Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#131

Post by perl4ever »

zackmorris wrote: post #128
bluGill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. We are against the way unions are implemented and make work not a free market. I'm not against your union so longs as I can decide not to join and still have equal work with you.

Your thinking is a fallacy, because a union uses the same principle that the republican party uses to maintain control: solidarity. I'm curious why you would want to opt out of a union in the first place, since unions generally double workers' wages. I live in the right to work state of Idaho, which has some of the lowest wages in the country, especially for things like farm work. I realize that this is a bit of a st…

>since unions generally double workers' wages.

>My feeling is that had we been unionized, we would have made at least $17/hr

You can dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish, but I went from a non-union job to a union one, requiring much the same skills, and the latter pays less.

On a per hour basis, my current job pays 95% of the non-union position, but the main difference is 7.5 hours vs. 8 hours a day. That means my yearly salary is more like 87%.

On the plus side, you are guaranteed raises over time, which my former employer explicitly disclaimed, saying all pay raises were based on "merit". It's also nice that you know everybody at the same level is making the same amount.

I'm not going to generalize about all union jobs from my experience, but from a theoretical perspective, if a union offers security and better benefits then it's plausible people would be willing to give up a certain amount of pay.

One aspect of having a union that I hadn't considered was that in March, they had to have a lot of intensive negotiations about working from home, because the existing contract did not allow it.

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#132

Post by missedthecue »

brorfred wrote: post #87
godzillabrennus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market idealists think the market can determine the minimum wage without government or organized labor enforcing higher wages.

Free market idealists also tend to be very against the natural way for workers to consolidate and leverage negotiation power: trade unions.

A union is, in an economic sense, a cartel. Their job is to restrict supply of labour so that the price they can demand for it increases, making their members more money. This is why it takes over a year to join the plumbers or electricians union in many states and why it takes over 10 years to join the longshoremens union.

I am against all cartels as a matter of principle, be they the ILWU or OPEC.

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#133

Post by perl4ever »

michael1999 wrote: post #129
bluGill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. We are against the way unions are implemented and make work not a free market. I'm not against your union so longs as I can decide not to join and still have equal work with you.

What is a corporation but a union of capitalists? Why must only the owners be allowed to unite for better outcomes?

A counterargument (that isn't necessarily convincing to me) would be that a union of capitalists is called a cartel, and that is often regulated or opposed, considered illegal or illegitimate; thus a union is equivalent.

I believe there are also libertarians (small-L) who do believe in the above, but think cartels and unions should be unregulated.

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#134

Post by [deleted] »

michael1999 wrote: post #129
bluGill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. We are against the way unions are implemented and make work not a free market. I'm not against your union so longs as I can decide not to join and still have equal work with you.

What is a corporation but a union of capitalists? Why must only the owners be allowed to unite for better outcomes?

[deleted]

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#136

Post by bluGill »

michael1999 wrote: post #129
bluGill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. We are against the way unions are implemented and make work not a free market. I'm not against your union so longs as I can decide not to join and still have equal work with you.

What is a corporation but a union of capitalists? Why must only the owners be allowed to unite for better outcomes?

There is no difference. I shouldn't have to join either a union or a company.

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#137

Post by m463 »

sokoloff wrote: post #116
cjg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that eBay uses a particular auction model where by extending the time doesn't matter much. If you bid the most you would be prepared to pay for something - you don't pay that price - you just pay enough to beat everyone else. If you bid in a genuine way there's no pipped at the post situation - you just weren't prepared to pay more. Now there are some secondary psychological effects, like a high price bid so f…

EBay has a fundamental flaw with bid retractions that discourages early bidding. If you bid $100 on an item that is currently at $5, it becomes $6. If someone else (possibly in cahoots with the seller) bids $150 and then retracts their bid, the fact that you’re willing to pay $100 has been leaked.

oh, that's an interesting idea.

I sort of assumed that cancelling bids was a no-no and you would probably get banned, but I don't know the reality of it. (sort of like speeding in your car - most normal people assume you'll get in trouble and are reasonable, but maybe you can do it and nobody will care)

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#138

Post by sukilot »

debouncy wrote: post #122
joncrocks wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also presume that in addition a `free market idealist` would also want to ensure that Unions aren't given any special status, and that employers could also come together to agree wages.

If unions don't aren't somewhat mandatory then workers are trapped in prisoner's dilemma.

Yes. That's an argument against libertarianism, not an argument that libertarianism must include mandatory unions.

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#139

Post by sukilot »

missedthecue wrote: post #132
brorfred wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market idealists also tend to be very against the natural way for workers to consolidate and leverage negotiation power: trade unions.

A union is, in an economic sense, a cartel. Their job is to restrict supply of labour so that the price they can demand for it increases, making their members more money. This is why it takes over a year to join the plumbers or electricians union in many states and why it takes over 10 years to join the longshoremens union. I am against all cartels as a matter of principle, be they the ILWU or OPEC.

OK. I'm against corporations as matter of principle. A corporation is also a cartel.

Re: Instacart shoppers besieged by bots that snatch lucrative orders

#140

Post by floor2 »

black_puppydog wrote: post #91
brorfred wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market idealists also tend to be very against the natural way for workers to consolidate and leverage negotiation power: trade unions.

Yeah, I never understood how "free everything" advocates tend to be so much against the freedom of the individual to refer decisions/actions to a collective when that happens to be the better course of action.

Maybe your lack of understanding is because you're arguing against an imaginary straw man?

A group forming a collective and negotiating as such fits perfectly fine with free market ideals. This exists in many forms that all manner of libertarian, free-market, whatever label people are OK with.

When that group uses violence, threats and coercion to their benefit is where people object. Examples - blocking an employer from hiring non-union employees, harming or threatening to harm workers during a strike, forcing people to join a union to get/keep a job, preventing new workers or new firms from entering the market through regulation, etc.

If you want to say "You can hire these 20 union workers at a rate of $$$, we all stand together" that's fine. When you say "You need to hire these 20 union workers, and if you don't, we'll surround your business and threaten, harass and intimidate the people you hire instead" is where you've jumped into violence and extortion rather than free market negotiation.

Post reply on HN