4 ms·

Isn't this basically a taxpayer subsidy to Uber as most uber delivery/pricing/fees are anywhere between a 15-50% markup on in store pricing?

by htrp 3y ago

dangus 3y ago
I encourage reconsidering the word “subsidy” and start thinking of it as helping people who are in need. Who are we to judge how another fellow human decides to eat food? It’s not like the government is giving out extra money to use for Uber eats. Poor people ordering food to eat aren’t children, they’re adults who can be trusted to make decisions the same as anyone else. Consider how important delivery couriers are to people who have illnesses and disabilities. It’s also not that hard to order multiple days worth of food from a delivery person and have it be cost-effective. In my opinion, one of of the most persistent problems with social safety network politics is this pervasive ideology where we all believe that because someone is “taking” from our tax dollars that now that person must have no excessive joy in their life and that our collective society has the right to micromanage behavior.
- cinquemb 3y ago
  The bigger issue here imo is that there isn't a framework for other would-be ride-sharing company to easily onboard and compete for the pie of government funding for these activities. You have to already be big to "compete". JPM (administered nearly half of all states’ EBT programs before the mandated oct 1st 2020 deadline) and Uber/Instacart have a nice little gov sponsored moat growing here...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The bigger issue here imo is that there isn't a framework for other would-be ride-sharing company to easily onboard and compete for the pie of government funding for these activities. There's no government funding for the activity; SNAP EBT doesn't pay for delivery. > JPM (administered nearly half of all states’ EBT programs before the mandated oct 1st 2020 deadline) and Uber/Instacart have a nice little gov sponsored moat growing here... Its a moat that Amazon, DoorDash, store-operated delivery services from all the major chains and many locals, etc., were inside before Uber. But, sure. “moat”.
    - cinquemb 3y ago
      > There's no government funding for the activity; SNAP EBT doesn't pay for delivery. So Uber will make nothing on processing these transactions that originate through them, and only offering because of their good will. > Its a moat that Amazon, DoorDash, store-operated delivery services from all the major chains and many locals, etc., were inside before Uber. But, sure. “moat”. >> You have to already be big to "compete". Yeah, just ignore that part. Let me know when individual growers can get their account at their local credit union credited via an api call directly to the treasury dept without any frbny primary dealers involved.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > So Uber will make nothing on processing these transactions that originate through them, and only offering because of their good will. No, they’ll make something by selling more delivery fees than they otherwise would when both in-store and essentially every other grocery delivery service (both other third pary services and first party store-owned services) already takes EBT and they don’t. Uber taking EBT is just putting itself back on a level with every other way of buying groceries, rather than at a voluntary disadvantage.
        cinquemb 3y ago
        > Uber taking EBT is just putting itself back on a level with every other way of buying groceries, rather than at a voluntary disadvantage. Every other way of buying groceries if one limits themselves to buying from well established entities that are big enough to support it, which is a much smaller subset of those who could supply food now.
        joshuamorton 3y ago
        No, I can use EBT at most corner stores. Either uber is putting itself at the same level as {everyone who accepts EBT}, which includes a bunch of tiny players like mom-and-pop shops and farmers markets, or uber is putting itself at the same level as {delivery services that accept ebt} which yes, is a set of big players, but that's because {delivery services} is a set of big players, not related to ebt. What's your point? That large, established chains can't accept EBT?
- searealist 3y ago
  Unless you think it should be ok for a food stamp recipient to use their entire monthly balance at a high end steak house, then you also judge how another fellow human decides to eat food. The question then becomes where you draw the line.
  - diebeforei485 3y ago
    > it should be ok for a food stamp recipient to use their entire monthly balance at a high end steak house I really think it should!
  - deredede 3y ago
    This is about using Uber eats for groceries, not for restaurant meals.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Personally, I wouldn't even care if it were for restaurant meals too. They've only got so much money in assistance. If they want to use some of that to eat a whopper so what?
  - jabradoodle 3y ago
    I think that would be a stupid thing to do, and they should be free to do it.
    - irreticent 3y ago
      A lot of the comments here remind me of the debate about student loan forgiveness. Some say, "Why should they have their loan forgiven when I had to pay mine?!" I know, these are two completely different topics that can't be compared. I just feel a lot of people here think "Why should they get free food if I have to pay for it?". IMO it's a very selfish way of thinking.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    Where I'm from "food stamps" aren't a thing. We just give poor people money and treat them like adults and let them use their own judgement on what to buy. As far as I can tell, "Food stamps" are only a thing in the United States. Everywhere else just pays struggling people money.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > It’s also not that hard to order multiple days worth of food from a delivery person and have it be cost-effective. Outside of maybe Amazon Fresh in Seattle (and even that was years ago), I have found it extremely difficult if not impossible to get cost effective grocery delivery. And that was before the recent inflation.
imperialdrive 3y ago
Uber should be compensated appropriately, just as the food markets should. If folks want to get delivery, so be it. If the government/people want to provide the food benefit more effectively (in some manner that gets nutritious food to those in need every-single-day) it should come up with another method vs 'stamps'.
- notyourwork 3y ago
  The stamps should be for food, not the delivery of the food.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    It is.
diebeforei485 3y ago
Instacart already takes food stamps. Instead of the program having a preferred delivery app, what's better for competition is having all the apps on the program.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Isn't this basically a taxpayer subsidy to Uber as most uber delivery/pricing/fees are anywhere between a 15-50% markup on in store pricing? No, because “food stamps” (actually, a food-specific EBT card) can only be used for the in-store cost on specific goods. It is Uber avoiding a self-created anti-subsidy that exists if people buying groceries plus Uber’s fees and delivery charges are prohibited from using a means they would otherwise have available to pay for the groceries.
- rcme 3y ago
  Surely the delivery costs will be, at least partially, included in the cost of the goods.
  - verall 3y ago
    Why must this be true?

