Can an uber (eats) delivery really be an order of magnitude more expensive and still be viable? Same for Airbnbs, which already cost 30-50% of a hotel.
However I agree that the gig economy artificially distorts the employment statistics by creating jobs that should, perhaps, not exist at all. A significantly increased unemployment rate might have a real impact on politics.
The reality is that there are a lot of personal services that $JOE or $JANE would probably like that they're not willing to pay the "true cost" (whatever that means) for. Certainly if my housekeeper doubled her rates, I would just do without. As it is, it's a monthly luxury.
>Same for Airbnbs, which already cost 30-50% of a hotel.
Have rarely used them but it's probably more than that. For vacation houses, they're competing with other services like VRBO.
> Can an uber (eats) delivery really be an order of magnitude more expensive and still be viable?
It's a 30 minute round trip from my home to the Chinese takeaway and back.
If I go myself, it costs fuel and 30 minutes of a person's time.
If I have Uber Eats bring it to me, it still takes fuel and 30 minutes of a person's time. Plus any time idle between orders. And on top of that, Uber's cut. And on top of that, the taxman's cut.
The economics make a lot more sense as the gap between rich and poor widens. Or if the drivers stack orders, and let the food get cold. Or in cities where most people don't have cars.
You see this in many places in SE Asia a lot where people who are not really rich have drivers, live-in housekeepers/cooks, etc. Hard to make that work in the US even if you are pretty well-off but not genuinely very rich.
Food delivery, is, on the face of it, a service that makes little economic sense. It's expensive to do and faces big timeliness challenges given that cold food is less appealing. Trying to do it at an affordable price means exploiting people.
Hustling people has become a big part of entrepreneurial "genius". Sure, it creates "jobs", but some jobs are awful and degrading. That's the sticking point.
No, that isn't true at all. Workers are often exploited even though they can leave (legally) at any time because their economic circumstances have made them desperate. They take side gigs that they hope will earn them enough to make money because they don't see obvious alternatives.
I've seen this in-person... friend was a single-mom trying to get by. These gigs market themselves in ways that are dishonest in order to get participants. Sure, there is high turnover, but that doesn't make it OK.
Sure, it creates "jobs", but some jobs are awful and degrading
And yet the people voluntarily choosing to take these "jobs", apparently find their lives are in some measure better by doing the job than by not doing it.
Do I like the idea of people doing things that are awful and degrading? No. Do I think these companies should be praised for operating the way they do? Also no. But I also don't feel that I have any standing to tell people that they shouldn't do something that they find value in, because I judge it undesirable.
However I agree that the gig economy artificially distorts the employment statistics by creating jobs that should, perhaps, not exist at all. A significantly increased unemployment rate might have a real impact on politics.