Instacart reaches into your pocket and lops a third off your dollars
Posted by hn_acker 2 days ago
Comments
Comment by ccvannorman 2 days ago
Is that so much to ask?
Could the next "Apple" produce such hardware/software stack to black box this for the consumer -- simply buy "Pineapple" products and guarantee this stuff can't touch you (user obsfuciation for all external platforms could be a hard technical challenge, I know - hence the big value if delivered)
Comment by baobun 2 days ago
https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-ju...
Everyone who said "A technical solution can not fix a social problem" needs to read this. In our technical society, for many things a technical part is required to enable social change. The proactive technical work is important and necessary, despite the fact that there is more to it. It may not be sufficient but it is necessary.
Comment by ChrisArchitect 2 days ago
https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46205041)
Comment by dmitrygr 2 days ago
Comment by droptablemain 2 days ago
People in dire financial situations very often have a history of making bad decisions with money.
Personally I do not struggle with money/budgeting but the only time I will ever use something like InstaCart is if I am sick and can't leave the house.
Comment by mapontosevenths 2 days ago
Lifting yourself by your bootstraps only works if you can afford boots in the first place.
Pratchet said:
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness." [0]
Comment by droptablemain 2 days ago
My background is very poor. Food stamps, raised by single mom, whole nine yards. For most of my 20s I existed in the very same cycle of bad financial decisions that many other poor people engage in.
My situation had approximately a 0% chance of changing until the behavior changed. That doesn't mean behavioral changes are always enough, but they are the absolute bare minimum and an excellent starting point.
People I still know in bad situations refuse to acknowledge this and refuse to critically examine their decisions. They do nothing but avoid, avoid, avoid and hope for a miraculous windfall.
Comment by mapontosevenths 2 days ago
> You make dangerous assumptions about me in order to justify your preexisting view of poverty and socioeconomic mobility
You said that you don't struggle making good financial decisions. I am claiming that you were lucky to be in a situation that allows you to make good decisions.
I believe that to be accurate, regardless of your history.
You must remember that the legitimately poor often do not have many choices to make at all. Poverty can constrain choice to the point of irrelevance. EG - Somone with a thousand dollars has more options than someone with a hundred dollars.
In your case it seems that you (now at least) have enough to be able to make choices. If you only had $50 to your name you would have far fewer options to choose from and most of those options would be bad.
Imagine a single mother working for minimum wage with a flat tire she cant afford to fix, and needing groceries. Instacart might make her problem worse, but surviving is all she can hope for sometimes.
Similary imagine an elderly widow on fixed income who is injured. Or a 17 year old who had to flee an abusive home situation, and is lucky to make rent on a weekly rental room.
For any of them it is easy to imagine they might have enough money to eat, but not enough to buy a car or even a bicycle. They will starve long before the situation improves enough to make that happen, regardless of their choices. So they make ends meet and they survive.
Its not Instacarts fault, any more than it is Dollar Generals, but it is also true that the service often worsens their long-term well-being.
Comment by venturecruelty 9 hours ago
Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago
Comment by dmitrygr 2 days ago
The effect of money is the opposite of this. You use it to save time. The poorer you are, the less your time costs effectively and the more things you do yourself, like going to the grocery store, no matter how far.
Comment by AlotOfReading 2 days ago
Instacart is a SNAP/EBT vendor, so clearly they have low income customers. Some people prefer online shopping because of the stigma of using benefits in-person. For others without reliable access to transportation, delivery might be the most reasonable option. Public transit also takes time that might be better spent with family, or at your job.
Comment by chimpanzee 2 days ago
Personal time is a highly constrained resource: finite, non-renewable, non-storable and mutually exclusive. You can’t simply value someone’s personal time based upon their paid time. (Though people love to do this anyways…as if a poor person’s life time is objectively worth less than a richer person’s.)
Poor people often have less time available, less supply, than others due to longer transportation times as well as having more chores that they must complete by themselves.
For example, a person can be making $15 / hour and only have 4 hours of available waking personal time per day. If during those 4 hours they must complete all personal and household chores, as well as find some time for recuperating, then they would likely value those 4 hours as much more than $15 each.
Or considered another way: the value of the first hour in a day is not worth the same as the last hour. That last hour is valued according to the tasks that must be accomplished during that time and what is lost if the tasks are not successfully accomplished. And when under stress, the value can change drastically.
Comment by mapontosevenths 2 days ago
In the city I grew up in they had no busses until a local company paid for the first one simply to get the poorer employees to work reliably because it was impacting production.
There are still many places in America where you either walk or you own a car, period. When the car breaks down and you need parts.. you walk. Worse there are no sidewalks. When the snow is a foot deep you risk frostbite and hypothermia.
Comment by dmitrygr 2 days ago
Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago
The reality is that the algorithmic prices are always higher than they'd be in store. InstaCart would never lower their prices below what's in the store, algorithmically or otherwise; they would have to foot the difference. Using software hides these price increases, especially when the nature of it means the customer won't be in the store to see the differences in real time. (They could enlist help but why would they even think to do that?)
It seems to be a reasonable option even though their grocery bill will (apparently) be about 7% higher. That could seem the same as prices rising; it's surely noticeable and will make them drop a couple items from their cart but they can still checkout. Their cost would remain consistent over time and with actual price increases while always being that barely significant amount more. All while they believe they know exactly how much their decision is costing them.
Comment by mapontosevenths 2 days ago
Many things can leave a person temporarily or permanently unable to fetch their own groceries. Many of those things happen to the poor more frequently. They at least have more severe consequences when a person is poor.
For example, a middle class person can just buy a new tire when one goes flat. A poor person may have to walk for a few paychecks.
Comment by dmitrygr 2 days ago
Comment by mapontosevenths 2 days ago
> You just take the bus to the store, because you don’t pay extra money for someone to go there for you. You don’t have that money.
They said this in response to a comment comparing the cost/benefit of instacart vs overpriced shrinkflation products from Dollar General.
Neither alternative was starvation. The alternatives under discussion were Dollar General, Instacart, and the bus.
I pointed out that the bus is often not an option, because the person who advocated it seemed to be using it to dismiss the fact that instacart groceries from a real grocery store are cheaper than buying them from a place like Dollar General which is objectively true.
Comment by Braxton1980 2 days ago
Comment by armchairhacker 2 days ago
Comment by riku_iki 2 days ago
Comment by janalsncm 2 days ago
If it’s not a big deal why don’t they come out and tell the users?
Comment by awofford 2 days ago
Comment by beepbooptheory 2 days ago
Comment by lenkite 2 days ago