You might care that you are paying $10 for $1 quality burger?
But more I think people want their money to support the businesses that are making the food. Restaurants are very difficult businesses, and people that like them want to support them vs the VC backed startups.
With the extreme cost disparity in your example, it’s only Taking your example a tiny bit further to say if the restaurant was paid zero by the app but the app somehow got their food, you’d be be okay with it.
It’s not much more extreme from what your comment said to say if you value a burger $10 it doesn’t matter if the $10 went to someone who involuntarily coerced the restaurant and $0 went to the restaurant. What is the name for workers who do work without pay?
Most people have some sense of moral rightness in their supply chain when an injustice is visible. That is why the apps hide their exorbitant fees.
>if the restaurant was paid zero by the app but the app somehow got their food, you’d be be okay with it
If I'm the customer: yes. If I'm the restaurant: no, I would not agree to give out food if I'm getting paid zero.
> What is the name for workers who do work without pay?
Same thing if I'm the worker, it doesn't matter if the pay is $10 - $9 deduction or $1 - $0 deduction, in both case it really is $1. I then decide whether it worth my effort to do it for $1.
Well of you enjoy that restaurant you shouldn't be ok with it, because with price margins like you describe, that restaurant's not going to exist for very long.
> Well of you enjoy that restaurant you shouldn't be ok with it, because with price margins like you describe, that restaurant's not going to exist for very long.
That's only true in a vacuum though. There's so much more variable that makes it absurd to happen, except if we live in some kind of tv show.
Let say Uber eat charge too much and it kill their customer, will they keep doing it? Why would they? Theses customers are the one bringiner them this cash.
Why would no competitor see that and decide to charge 1% less? That would be absurd for the restaurant not to consider that one instead. That strategy would be incredibly easy to apply locally too.
Let's not forget that restaurant still can have their own delivery drivers too, like in the article we are talking about right now. That also means that you will have to pay for the marketing too that the delivery service provided for you beforehands... but that's normal business.
It matters if you like the burger place. There are restaurants in my community that I am genuinely worries will go under in these COVID-19 times, not only because of the good food, but because of the good people I want to see succeed and the people I see when I go there. I don't want to screw them over if I can help it.
To the extent price is correlated with quality, you should very much be concerned about how much the restaurant is getting out of your $10. If they get $9, you can expect some quality food. If they get $1, then let's hope you have a strong stomach.
But at one place, you might be able to pick it up for $1, while at the other place, it would cost $9. The amount of fee matters when the fee is avoidable.
This is not at all the same. These restaurants are willingly and knowingly entering into and maintaining a businesses relationship with the delivery apps.
If they're unhappy with the cut that they get, they can either raise the prices they list on Doordash, or they can just unlist themselves (and the apps may create a listing for them, but then they still pay the restaurant the full menu price).
I don't understand the whole hearted support for a business that is asking consumers to inconvenience themselves to help maximize their profit margins. Where are all the people demanding that we all stop using credit cards to avoid the evil transaction surcharges from Visa?
If the transaction surcharges were 30% then people would be demanding we stopped using Visas. You are being deliberately obtuse and dishonestly sidestepping the issue at hand. The exploitative and abusive charges have gotten dramatically worse in response to the pandemic as GrubHub and other app providers flexed their increased market muscle to extort restaurants facing no alternative. It is “willingly and knowingly” entering an agreement in the same sense that I willingly gave the guy who robbed me my wallet to avoid getting stabbed.
They have not. The surcharges are the same as they always were. And depending on what you buy, the transaction fees might be as high, or higher (which is why you see the minimum credit card signs sometimes).
So I assume you have some evidence that the charges are "exploitative and abusive", right? And not that that's just what it costs to have human beings drive around and deliver food to you, plus some reasonable margin? These companies are losing money. Some portion of that is that they are aggressively growing and re-investing, but let's not pretend that they're basically printing money.
> It is “willingly and knowingly” entering an agreement in the same sense that I willingly gave the guy who robbed me my wallet to avoid getting stabbed.
This is just disingenuous. I don't see any equivalency between someone providing arguably overpriced last mile delivery for my restaurant, and someone literally holding a knife to me.
Restaurant owners have other options. You can raise prices on delivery orders to cover what delivery costs. You can set up your own delivery (which no one seems to be doing because it's not that simple). You can try to advertise enough to get your carry out orders high enough to survive. You can choose to shut down and hope the impact is short enough that your business savings will cover your expenses until business picks back up. You can shut down permanently.
This isn't any different than any other business when the market shifts underneath them. Circumstances have changed. You can adapt your business, you can pay someone that has a solution that adapts you to those new circumstances, or you can close.
It works the same way as for the worker, if you pay is $10 but they took $9 then for the worker the pay is really is $1, no different then if the bos pay $1 with 0 deduction. Then what the worker do is to decide whether it worth to do the job for $1.
Of course if you are taking about actual slave then it moot point.
This is arguably true in a pre-pandemic world. Post-pandemic restaurants have far less choice, especially since delivery apps have an exploitative advantage over smaller shops that can’t create their own mobile phone apps. So the delivery companies jacked up their fees to take advantage of companies whose only alternative was no business whatsoever.
Saying it isn’t coercive is just Lochner-style dismissal of the facts on the ground.
