New Food Delivery Platform Launched to Help Restaurants and Consumers

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

That's my experiences & observation from living in USA & here.  Others will surely differ.

Not the place for a political ideology debate.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I wasn’t challenging the drivers, I was questioning whether it is a good idea to attempt to put them out of work. 

But isn't that what EVERY business does? Isn't every business encouraging customers to do business with THEM, and not "the other guy?" And isn't the potential result ALWAYS to cause the workers at "the other guys" to lose their jobs? 

 

And aren't we, the consumer, doing the very same thing when we choose Villa over Lotus's, Seven over CJ's, PTT over Green Leaf, Chang over Leo, Madam Wagglebutt's over Gogo Palace? 

 

Isn't every choice we make as a consumer helping determine that some workers will get to keep their jobs.......... and some won't? 

 

But, as a rule, we don't think about that. We CAN'T think that! 

 

Because if that becomes part of our decision-making process? We'd get stuck! We wouldn't be able to decide. And, frankly, Capitalism would come grinding to a halt! ????????????

 

Will the new service put people out of work? Almost certainly. But that's what's supposed to happen.

 

And, for better or worse, that's the consequence of every single choice you and I ever make as consumers. EVERY SINGLE ONE! 

 

-----------------

 

Remember the old adage: "The only constant is change? " Well, change almost never occurs without SOMEONE paying a price. 

 

But it's those CONSEQUENCES..........

 

It's those consequences that lead people to innovate, to try, to imagine And THAT'S where progress comes from!

 

It's..........

 

The good that comes out of the bad! 

 

Cheers! 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, vidgra said:

so this trend for idiots not even able to go out to find their food is forever ? this world is so sad...

 

 

I dunno, seems like there are some positives. 

 

Imagine, for example, 5 motorcycles delivering food to twenty people........... rather than twenty cars having to go to a restaurant. Think about THAT the next time you're stuck in Bangkok traffic.......... or trying to park! ????????????

 

And how would that restaurant ever take care of those twenty people if it's a small shop with only 4 or 5 tables? Now they can! 

 

Besides, how am I ever going to get full value out of Netflix......... if I have to leave the house to eat??? 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

[Jingthing]

As far as environmental impact, the packing materials are a big problem.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

As to the OP......... 

 

I seriously doubt they can do it for 8%

 

To get their overhead that low........ (accepting that 8% ALSO includes a profit for the vendor)......... probably men's having to consolidate deliveries to improve their cost-per-stop. 

 

But consolidating deliveries means having to stop at more restaurants and wait, possibly, meaning more stops before the first delivery, and even more than that before the last. And THAT means lukewarm or cold food being delivered. And let's face it........... some foods already don't travel well! 

 

Secondly, as a die hard Capitalist living in a competitive world, I believe if someone were able to get their overhead low enough to only charge an 8% "commission"............ someone would already be doing it: "Call Zipp and we'll zapp it to you........ for a lot less than the other guys!" 

 

I assume they're going to be using logistics software similar to Uber or Lyft or, perhaps, Kerry: Find the best drivers relative to their present location, the pickup location, and the final destination. Choose for best overall efficiency. 

 

But food delivery will almost always be relatively short trips, and involve a third party (the restaurant) whose timing and efficiency are outside your control. Food delivery ain't Uber........ as Uber Eats has had to learn the hard way!

 

(And for Uber Eats, consolidation is probably somewhat easier, since they are always working with cars, not motorcycles. In Bangkok, I'd guess food delivery CARS would be a big challenge! Cars get stuck in traffic in ways motorcycles don't have to.) 

 

Yep, I am very skeptical they can make 8% work. 

 

Cheers! 

Edited May 13, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[Pattaya Spotter]

15 hours ago, scorecard said:

But don't forget the drivers don't get the 30% mentioned, they get survival payments, nothing more.

Why should they get 30%...did they invest the capital to start the business...are they taking financial risk running the business ???? 

[Bluespunk]

56 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

But isn't that what EVERY business does? Isn't every business encouraging customers to do business with THEM, and not "the other guy?" And isn't the potential result ALWAYS to cause the workers at "the other guys" to lose their jobs? 

