[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_...