- cross-posted to:
- seattle@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- seattle@lemmy.world
‘It’s definitely backfiring’: Seattle ordinance intended to help app delivery workers is ‘hurting’ them::undefined
‘It’s definitely backfiring’: Seattle ordinance intended to help app delivery workers is ‘hurting’ them::undefined
Did the ordinance specify that the app companies would have to absorb the costs and NOT pass them to the users? No? Ah, well, that explains it then.
How exactly would they absorb the costs? Most of them aren’t even turning a profit as it is
Edit: Not sure why the downvotes. I support the ordinance, minimum wages are great. But the cost is obviously going to the customers, where else would it go?
People have this idea that you can bleed money from corps and that corps will magic the money from somewhere other than customers.
I mean, they could, they just won’t. Lower the pay of the higher ups and you’d have more free money magicked up.
They don’t need magic the money out of anywhere, they already have it. They just have to want something other than to exploit whatever they can for profit, which is something they won’t consider.
By decreasing billionaire executive bonuses, of course. You realize apps like Uver give shitty pay to the drivers and keep most of the profits for the execs, don’t you?
Repeat after me: They are MIDDLEMEN.
Thats not how economics works, if the cost of a product goes up one way or another, the price goes up, one way or another
And oddly, the price of a product can go up even if the cost of the product doesn’t change or goes down.
I drew the arrow one way, just because you want to invert the arrow doesn’t mean it’s correct 🤷
Only if customers are willing to pay for it.
How would that work, really? I can’t figure out how that could be regulated.
Establish a wage floor.
Establish a price cap.
If the corporation can’t make a profit from this, then perhaps their business model was not viable in the first place.
A price cap seems to be based on the premise that not having a service at all is better then having it be too expensive. I find that idea very questionable.
“Let’s treat our workers like slaves or else the entire economy will suffer” is a far worse take IMHO.
i don’t think that is what they meant. is that a strawman you’re slaying?
Replace that price cap with a wage cap for the people at the top that is based on the wages of everyone else in the company and companies it contracts (to avoid the obvious loophole as well as giving an actual mechanism for “trickle down”).
How is the price cap determined?
“No fair! Our business model was very simple: price gouge the customer while exploiting our labor force!”