 

And aren't we, the consumer, doing the very same thing when we choose Villa over Lotus's, Seven over CJ's, PTT over Green Leaf, Chang over Leo, Madam Wagglebutt's over Gogo Palace? 

 

Isn't every choice we make as a consumer helping determine that some workers will get to keep their jobs.......... and some won't? 

 

But, as a rule, we don't think about that. We CAN'T think that! 

 

Because if that becomes part of our decision-making process? We'd get stuck! We wouldn't be able to decide. And, frankly, Capitalism would come grinding to a halt! ????????????

 

Will the new service put people out of work? Almost certainly. But that's what's supposed to happen.

 

And, for better or worse, that's the consequence of every single choice you and I ever make as consumers. EVERY SINGLE ONE! 

 

-----------------

 

Remember the old adage: "The only constant is change? " Well, change almost never occurs without SOMEONE paying a price. 

 

But it's those CONSEQUENCES..........

 

It's those consequences that lead people to innovate, to try, to imagine And THAT'S where progress comes from!

 

It's..........

 

The good that comes out of the bad! 

 

Cheers! 

Maybe but, as a die hard Left of Left of Centre thinker, I really don't see how a government launching a scheme that could put workers out of a job is actually helping those workers.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Bluespunk

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

As if there aren't enough delivery riders zigging and zagging through traffic at high speed now, causing dozens of near accidents and terrorizing other motorists, let's add a few more riders without bothering to enforce safe driving regulations...

I've not really noticed that...many of the drivers are female and they tend to be very defensive drivers and all moto drivers know who comes out worse in any collision between a motor vehicle and a motorcycle ???? 

[Excel]

15 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

30%? Really-live and learn, live and learn. 
 

So is the goal here to put these operators out of business and costing people their jobs?

You mean on top of the millions of jobless that this government's imbecilic policies have already claimed ?

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Excel said:

You mean on top of the millions of jobless that this government's imbecilic policies have already claimed ?

Can't disagree with you there, nor do I wish to.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Not the place for a political ideology debate.

More an economics, delivery competition debate, others have brought up.  8% vs 30% vs trickle down to drivers.  If I was a restauranteur, I'd have a very limited delivery range, and have 2 salaried employees on e-motorcycles doing the immediate area.  Keeping those just out of walking distance happy, and cost & travel time down to a minimum.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Maybe but, as a die hard Left of Left of Centre thinker, I really don't see how a government launching a scheme that could put workers out of a job is actually helping those workers.

Fair enough and understood. 

 

But here's the thing............. 

 

The government MUST consider a bigger picture than just THOSE workers. The goverent doesn't work for just THOSE workers. 

 

Like everyone else, the government has to take the bad with the good. If they're doing their job properly, that means they'll always stay focused on the good outweighing the bad, hopefully by a large margin. But that's the best they can do. 

 

The government can't eliminate the bad any more than the rest of us can. That's just the reality. 

 

So, whether or not people will be put out of work by this program......... is not their concern. Or, at least, it's not their ONLY concern. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact---positive AND negative---this program could have on the 20,000 restaurants they hope to sign up, and THEIR workers, too. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact this program could have on prices and how well the citizenry overall might make it from paycheck to paycheck, month to month. 

 

*  They have to consider possible differences in traffic flows and parking for highly congested and/or high-density-housing areas. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact on landlords if this program results in business shifts. If this program causes surviving restaurants to fail, and failing restaurants to start thriving. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact on airborne and noise pollution, if this turns out to be a huge success. (And that may be realistic, since lower prices typically translate into higher demand.) 

 

......... And on and on. 

 

The government doesn't have the luxury of just considering what will happen to THESE workers. Cuz the simple fact is, every single decision the government makes......... helps some people and hurts others. Every Single One. 

 

So, for the government....... ANY government............ the question can never only be: "What happens to THESE workers." 

 

For a government, the question ALWAYS has to be: "Do the benefits exceed the costs; does the good outweigh the bad?" 

 

Doing it any other way......... as compassionate as those other ways may be (in the short term) .......... really means failing at the job they've been given!

 

Cheers! 

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Fair enough and understood. 

