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

DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#71

Post by TeMPOraL »

eru wrote: post #60
goatinaboat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called the Lump of Labour Fallacy. What's the fallacy called of thinking everyone in the world can just retrain as a webdev? The jobs of food preparation and delivery still need to exist, but we don't need to grind them into the ground, that's a free choice to do so made by VC-backed startups.

Who says they need to retrain as a webdev? I have no clue what the jobs of the future will be. Just as people in the past scarcely had a clue about the jobs of our present.

But the important point is, retraining takes time, and kicks you down to the bottom of the career ladder.

Which means automating people away pushes some of these people into poverty, and the only hope they have is that their children will start a profitable career in a sector that doesn't get eaten by software in the next few decades.

That's not to say I'm against automation and improvement. Just that not much thought is being given to individuals who find themselves automated away. That there will likely be a job for them is not much of a consolation prize over no job at all; hell, in civilized countries with developed social security, a job may be a worse option than no job at all.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#72

Post by rdtwo »

lmm wrote: post #36
goatinaboat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can make better food than your competitors, you'll thrive I have a couple of friends who have opened and run their own restaurants - there is an awful lot more to it than that and most restaurants fail for reasons that are nothing to do with the capabilities of the chef.

Sure. You currently need to be good at the many different things that make up running a business. But as the non-chef aspects (like your website and advertising, and hiring delivery drivers) become commoditised, that becomes less true.

Universally websites for restaurants suck. That’s why Uber eats is gaining so much market share (also the fact that they have given me over 100$ of free food this year). So it’s partially being better but also a whole shitload of load dumping or equivalent.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#73

Post by black_puppydog »

lurker619 wrote: post #14
lacker wrote: post #9

To me, this is the key claim of the article: This is not a genuine partnership, it’s extractive. Is DoorDash extracting money from its users, the restaurants and the delivery drivers? Or is it actually providing something of value? To me, the delivery apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats just work a lot better than calling up restaurants for delivery did in the pre-app era. Maybe the drivers are underpaid, maybe the rest…

I agree 100%. I don't think I'd ever order so much from random local restaurants if they weren't easily available in the doordash/ubereats apps in a standard format at the click of a button. No way would I google, search and decide a menu, then call up, I'd just eat from my local subway every time.

I've started using Deliveroo a bit during the lockdown here in France. But frankly... it's just faster to go downstairs. There are superb restaurants all over the place within literal (!) spitting distance of my door/windows. Snack food, too.

I know it's not a short term solution, but the US seems to have painted itself into a bit of a corner by separating commercial and residential areas so much...?

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#74

Post by rdtwo »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #44
goatinaboat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the drivers are underpaid, maybe the restaurants are underpaid, maybe the food costs too much, but even if they end up charging more money, are they really going to go away like Groupon did? There is this corrosive process of these gig-economy companies, they end up making life just a little bit more shit for everyone. You'll turn a blind eye to the desperate delivery drivers, to the stress of the restaurant ow…

> Try paying a fair price for fair value and taking pleasure in seeing businesses owned by your neighbours thrive. It really is a better way to live than spending your time on earth with your face buried in an app exploiting the poorest. I think I've seen this vulture capitalism self-cannablize itself in my Lifetime in the US in so many industries its become the norm and I not only expect it I plan for it: things are…

The food truck model is great in that it’s not tied to real estate as much. Still it’s vulnerable to Uber eats because once they lock down all the commercial kitchen space you will be forced into some sort of vertical integration contact where you get screwed on fees and on commercial prep space

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#75

Post by rdtwo »

tartoran wrote: post #66
TeMPOraL wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clever, but how long until Takeaway.com and others add a clause in their contract against putting such business cards in their order? These companies have power over restaurants, because they can ruin a restaurant's reputation until it yields and accepts the new contract.

How long until some actor emerges who provides a network of ordering sites hosted on the cloud that charge $30-50 a month for each restaurant and nothing more? As margins get thinner and thinner this is inevitable. And no marketing needed, if the service is good word of mouth would do it.

A long time, I don’t think it’s a viable model at scale. The restaurant owners are only slightly more tech savvy than my mom and they really struggle with this stuff. Also Uber acts as a mini Facebook style walled garden and locks out more and more customers from using your restaurant. At some point 10-20% the walled garden is enough to drive your profit to 0 and bankrupt a restaurant.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#76

Post by TeMPOraL »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #53
lmm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then oppose businesses like DoorDash and Uber Eats! It's because they can get away with their abusive business practices that a fairer competitor can't exist. I don't think buying stuff from someone who sells to the public is abusive. I don't think scraping is abusive. I do think workers' rights are important, but the restaurant industry ( especially the mon-and-pop end of it) hardly has a great reputation on that…

> I don't think buying stuff from someone who sells to the public is abusive. I don't think scraping is abusive. I do think workers' rights are important, but the restaurant industry (especially the mon-and-pop end of it) hardly has a great reputation on that front, so I don't think ordering directly rather than DoorDash sends a message there. Agreed. But the sentiment within the Industry was that COVID gave an oppor…

All agreed, except:

> Despite the tired narrative Monopolies are not formed through unfettered Free Market laissez-faire systems, they're made when power is consolidated through the use of arcane legal loopholes and large lobbying purchasing power in elections and the orchestrated consolidation of Capital.

