've stopped using them as a result.

Is it the scheduling software or sub-contracting system that makes them so valuable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com