 

But here's the thing............. 

 

The government MUST consider a bigger picture than just THOSE workers. The goverent doesn't work for just THOSE workers. 

 

Like everyone else, the government has to take the bad with the good. If they're doing their job properly, that means they'll always stay focused on the good outweighing the bad, hopefully by a large margin. But that's the best they can do. 

 

The government can't eliminate the bad any more than the rest of us can. That's just the reality. 

 

So, whether or not people will be put out of work by this program......... is not their concern. Or, at least, it's not their ONLY concern. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact---positive AND negative---this program could have on the 20,000 restaurants they hope to sign up, and THEIR workers, too. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact this program could have on prices and how well the citizenry overall might make it from paycheck to paycheck, month to month. 

 

*  They have to consider possible differences in traffic flows and parking for highly congested and/or high-density-housing areas. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact on landlords if this program results in business shifts. If this program causes surviving restaurants to fail, and failing restaurants to start thriving. 

 

*  They have to consider the impact on airborne and noise pollution, if this turns out to be a huge success. (And that may be realistic, since lower prices typically translate into higher demand.) 

 

......... And on and on. 

 

The government doesn't have the luxury of just considering what will happen to THESE workers. Cuz the simple fact is, every single decision the government makes......... helps some people and hurts others. Every Single One. 

 

So, for the government....... ANY government............ the question can never only be: "What happens to THESE workers." 

 

For a government, the question ALWAYS has to be: "Do the benefits exceed the costs; does the good outweigh the bad?" 

 

Doing it any other way......... as compassionate as those other ways may be (in the short term) .......... really means failing at the job they've been given!

 

Cheers! 

Maybe

 

But it would be better if the government would consider finding ways to help workers and citizens  that doesn’t involve putting others out of work. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

53 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

More an economics, delivery competition debate, others have brought up.  8% vs 30% vs trickle down to drivers.  If I was a restauranteur, I'd have a very limited delivery range, and have 2 salaried employees on e-motorcycles doing the immediate area.  Keeping those just out of walking distance happy, and cost & travel time down to a minimum.

Hmmm. 

 

Do you think you can generate enough additional business to pay for a substantial capital investment like 2 e-motorcycles?

 

You can't really pay for them out of the profits of your existing business, because then you're just buying toys. You've got to be able to pay for them out of the additional business this new direction allows you to generate.

 

I dunno, 2 e-motorcycles seems like a mighty big hurdle! 555

 

Cheers! 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

28 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Maybe

 

But it would be better if the government would consider finding ways to help workers and citizens  that doesn’t involve putting others out of work. 

That would be great, except........ 

 

"Cuz the simple fact is, every single decision the government makes......... helps some people and hurts others. Every Single One." 

 

What you're asking for is the good without the bad, and that's just not reality.

 

Admirable, yes.

Reality, no. 

 

----------------

 

In the early 80s (I think) there were two "Oh God!" movies, with George Burns playing God. (3?)

 

In one of them, God is walking down a hallway with a young boy. The young boy asks God the age old question, "God, why do you allow bad things to happen?" 

 

George Burns pauses and looks at the boy. Then he says, "I want you to imagine a coin. Got that? Can you picture a coin in your heapd?" 

 

"Yes," the boy says. 

 

"Now picture a coin with only one side," God says. 

 

The boy pauses, thinks. "I can't." 

 

"Well, that's the problem. You can't have a coin with only one side." 

 

. 

 

It might have been a silly movie, but that's the best answer to that question I've ever heard! 

 

. 

 

"Cuz the simple fact is, every single decision the government makes......... helps some people and hurts others. Every Single One." 

 

Cheers! 

[zzaa09]

55 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Maybe

 

But it would be better if the government would consider finding ways to help workers and citizens  that doesn’t involve putting others out of work. 

Even better if government didn't involve itself whatsoever in business or associated over lording. 

 

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

That would be great, except........ 

 

"Cuz the simple fact is, every single decision the government makes......... helps some people and hurts others. Every Single One." 

 

What you're asking for is the good without the bad, and that's just not reality.

 

Admirable, yes.

Reality, no. 

