81–90 of 161 posts
I've seen Shipt's operations internally, and they don't go shopping for stuff at stores and then deliver them, unless that's a different part of the business.
A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model. From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants. What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very lon…
I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point a…
I had similar thoughts. But let's not overlook the information asymmetry, which contributed to the dissatisfaction. I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely, and also don't think it necessary to explain how they think so highly of themselves.
We already do; uncertainty is fundamental at all levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I suspect that the government needs to know what to tax, and obfuscated pay, means obfuscated taxes. You're taxed on what you're paid. The government doesn't do a parallel calculation and tax you on that.
But what you don’t get paid, the company keeps, and it may come under different tax rules. My experience is that governments are quite interested in where the money goes.
Not my area of expertise. That's why I pay an accountant.
Which should be obvious but this is kind of the problem with enshittification where once a business feels they have a bit of a moat (like with a two sided marketplace) they will erode the service to take every advantage unless stopped by regulation. No one likes regulation because it's effectively crufty technical debt and our political system is far too slow, corrupt, or incompetent to effectively refactor it so the best we can do is either nothing and endure the enshittification or layer on more cruft, usually far after the fact multiple years and court fights later.
Absolutely pathetic investigative journalism on display. This is a hit piece thinly veiled under the guise of being pro worker that fails to support the main point of algorithmic management of gig workers is worse for everyone but the corporation employing it.
If anything, they proved that shipt's algo did exactly what it was designed and reported to do, make payments more fair.
A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model. From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants. What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very lon…
Is it really a marketplace if some central authority is controlling which customers get matched to which vendors? Sounds like central planning.
Central planning would be if a committee decided how many rides there would be each year, regardless of demand.
I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point a…
You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
It does seem unsporting on the company’s part to play coy about the details. I wonder what the imperative was there: to avoid squabbling with workers about what “effort” means? To reduce the chances of legal scrutiny in one of the thousands of jurisdictions they operate in? To preserve the flexibility to quietly turn the dial in their own favor in the future?
I’m reminded of how Uber caught flak over surge pricing, and ultimately dealt with that by making pricing completely opaque. Now they still might say “prices are a little higher because of the weather” if they decide to, but normally you don’t even expect to know whether your price for a given ride is based on their estimate of your desperation, their having sized you up as price-insensitive, driver supply, or what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an interesting question, as we have a spectrum from 'little to no transparency' through to 'full transparency' (which is pretty rare), and in the middle sits the usual approach of 'communications-team-led messaged quasi-transparency'. Difficult to know (without more info) where Shipt would have appeared on this spectrum, but given the issue, they're probably somewhere towards the 'insufficient transparency' end.…
YES. If Shipt is actually trying to incentivize better performance, it seems the best way is to be completely transparent about the rewards algorithm. "Short high-value trips are now somewhat de-rated, and trips requiring more effort now have improved rewards, specifically ..." or whatever. This "communications team" approach did everyone a disservice if Shipt mgt were really trying to improve results. OTOH, if the a…
cutting costs is not "screwing workers". cutting costs is key to acting in a competitive market.