> With nothing more technologically advanced than a phone, you can arrange to have delivered to your doorstep, often in less than an hour, takeaway food, your weekly groceries, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs (over-the-counter, prescription, proscribed), books, newspapers, a dozen eggs, half a dozen eggs, a single egg. I once had a single bottle of Coke sent to my home at the same price I would have paid had I gone to shop myself.

I never understand these anti-uber rants. The author points out the ubiquitous nature of on-demand services, their affordability and convenience. He even admits that the market has to be large enough to warrant such a service. And then he goes on about how this is fueled by inequality when I see it as doing the opposite, providing services to large portions of the US that were never able to indulge in such conveniences.

> Another distinction, just as telling, lies in the opportunities the local economy affords to the army of on-demand delivery people it supports. In Mumbai, the man who delivers a bottle of rum to my doorstep can learn the ins and outs of the booze business from spending his days in a liquor store. If he scrapes together enough capital, he may one day be able to open his own shop and hire his own delivery boys.

This to me just romanticizes manual labor. I'm not sure how the author defines "local economy", but he provides no rationale why someone working for a "local" business would be better off in the long run than someone working for an Uber-like business. My impression of on-demand services is they allow for flexibility in hours as well as utilization of capital (e.g. a car).

The fact is that growth mainly occurs through specialization and trade. I'm sure if the author were writing 100 years ago, he would bemoan the fact that fewer people are making their own clothing. Micro-services such as cabs, laundry, delivery, cleaning, etc, are the natural extension of a wealthy society.