 

----------------

 

In the early 80s (I think) there were two "Oh God!" movies, with George Burns playing God. (3?)

 

In one of them, God is walking down a hallway with a young boy. The young boy asks God the age old question, "God, why do you allow bad things to happen?" 

 

George Burns pauses and looks at the boy. Then he says, "I want you to imagine a coin. Got that? Can you picture a coin in your heapd?" 

 

"Yes," the boy says. 

 

"Now picture a coin with only one side," God says. 

 

The boy pauses, thinks. "I can't." 

 

"Well, that's the problem. You can't have a coin with only one side." 

 

. 

 

It might have been a silly movie, but that's the best answer to that question I've ever heard! 

 

. 

 

"Cuz the simple fact is, every single decision the government makes......... helps some people and hurts others. Every Single One." 

 

Cheers! 

Yeah not sure George burns and movies about imaginary big beards in the sky is going to be much comfort to those workers who lose their jobs. 
 

I’m not claiming to have all the solutions but I’m sure that governments launching schemes that could put workers out of a job is not the answer. 

[KhunLA]

27 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm. 

 

Do you think you can generate enough additional business to pay for a substantial capital investment like 2 e-motorcycles?

 

You can't really pay for them out of the profits of your existing business, because then you're just buying toys. You've got to be able to pay for them out of the additional business this new direction allows you to generate.

 

I dunno, 2 e-motorcycles seems like a mighty big hurdle! 555

 

Cheers! 

2X ฿37k = ฿74k vs 30% to contracting out, which would mean higher priced meals, less competitiveness, loss sales.  Own drivers, better deliver service.

 

E-motorcycles probably 5 yrs, of very low operating cost.  So actual per month cost, I think it would work.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Even better if government didn't involve itself whatsoever in business or associated over lording. 

 

That is certainly a view but for me governments should be helping the people not putting them out of work. 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Why should they get 30%...did they invest the capital to start the business...are they taking financial risk running the business ???? 

slow down... I didn't say they should get 30% or any %.

 

And I don't disagree, returns should recognize several factors, one being risk; e.g. an ultimate risk, the risk of losing your investment.

 

But it would be nice, in many countries, to share 'the wealth' a little more!  And there are countries where social attitudes push hard for a better 'share of the wealth'.

 

On the other hand the gap is enormous in some countries, and a deterent to building even an acceptable quality of life/civil society.  

Edited May 13, 2022 by scorecard

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

2X ฿37k = ฿74k vs 30% to contracting out, which would mean higher priced meals, less competitiveness, loss sales.  Own drivers, better deliver service.

 

E-motorcycles probably 5 yrs, of very low operating cost.  So actual per month cost, I think it would work.

Remember, the OP is about a new 8% contracted service, not 30%

[zzaa09]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That is certainly a view but for me governments should be helping the people not putting them out of work. 

Under the presumption that governments [generally speaking] exist for the betterment and well being of the population? 

Some might suggest that's not what their place is at all - observations historically as well as current times might be a helpful clue. 

 

Why must we be so indoctrinated that government [as a body] is to be looked upon as a positive benign and benevolent entity?

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Under the presumption that governments [generally speaking] exist for the betterment and well being of the population? 

Some might suggest that's not what their place is at all - observations historically as well as current times might be a helpful clue. 

 

Why must we be so indoctrinated that government [as a body] is to be looked upon as a positive benign and benevolent entity?

I’ve told you what I feel the role of government should be. For me they should help the people not put them out of work. That many do not does not change that view on what governments role should be. 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Bluespunk
Typo

[KhunLA]

20 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Remember, the OP is about a new 8% contracted service, not 30%

But they are paying the 30% now.  If the 8% works, and actually lasts, along with  Govt being last on my list of trusted entities.

Edited May 13, 2022 by KhunLA

[KanchanaburiGuy]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That is certainly a view but for me governments should be helping the people not putting them out of work. 

Hey, I'm receptive to you describing a "one-sided coin." 

 

How exactly would you propose the government help people WITHOUT harming others at the same time? 

 

After all, even a simple task like hiring someone.......... means others DIDN'T get hired. That does them harm! 

