Takeaway riders undertake very heavy labor, and earn all the hard-earned money by DD city, the platform must be obliged to protect their safety and dignity, and raise the cap as much as possible.
These expressions above are for the next expressions to save lives, because really do not want to be taken out of context to misunderstand the intention.
In order to make that video of riders being trapped, I established contact with several crowdsourced riders and found that the income curve of this industry is very interesting: generally speaking, the average monthly income in the first 2-3 months is basically less than half of the average monthly income later, which is called the stage of paying tuition.
Because although delivery does not seem to have much technical content, but in fact contains a lot of details, such as you know the environment of the radius of activity, which road has fewer traffic lights, which side of the community’s east and west doors are open, how to press the access code, how much battery power will not climb the slope, and so on.
These are the statutes can not teach riders, but only by their own hard trial and error, by falling into a pit to remember the next time not to fall in the same place, and finally advanced to become a skilled rider, the loss of efficiency to pick up.
I mean, there is something reverent about any profession that you make a living in, and many people just go out and become riders on a whim to prove how hard it is to deliver — in fact, it doesn’t take much to prove it — and find out that they don’t get much money in hand after a day. There is nothing wrong with this conclusion itself, and it can also trigger the expected empathy, but it really stops short of a slapdash approach and doesn’t get to the heart of the matter.
The essence of the distribution process is the competition between people and algorithms, with the former losing repeatedly and the latter evolving, eventually choking out all breathing room and squeezing out profits for the platform, as well as giving consumers access to cheap human services.
This is not even close to the kind of cultural consumerism that Zizek mocked, in which companies have no intention of issuing atonement vouchers, and users are left to make their own moral evaluations, hoping that another invisible hand will “take charge”.
There was a deafening question in the media: do we really need to receive the delivery that fast? What if the platform gave the riders five more minutes so they wouldn’t have to rush?
Underneath such a question, of course, is a piece of approval, people have taken a stand, saying they can accept an extra five minutes of waiting time.
However, the brutal truth is that, when previously writing about Meituan and hungry open city competition, one of the regional operations to me to see the background data, not to mention five minutes, a rider site in a month because of the license issue was rectified, the city’s overall delivery time rose three minutes, in the case of subsidies and merchants are not any change, the platform in the local orders fell 8%, this drop until the next This drop did not return to normal until the next month, when rider site capacity was restored.
Statements are cheap, but actions don’t lie.
The question is, if the winner does not deserve to be rewarded, then who should be rewarded?
As Zizek so aptly put it – though not without intellectual greed – the perfect fix is no better than a good design.
It does not solve sin and poverty, but rather contributes to the spread of a tragic epidemic that continues to bury the real causes of poverty through a more humane, tolerant, and welfare-friendly approach, perpetuating a situation of poverty that is intentionally omitted because we should rebuild it on the basis of a foundation that makes it impossible. What has been deliberately omitted is that we should rebuild society on a basis that makes poverty impossible.
Recent Comments