Event JSON
{
"id": "b37ef44163b1bfc580b2ff9a5f4865e2211e2970368721d6a29c2aaadf8329a6",
"pubkey": "87e02be9ae3894742a3fedda2e6b33675b642800633ab8c7ac1a306f107ac81c",
"created_at": 1709383766,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5a2893df3664170e98f559178cc17b926930fce76e4eb457b3a20df57cd13f4a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a430db855c6c008b91b2a717919462e0e37849aaf39220d7395e451919be4a66",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"adb8b0a0178b17ae58894d76c3841bd573b7a7d3773ed0eeee3cab8b6715d5ad",
""
],
[
"p",
"87e02be9ae3894742a3fedda2e6b33675b642800633ab8c7ac1a306f107ac81c",
""
],
[
"p",
"8876dee5d5d5018449290b279bcc8d862c654f4d1d163805f0574a72fb0d0db1",
""
]
],
"content": "刚去查了下。\n的确,出这政策的领导一定是被生活秘书照顾得很好,已经到了何不食肉糜的程度。\n\n我看到的是另一个点:\n快递员以“老子不干了”做无声的反抗,导致快递员紧缺(卡点),进而导致快递瘫痪。\n\n再进一步原因分析:\n\n新政提高了快递员的被处罚的可能性,同时大大降低了个体的配送效率,导致配送这活无利可图或远低于入职时的收入预期,从而导致大规模离职。\n\n那就能推出后续两种可能性:\n1.官员不是白痴,他已经预料到这种可能性。\n这种可能性的好处是解决更多就业。但是,前提是需要提高派发单件时,快递员的收益。\n这个支出不可能凭空出现,只能是商家,快递公司,客户,中某个,某几个,或一起出。\n所以如果这个模式想要运行下去,快递购物的价格就得涨。\n\n2.又像垃圾分类一样,拍脑袋的决定完全没有可行性,一场闹剧之后不了了之。\n\n你们觉得会是哪种?\nhttps://link.storjshare.io/raw/jvizhv2nebfs4jdvm3orlvbr6bsq/production/e05b8ac9d1cbacadcfff1f139fc384b852235ebac6382c40b0ddaee954ca4a03.JPG",
"sig": "6f5ff42003252a4ded7b5e6dc73ea267987d8029db2b6ca3a927824b70895dd14557ee95c41c250b55e74c9607be1a0468b5d7d36b63f09502d583b7f28a244c"
}