It’s a useful (though non-essential) service that leans toward a natural monopoly. Nationalisation or heavy regulation are the solutions to this.
Under regulation, profits flow to shareholders. Under nationalisation, they flow to treasury. Practicality of nationalisation in the current climate aside, I know which I’d prefer.
It’s a profitable service, like the post office was before they were sabotaged with pension requirements. Users would still be the ones paying, but a greater portion of the profits could go to the workers, and the remainder would go to public projects and other government expenses. That would be preferable to the services being used to continue drawing wealth and power from the working classes to the already wealthy and powerful. The only time it might end up subsidized is if it had to be commandeered for a public use purpose like delivery of food and living essentials during a disease outbreak.
Convenience isn’t the factor here - having a network of delivery drivers, many of whom can remain productive transporting people when they’d otherwise be idle, having established relationships with restaurants, the support infrastructure to work with them a, tech platform and a user base makes it difficult for new entrants.
…i could order from newdelivery with the 3 restaurants they’ve managed to sign, or I could use uber.
It’s a useful (though non-essential) service that leans toward a natural monopoly. Nationalisation or heavy regulation are the solutions to this.
Under regulation, profits flow to shareholders. Under nationalisation, they flow to treasury. Practicality of nationalisation in the current climate aside, I know which I’d prefer.
No, just let it die. Please don’t force the rest of us to pay for this.
It’s a profitable service, like the post office was before they were sabotaged with pension requirements. Users would still be the ones paying, but a greater portion of the profits could go to the workers, and the remainder would go to public projects and other government expenses. That would be preferable to the services being used to continue drawing wealth and power from the working classes to the already wealthy and powerful. The only time it might end up subsidized is if it had to be commandeered for a public use purpose like delivery of food and living essentials during a disease outbreak.
If they nationalize Uber before Amtrak, I’ll blow a gasket
I certainly can’t disagree with that.
In what way is it a natural monopoly?
Economies of agglomeration, similar to Amazon. Having one app to order everything from is very convenient and the average person prefers that.
That doesn’t make something a natural monopoly. Nor does “I’m lazy.” And I say this as person who is VERY lazy about a lot of things.
I don’t doubt it’s convenient but that’s what you’re paying for. Anyone complaining about the prices at convenience stores?
Convenience isn’t the factor here - having a network of delivery drivers, many of whom can remain productive transporting people when they’d otherwise be idle, having established relationships with restaurants, the support infrastructure to work with them a, tech platform and a user base makes it difficult for new entrants.
…i could order from newdelivery with the 3 restaurants they’ve managed to sign, or I could use uber.