好心辦壞事：當政策忽略了經濟學的萬有引力

原文摘要

“Let’s take a look at how Seattle’s DoorDash law actually turned out. In 2024, Seattle implemented “PayUp” — a minimum wage law for food delivery drivers, setting the rate at $26.40/hour. The intent was to protect workers. Here’s what actually happened: DoorDash added a $5 fee to every order. Customers stopped ordering. Within two weeks, 30,000 fewer orders. UberEats volume dropped 30%. Drivers — the people the law was supposed to help — saw their available deliveries cut in half and earnings per hour fall 25%. A new National Bureau of Economic Research study confirmed what the numbers already showed: higher per-delivery pay was completely offset by fewer deliveries and lower tips. Active drivers saw zero net gain in monthly earnings. KUOW reported this week that two years in, the results are undeniable — Seattle is now the most expensive delivery market in the country. Denver, Portland, and San Francisco, cities without these laws, saw delivery revenue grow 20-40%. Seattle stagnated. The parallel to what’s happening with WA tax proposals is obvious. SB 6346 would impose a 9.9% income tax on high earners. The QSBS add-back bills would strip federal tax exclusions from founders. The argument is always “just a small tax on those who can afford it.” But capital moves. Founders move. Companies incorporate elsewhere. The DoorDash data gives us a controlled experiment: same company, same product, same time period, different policy environments. The city with the heaviest regulation saw the worst outcomes — including for the workers it tried to protect. Incentives matter. Every time.”

這個西雅圖的案例，簡直是經濟學課本裡關於「非預期後果 (Unintended Consequences)」最血淋淋的活教材。

政策制定者的初衷往往是善良的——保護外送員、提高他們的收入、讓勞動更有尊嚴。 但他們犯了一個致命的錯誤：忽略了市場是一個動態的生態系統，而不是靜態的數學題。

他們以為，只要把每單的工資調高，外送員的總收入就會自動增加。 這就像是以為只要把商品的價格標高，銷售額就會上漲一樣天真。 他們忘記了需求是有彈性的。當叫外送的成本暴增（每單多 5 美元），消費者不是不想吃，而是會選擇不叫外送、自己煮、或是直接去餐廳吃。

結果呢？ 單量雪崩式下跌。 對於外送員來說，雖然「接一單」的錢變多了，但「能接到的單」變少了，甚至還要面對小費縮水的雙重打擊。 最終，那個原本想要保護的群體，反而在這場政策實驗中受傷最重。

這給了我們一個深刻的警示： 善良的意圖，並不保證美好的結果。 在這個複雜的經濟體系中，每一個強制的干預都會引發一連串的連鎖反應。 資本會流動，消費者會用腳投票，市場會尋找新的平衡點。

如果不尊重「誘因 (Incentives)」這個經濟學的萬有引力，再美好的政策藍圖，最終都可能變成一場災難。

Source: Joe Wallin’s Tweet (Twitter)