 

When XYZ Corp sells paper to the government, that means ABC Corp DIDN'T. Therefore, XYZ Corp has income, and ABC Corp does not! That does them harm! 

 

When ABC Corp folds, it'll be because the government didn't buy from them. Should the government have bought from BOTH........... even though they only needed paper from one? 

 

And what about EFG Corp and MNO Corp?

 

* They sell paper too!

* They need income to survive, too!

* They have workers who could lose their jobs, too! 

 

So, what's your "one-sided coin?" How exactly would you propose the government help people WITHOUT harming others at the same time? 

 

--------------------

 

Y'know, when I was a kid, I remember being told that "Anything the human mind can imagine can come true."

 

I even had my best friend---a man in his 50s at the time---say the very same thing, not too long ago. 

 

So, I asked my friend: "I can imagine a human being flying without attached wings and no assist from any form of technology. Can that come true? Can humans fly without any form of assistance?" 

 

"Anything the human mind can imagine can come true." 

 

I believed this as a kid. But I also grew up. Sometimes, my best friend hated this about me!

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

After all, even a simple task like hiring someone.......... means others DIDN'T get hired. That does them harm! 

Not even close to the same thing as setting up a scheme that could put others out of work. 

 

5 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

When XYZ Corp sells paper to the government, that means ABC Corp DIDN'T. Therefore, XYZ Corp has income, and ABC Corp does not! That does them harm! 

 

When ABC Corp folds, it'll be because the government didn't buy from them. Should the government have bought from BOTH........... even though they only needed paper from one? 

 

And what about EFG Corp and MNO Corp?

 

* They sell paper too!

* They need income to survive, too!

* They have workers who could lose their jobs, too!

Again not the same thing.

 

Already said I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do know that an initiative that could put a lot of people out of work is not the answer. 

[jacko45k]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Well in theory there should be an upper limit of how many food delivery drivers for all companies can exist although I presume its an ever expanding business.

And what color will these people be.... I am getting used to the scaring terrors in green and also pink cutting me up!

[KanchanaburiGuy]

On 5/13/2022 at 4:01 PM, Bluespunk said:

I’ve told you what I feel the role of government should be. For me they should help the people not put them out of work. That many do not does not change that view on what governments role should be. 

You know, when you said this....... 

 

"Yeah not sure George burns and movies about imaginary big beards in the sky is going to be much comfort to those workers who lose their jobs." 

 

.......... you expressed a certain kind of viewpoint about "imaginary big beards in the sky." 

 

Okay, that's fine. 

 

I'm just having trouble resolving your insistence that government can work in this imaginary way you keep insisting on............ (all the good stuff, none of the bad stuff) ........... given the skepticism that's apparent when you describe "imaginary big beards in the sky."

 

Can you clear up the contradiction? 

 

Cheers! 

[Bluespunk]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:00 PM, KanchanaburiGuy said:

You know, when you said this....... 

 

"Yeah not sure George burns and movies about imaginary big beards in the sky is going to be much comfort to those workers who lose their jobs." 

 

.......... you expressed a certain kind of viewpoint about "imaginary big beards in the sky." 

 

Okay, that's fine. 

 

I'm just having trouble resolving your insistence that government can work in this imaginary way you keep insisting on............ (all the good stuff, none of the bad stuff) ........... given the skepticism that's apparent when you describe "imaginary big beards in the sky."

 

Can you clear up the contradiction? 

 

Cheers! 

Governments are real. god is not. 
 

However that is off topic and nothing to do with the point I was making. 
 

I was questioning the wisdom of a scheme that could put workers out of a job.
 

That alone is what I am doing. 
 

Likewise it is all I am interested in discussing. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Not even close to the same thing as setting up a scheme that could put others out of work. 

 

Again not the same thing.

 

Already said I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do know that an initiative that could put a lot of people out of work is not the answer. 

And you know this will be the outcome......... how? 

 

Supply and Demand tells us that when things get cheaper, demand goes up. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to anticipate that if food delivery gets cheaper, more people will have their food delivered. 

 

That sounds like MORE jobs, not FEWER. 

 

So, what's your basis for believing this program will "put people out of work?" 

 

Cheers!