[taysic]

I think it is a bad thing if a useful service could not exist - and people who voluntarily chose to be employed by that service cannot have access to those jobs.

I think it's better to be employed and increasing your value/skill set in the job market than living off welfare. You can't move up the ladder if you don't develop skills.

[tolien]

In the case of Deliveroo, if it can't exist without significant state subsidy then the business model needs revision. This is the same logic that applies to any business that fails to make enough money to continue operating; a startup which asked developers to work for free (or even below-market wages, gambling with equity aside) in order to reduce its costs would be laughed out of the door, it's hard to see why this is any different.

Alleging that people "voluntarily chose" to work in gig economy jobs ignores both the significant anti-welfare rhetoric from politicians and (perhaps particularly in the West) cultural push towards employment ("protestant work ethic"), and your own/the GP's points that a number of the people working there are doing so through a shortage of alternatives.

On the other hand, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; a push (in the UK, the Labour party have been particularly vocal) to ban zero-hours contracts has risks to the ability of people who need the flexibility (students being the obvious example) to find work which suits.

> I think it's better to be employed and increasing your value/skill set in the job market than living off welfare

They're not mutually exclusive; in this case both happen (although it's debatable to what extent Deliveroo et al develop anyone's skill set). Equally, the money spent topping up the wages of the low paid could be redirected to providing education.

[taysic]

What is the state subsidy Deliveroo is receiving? If they are receiving one, then sure I don't agree with it. If it's the VC's that are wasting their own money, I see nothing wrong with that.

> a number of the people working there are doing so through a shortage of alternatives

Right? Maybe I'm missing what you're saying. But possibly people are willing to pay for goods only at a certain price and if the price was bumped up, those services simply wouldn't be bought. And those jobs wouldn't exist. It doesn't necessarily mean better paying jobs will fill in the gap.

> the money spent topping up the wages of the low paid could be redirected to providing education.

Who's money? The consumers money? Or the VC's money? Are you saying through taxation because I thoroughly disagree.

It's also not as straightforward as you are implying - just having an education does not mean there will be jobs there to greet you after you are done. To make that happen you need to make the environment friendly to job creators - those willing to take the risk and start their own company.

[tolien]

> What is the state subsidy Deliveroo is receiving? If they are receiving one, then sure I don't agree with it. If it's the VC's that are wasting their own money, I see nothing wrong with that.

By "state subsidy" I mean the state topping up the employee's wages, through for example Working Tax Credits (in the UK) or food stamps and Medicaid (in the US). If it wasn't for those and the push towards working at any cost, my thesis was that these companies would have to pay more (either in terms of actual money or benefits) or have trouble finding people to make their business operate.

> Who's money? The consumers money? Or the VC's money? Are you saying through taxation because I thoroughly disagree.

Taxpayers, because of the first part of this reply. I'm not talking about additional taxation here, I'm talking about money that's currently spent on benefits for the low paid that wouldn't be spent if they weren't low paid.

> > a number of the people working there are doing so through a shortage of alternatives

> Right? Maybe I'm missing what you're saying. But possibly people are willing to pay for goods only at a certain price and if the price was bumped up, those services simply wouldn't be bought. And those jobs wouldn't exist. It doesn't necessarily mean better paying jobs will fill in the gap.

It was a reply to you saying "voluntarily chose to be employed by that service" and the general theme whenever low pay comes up of "well, they can just get other/more jobs" (see also: the McDonald's CEO saying "just get a second job" [1]).

My original comment in this thread did mention UBI, so the alternative isn't necessarily "let's magic high-paying jobs out of thin air" :)

Also, these jobs (and also higher paid ones) are going to go away because of automation. Uber are explicitly aiming for that goal. At some point, the issue of what's going to happen to those employees has to be dealt with by society and politicians.

> It's also not as straightforward as you are implying

I may have made it sound otherwise but I'm well aware that the problem is nothing like straightforward. Waaaaay back at the beginning I warned about unintended consequences.

> To make that happen you need to make the environment friendly to job creators - those willing to take the risk and start their own company.

This doesn't seem relevant - is your implication that if businesses are required to pay wages such that their staff aren't having to also claim state benefits for food, that's somehow not conducive to founding businesses?

I do, however, agree that the conditions have to be right for entrepreneurship, with the reservation that "business friendly" lately seems to be synonymous with "minimal regulation/tax".

1: https://www.salon.com/2013/07/17/mcdonalds_suggested_budget_...