I don't think it's a tired narrative. It's a recognition that monopoly is the end goal of every profit-driven company, and that economies of scale and compounding are purely free-market ways to reach that status. I.e. the more money you have, the faster you will make money, and the more you scale up, the less you spend per-unit. Of course eventually the organizational costs of scaling grow to compensate, but then there are many small people employed in inventing new business models and strategies that let companies get larger and larger before they become too unwieldy to keep the upstarts down.

Also: "arcane legal loopholes" are caused by accumulation of capital. Fundamentally, if you have a market and a government within the same light cone, they'll find a way to affect each other. Government officials participate in the market and want the money, so they can be influenced with money. You can't really treat them as independent entities.

Bottomline, though, all these elements are present here: DoorDash & friends are using everything they can think of in their fight to dominate the space.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#77

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

goatinaboat wrote: post #56
eru wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called the Lump of Labour Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

That's called the Lump of Labour Fallacy. What's the fallacy called of thinking everyone in the world can just retrain as a webdev? The jobs of food preparation and delivery still need to exist, but we don't need to grind them into the ground, that's a free choice to do so made by VC-backed startups.

Food preparation and delivery were not exactly stable jobs before Doordash came around. I’d guess that driving for Doordash is a substantially better experience than driving for the median Dominos, although I don’t know of anyone who’s tried to collect data on the subject.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Heliosmaster wrote: post #42
lacker wrote: post #9

To me, this is the key claim of the article: This is not a genuine partnership, it’s extractive. Is DoorDash extracting money from its users, the restaurants and the delivery drivers? Or is it actually providing something of value? To me, the delivery apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats just work a lot better than calling up restaurants for delivery did in the pre-app era. Maybe the drivers are underpaid, maybe the rest…

Incentive are not aligned anymore. Example: I order a pizza through Deliveroo. The driver doesn't care about either the restaurant or me, so he chucks the pizza vertically in his box, ruining it. I get a shitty pizza, I won't order anymore from the restaurant. Compare this with me calling up the restaurant and having one of their employees delivering the pizza: the restaurant has all the incentives for me to enjoy th…

> I order a pizza through Deliveroo

I used Deliveroo for the first time in London a few months ago. It was the worst delivery experience I have ever had. Deleted after two tries.

My experience with Caviar, UberEats and ChowNow have been immeasurably better. As evidenced by their having live chat and phone support to Deliveroo’s e-mail only two-day turnaround support.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#79

Post by goatinaboat »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #71
eru wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says they need to retrain as a webdev? I have no clue what the jobs of the future will be. Just as people in the past scarcely had a clue about the jobs of our present.

But the important point is, retraining takes time, and kicks you down to the bottom of the career ladder. Which means automating people away pushes some of these people into poverty, and the only hope they have is that their children will start a profitable career in a sector that doesn't get eaten by software in the next few decades. That's not to say I'm against automation and improvement. Just that not much though…

That there will likely be a job for them is not much of a consolation prize over no job at all

But they already have jobs. Working in the restaurant or catering or hospitality or whatever industry is a job, and one it's possible (or it was) to earn a reasonable living in without a slew of academic qualifications.

Then one day, billionaires who can't think of anything better to do show up and say, we're going to insert ourselves into the relationships you had with your customers and your profits are now our profits and you can survive a little while longer by working harder for less, but you will go under eventually and everything you had will be ours. Because what we had was not enough, we need to have it all.

Re: DoorDash and Societal Arbitrage

#80

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ponker wrote: post #10
lacker wrote: post #9

To me, this is the key claim of the article: This is not a genuine partnership, it’s extractive. Is DoorDash extracting money from its users, the restaurants and the delivery drivers? Or is it actually providing something of value? To me, the delivery apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats just work a lot better than calling up restaurants for delivery did in the pre-app era. Maybe the drivers are underpaid, maybe the rest…

The question is, if the prices were raised to sustainable levels, would the market be big enough to justify the amount of unsustainable spending that is going on right now to capture it?

> if the prices were raised to sustainable levels, would the market be big enough

It was big enough in tier-1 cities when it required someone at the restaurant writing down the order, hiring a delivery person and dealing with disgruntled customers. They have at least that market with economies of scale.

Post reply on HN