Isn't this basically a taxpayer subsidy to Uber as most uber delivery/pricing/fees are anywhere between a 15-50% markup on in store pricing?

by htrp 3y ago

Isn't this basically a taxpayer subsidy to Uber as most uber delivery/pricing/fees are anywhere between a 15-50% markup on in store pricing?

dangus 3y ago

I encourage reconsidering the word “subsidy” and start thinking of it as helping people who are in need. Who are we to judge how another fellow human decides to eat food? It’s not like the government is giving out extra money to use for Uber eats. Poor people ordering food to eat aren’t children, they’re adults who can be trusted to make decisions the same as anyone else. Consider how important delivery couriers are to people who have illnesses and disabilities. It’s also not that hard to order multiple days worth of food from a delivery person and have it be cost-effective. In my opinion, one of of the most persistent problems with social safety network politics is this pervasive ideology where we all believe that because someone is “taking” from our tax dollars that now that person must have no excessive joy in their life and that our collective society has the right to micromanage behavior.

cinquemb 3y ago
The bigger issue here imo is that there isn't a framework for other would-be ride-sharing company to easily onboard and compete for the pie of government funding for these activities. You have to already be big to "compete". JPM (administered nearly half of all states’ EBT programs before the mandated oct 1st 2020 deadline) and Uber/Instacart have a nice little gov sponsored moat growing here...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The bigger issue here imo is that there isn't a framework for other would-be ride-sharing company to easily onboard and compete for the pie of government funding for these activities. There's no government funding for the activity; SNAP EBT doesn't pay for delivery. > JPM (administered nearly half of all states’ EBT programs before the mandated oct 1st 2020 deadline) and Uber/Instacart have a nice little gov sponsored moat growing here... Its a moat that Amazon, DoorDash, store-operated delivery services from all the major chains and many locals, etc., were inside before Uber. But, sure. “moat”.
  - cinquemb 3y ago
    > There's no government funding for the activity; SNAP EBT doesn't pay for delivery. So Uber will make nothing on processing these transactions that originate through them, and only offering because of their good will. > Its a moat that Amazon, DoorDash, store-operated delivery services from all the major chains and many locals, etc., were inside before Uber. But, sure. “moat”. >> You have to already be big to "compete". Yeah, just ignore that part. Let me know when individual growers can get their account at their local credit union credited via an api call directly to the treasury dept without any frbny primary dealers involved.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > So Uber will make nothing on processing these transactions that originate through them, and only offering because of their good will. No, they’ll make something by selling more delivery fees than they otherwise would when both in-store and essentially every other grocery delivery service (both other third pary services and first party store-owned services) already takes EBT and they don’t. Uber taking EBT is just putting itself back on a level with every other way of buying groceries, rather than at a voluntary disadvantage.
      - cinquemb 3y ago
        > Uber taking EBT is just putting itself back on a level with every other way of buying groceries, rather than at a voluntary disadvantage. Every other way of buying groceries if one limits themselves to buying from well established entities that are big enough to support it, which is a much smaller subset of those who could supply food now.
