[lmm]

> 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 front, so I don't think ordering directly rather than DoorDash sends a message there.

> IME, delivery-wise, most restaurants are pretty interchangeable, and people make the decision on price.

Well, if that's true then why care which of those interchangeable restaurants succeed and which fail?

> So "stick to your USP and outsource everything else" means that you should outsource cooking to a ghost kitchen and just focus on maintaining a brand. Which is something we start to see happening.

> I fear the end game is still going to be DoorDash & friends just contracting or operating their own ghost kitchens, and creating hundreds of fake "brands" that are all sourced from the same kitchens.

Am I supposed to think there's something bad about "ghost kitchens"? If it means better, cheaper food, then surely it's a good thing.

If everything's being sourced from the same kitchens then that's a monoculture that's easy to compete with by offering something better. If those centrally sourced kitchens end up being so high quality that no-one can compete, well, mission accomplished.

[goatinaboat]

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.

I guess if that story works for you, you better stick with it as long as you can.

Some software developers it seems go to work each day thinking how can I put other, poorer, people out of work, and erode the pay and conditions of those that I can't?

[eru]

That's called the Lump of Labour Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

[goatinaboat]

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.

[SpicyLemonZest]

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.

[eru]

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.

[TeMPOraL]

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.

[eru]

In the long run, the average member of society can consume exactly as much as the average member of society produces.

Productivity is what got us out of poverty of the pre-industrial-revolution era. And productivity is still key in the long run.

[goatinaboat]

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.

[Melting_Harps]

> 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 opportunity for the Industry restructure itself and repair the mistakes that were never addressed as things were always like repairing an airplane while inflight. The lifelines given to the Industry with PPP made it seem possible while allowing people to come back to work and the changing of menus to accommodate the seasonal changes as were the changes to make outdoor dining a critical part of the whole experience, but as those lifelines have diminished so have the chances of those reforms occurring gone with it.

And while I'm not in favorur of subsidizing noncompetitive Industries, the fact is the loss in sales for many successful restaurants is not due to a lack of demand but rather the imposition that legislative decree have made for those that are focused on menus that simply cannot accommodate a take out model due to shutdowns, limited indoor dining etc...

> Well, if that's true then why care which of those interchangeable restaurants succeed and which fail?

Because some have more contributions to the Community and Society as a whole, the last place I worked at sourced 60% of its seasonal produce from local and organic farms instead of the typical purveyors. It helped make learning gardens in many public schools thorough out the US making food education a real thing, it also helped make new young farmers to address the food deserts created from the last financial crisis left in its wake. And it had created a model to iterate upon to address how food production during Mars colonization would look like. Now all of that has been threatened as many of the establishments have had to close.

> Am I supposed to think there's something bad about "ghost kitchens"? If it means better, cheaper food, then surely it's a good thing.

Good and bad are subjective terms one should abstain from using in such a discussion, the focus should be more on the impact that this has and how its implications will ultimately re-shape the paradigm, and not just the Industry but the relationship many people have with food in general as diet based illness kill more in the West than anything else, including COVID.

If its quantified merely as a commodity with an impingement in economies of scale tied to the last mile logistics problem, then sure by those metrics these are all desirable things.

If, however, you value the whole process of how food is grown, raised, and prepared throughout the value system in order to nourish you and by extension your community then: No. Its horrible, the value system will be further denigrated more than what it already has and will consolidate itself into the hands of the few Megacorps that brought you factory farming and countless outbreaks and contamination and recalls of tainted and nutrient deficient, chemical laden, pesticide riddled produce and meat.

> If everything's being sourced from the same kitchens then that's a monoculture that's easy to compete with by offering something better. If those centrally sourced kitchens end up being so high quality that no-one can compete, well, mission accomplished.

That is a rosy, and over-simplification (to say unrealistic) way of how economies of scale and consolidation of capital take place. One that will ultimately leaves you with the a very narrow set of choices that include large fastfood franchises on one side, and boutique exclusionary high end dining with large external investment on the other side with little to nothing in between as restaurants are no longer deemed commercially viable parts of the economy and capital and loans dry and foreclosure is the end result for those already within it and denial of access for anyone who dares to try their hand in making it. Its not beyond doubt that we are seeing the same model the telecoms used to carve out fiefdoms and provide worse and worse services all while charging more for the privilege simply because they know their is no other game in town.

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. The use of all of these things are present in this situation.

Personally, I'm still optimistic about this existential threat to the Industry as it is being FORCED to have to re-invent itself. Something thought to be previously impossible from within. My most optimistic outcomes are based on if the Industry has the ability to make many necessary changes and still be competitive or will home cooking (and by extension private chefs to those who can afford it) make a massive surge as a result?

It was a pleasant surprise as someone who cooked professionally to see how many people who never cooked anything took to baking during the shutdown and shared it on social media in larger numbers than I ever expected. CSA and meat shares from local farms sold out in record numbers this year, I really do wish this momentum continues.

[TeMPOraL]

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.

[lmm]

> "arcane legal loopholes" are caused by accumulation of capital.

That's going far too far. Governments introduce legal loopholes for any number of reasons: personal favours, genuine good intentions. Capital is one reason among many.