Why not just deal with this in the same way as we deal with other goods and services that are in short supply - increase the price until there is an equilibrium?
Ideally, one should be able to bid on delivery slots. If that is technically difficult, the delivery company should just increase the price.
They could then increase the pay of the staff involved in making deliveries to attract more workers, especially those that are now out of work. More deliveries made overall!
Or, if it is infeasible to increase the number of deliveries, they could donate the surplus profits locally.
Not increasing the prices seems like just pointless virtue-signalling that helps absolutely nobody.
I do not see much of a difference between something being affordable in theory, but unavailable in practice, and unaffordable but available.
The latter offers some advantages:
1. Increased prices on scarce goods discourage frivolous consumption.
2. Vulnerable people, if they can be identified, can be subsidized or have their fees waived.
3. Those that find they really need a delivery can still book it - something that is currently impossible.
4. Funds can be raised for good causes.
5. People do not have to waste time queuing/trying to get a slot.
If you like, you could operate both systems at the same time - allocate some slots on a first-come-first-served basis, and some slots on a market supply-and-demand basis.
And of course, delivery is not a necessity for many: a lot of those booking slots at the moment could just go to a shop and buy the groceries in person. A market system would discourage them booking delivery slots.
Comments
Why not just deal with this in the same way as we deal with other goods and services that are in short supply - increase the price until there is an equilibrium?
Ideally, one should be able to bid on delivery slots. If that is technically difficult, the delivery company should just increase the price.
They could then increase the pay of the staff involved in making deliveries to attract more workers, especially those that are now out of work. More deliveries made overall!
Or, if it is infeasible to increase the number of deliveries, they could donate the surplus profits locally.
Not increasing the prices seems like just pointless virtue-signalling that helps absolutely nobody.
Because pricing people out of necessities like food is really bad idea.
I do not see much of a difference between something being affordable in theory, but unavailable in practice, and unaffordable but available.
The latter offers some advantages:
1. Increased prices on scarce goods discourage frivolous consumption.
2. Vulnerable people, if they can be identified, can be subsidized or have their fees waived.
3. Those that find they really need a delivery can still book it - something that is currently impossible.
4. Funds can be raised for good causes.
5. People do not have to waste time queuing/trying to get a slot.
If you like, you could operate both systems at the same time - allocate some slots on a first-come-first-served basis, and some slots on a market supply-and-demand basis.
And of course, delivery is not a necessity for many: a lot of those booking slots at the moment could just go to a shop and buy the groceries in person. A market system would discourage them booking delivery slots.