        joshuamorton 3y ago
        No, I can use EBT at most corner stores. Either uber is putting itself at the same level as {everyone who accepts EBT}, which includes a bunch of tiny players like mom-and-pop shops and farmers markets, or uber is putting itself at the same level as {delivery services that accept ebt} which yes, is a set of big players, but that's because {delivery services} is a set of big players, not related to ebt. What's your point? That large, established chains can't accept EBT?
searealist 3y ago
Unless you think it should be ok for a food stamp recipient to use their entire monthly balance at a high end steak house, then you also judge how another fellow human decides to eat food. The question then becomes where you draw the line.
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  > it should be ok for a food stamp recipient to use their entire monthly balance at a high end steak house I really think it should!
- deredede 3y ago
  This is about using Uber eats for groceries, not for restaurant meals.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Personally, I wouldn't even care if it were for restaurant meals too. They've only got so much money in assistance. If they want to use some of that to eat a whopper so what?
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  I think that would be a stupid thing to do, and they should be free to do it.
  - irreticent 3y ago
    A lot of the comments here remind me of the debate about student loan forgiveness. Some say, "Why should they have their loan forgiven when I had to pay mine?!" I know, these are two completely different topics that can't be compared. I just feel a lot of people here think "Why should they get free food if I have to pay for it?". IMO it's a very selfish way of thinking.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  Where I'm from "food stamps" aren't a thing. We just give poor people money and treat them like adults and let them use their own judgement on what to buy. As far as I can tell, "Food stamps" are only a thing in the United States. Everywhere else just pays struggling people money.
philwelch 3y ago
> It’s also not that hard to order multiple days worth of food from a delivery person and have it be cost-effective. Outside of maybe Amazon Fresh in Seattle (and even that was years ago), I have found it extremely difficult if not impossible to get cost effective grocery delivery. And that was before the recent inflation.

imperialdrive 3y ago

Uber should be compensated appropriately, just as the food markets should. If folks want to get delivery, so be it. If the government/people want to provide the food benefit more effectively (in some manner that gets nutritious food to those in need every-single-day) it should come up with another method vs 'stamps'.

notyourwork 3y ago
The stamps should be for food, not the delivery of the food.
- happymellon 3y ago
  It is.

diebeforei485 3y ago

Instacart already takes food stamps. Instead of the program having a preferred delivery app, what's better for competition is having all the apps on the program.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Isn't this basically a taxpayer subsidy to Uber as most uber delivery/pricing/fees are anywhere between a 15-50% markup on in store pricing? No, because “food stamps” (actually, a food-specific EBT card) can only be used for the in-store cost on specific goods. It is Uber avoiding a self-created anti-subsidy that exists if people buying groceries plus Uber’s fees and delivery charges are prohibited from using a means they would otherwise have available to pay for the groceries.

rcme 3y ago
Surely the delivery costs will be, at least partially, included in the cost of the goods.
- verall 3y ago
  Why must this be true?