Seattle ordinance intended to help app delivery workers is 'hurting' them
Seattle’s new ordinance requiring app-based food delivery companies to pay drivers a higher minimum compensation has led platforms to add visible fees—often a flat $5 per order—prompting many customers to cut back on using the services. Commenters debate whether the resulting drop in demand is proof that such work is inherently unsustainable at living wages, or a predictable but necessary correction to a model built on underpaid, heavily subsidized gig labor. Broader themes include basic supply-and-demand economics, the role of government in regulating low-wage work, and whether it’s better to have many poorly paid jobs or fewer, better-paid ones.
Impact of Seattle Ordinance on Delivery Market
- Ordinance sets a pay floor (per-minute/per-mile or a minimum per-offer amount, commonly discussed as $5/order).
- Many report apps adding a flat “extra $5” fee per delivery in Seattle; some see this as cost pass-through, others as political messaging.
- Users describe sharply reduced personal usage after seeing new fees; some canceled subscriptions and now order rarely or not at all.
- Others note confounding factors: return-to-office reducing remote ordering, more drivers entering the market, declining service quality, and general cost-of-living increases.
Debate on Wages, ‘Bad Jobs,’ and Job Loss
- One view: if a business can’t pay at least basic wages (e.g., ~$15/hr) without subsidies, it shouldn’t exist; losing such jobs is acceptable or even good.
- Counterview: eliminating low-wage gigs can leave workers with “zero hours,” which many see as worse than a marginally profitable job.
- Ongoing tension between “people should be free to take low-paid work” and “society shouldn’t normalize wage-slave conditions.”
Economics of Gig Platforms and Pricing
- Consensus that cheap, on-demand delivery relied on either underpaid labor or VC subsidies and was never truly sustainable.
- Some argue basic supply–demand: higher prices → lower demand → fewer deliveries and/or fewer jobs.
- Others stress platforms may “sabotage” local regulations by over-raising fees to turn public sentiment against worker protections.
Tipping, Fees, and Transparency
- Apps have altered UI: in some places tip defaults dropped to 0% with messaging that pay is “baked into” prices.
- Some welcome moving away from tipping culture; others note many service workers prefer tips and may underreport income.
- Users are frustrated by opaque fee structures and uncertainty over how much of fees/tips actually reach drivers.
Role of Government vs Markets
- Some argue government must set wage floors and labor standards; market alone creates an underclass and taxpayer-subsidized bad jobs.
- Others say government interventions in a highly elastic, low-margin market predictably destroy work opportunities without providing transition support.
- Thread highlights the policy tradeoff: many low-paying jobs vs. fewer, better-paying ones, with painful transitions and unclear net benefit.