3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
    - cinquemb 3y ago
      > No, I can use EBT at most corner stores. > What's your point? That large, established chains can't accept EBT? Corner store is already way more overhead than needed in some cases when a seller can market their product online and can communicate with any would-be buyer over any messaging channel and drive it to you while handling their periodic activities that may have them already out and about.
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        Are you implying the existence of an alternate universe where I buy lettuce online direct from the farmer with EBT, and they deliver it to me? Because there's an extremely small set of cases where such a direct delivery model makes any kind of economic sense. Distributors as intermediaries are more efficient for almost all cases.
        cinquemb 3y ago
        > Are you implying the existence of an alternate universe where I buy lettuce online direct from the farmer with EBT I'm implying it should be available. > , and they deliver it to me? > Distributors as intermediaries are more efficient for almost all cases. Except it should be possible for someone to grow in their local community at any scale desirable (esp important for urban agg entrepreneurs) and accept EBT from anyone near by. As kid, i helped a lot in a few community gardens in the city where i lived (where there also happened to be a lot of people already on government assistance within walking distance) and being able to sell produce and accept EBT would have changed the economics completely and incentivized way more productive economics beyond the donation model. Current distributors would also have way more competition for the same pie of funds allocated for EBT, and help make the program more efficient. If the availability for funding for something that is considered a public good is not broad and supportive of the smallest possible economic interactions, it is doing a disservice to the populations it is meant to support, esp for building wealth (esp for those building wealth in those communities have to subsidize big co distribution system). I can understand arguments against if they were framed in the context that these gov programs didn't have the infra in place historically to support this in May 16, 1939 - but that is far from the case today. I live in an EM country now that has a simmilar program to how food banks operate in the US (except the gov is doing it) abbreviated as SEMBAKO, and nothing like SNAP/EBT. Yet with technology, private banks are willing to finance peoples purchases of food online while paying full price at the local "stores" people choose to order food from (which is a big deal if you go out sometimes and talk to some of the sellers who would have no access otherwise to the markets they are selling into, some even going as far as sending hand written thank you notes on delivery).
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > 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. No, its not. Even independent groceries (and independent convenience stores that have grocery items) take EBT. There’s essentially no place you can buy groceries where you can’t use EBT. There may be a minimum viable scale, but its apparently very close to the minimum-viable-retail-operation-with-any-grocery-items scale. Uber is playing catch-up, not establishing an edge (much less an edge protected by a moat) compared to other ways of getting groceries.
    - cinquemb 3y ago
      > There may be a minimum viable scale, but its apparently very close to the minimum-viable-retail-operation-with-any-grocery-items scale. Yeah, that's where we are seeing things differently. The reliance on the well established store and their ability to accept EBT vs not needing to have that overhead and still being able accept EBT while provide similar goods. If you sell/deliver direct to consumer without going through a store that can accept/process EBT, you still have to subsidize them (unless you just avoid paying taxes, while still not having access to that EBT sponsored).

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?
  - cinquemb 3y ago
    > No, I can use EBT at most corner stores. > What's your point? That large, established chains can't accept EBT? Corner store is already way more overhead than needed in some cases when a seller can market their product online and can communicate with any would-be buyer over any messaging channel and drive it to you while handling their periodic activities that may have them already out and about.
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      Are you implying the existence of an alternate universe where I buy lettuce online direct from the farmer with EBT, and they deliver it to me? Because there's an extremely small set of cases where such a direct delivery model makes any kind of economic sense. Distributors as intermediaries are more efficient for almost all cases.
      - cinquemb 3y ago
        > Are you implying the existence of an alternate universe where I buy lettuce online direct from the farmer with EBT I'm implying it should be available. > , and they deliver it to me? > Distributors as intermediaries are more efficient for almost all cases. Except it should be possible for someone to grow in their local community at any scale desirable (esp important for urban agg entrepreneurs) and accept EBT from anyone near by. As kid, i helped a lot in a few community gardens in the city where i lived (where there also happened to be a lot of people already on government assistance within walking distance) and being able to sell produce and accept EBT would have changed the economics completely and incentivized way more productive economics beyond the donation model. Current distributors would also have way more competition for the same pie of funds allocated for EBT, and help make the program more efficient. If the availability for funding for something that is considered a public good is not broad and supportive of the smallest possible economic interactions, it is doing a disservice to the populations it is meant to support, esp for building wealth (esp for those building wealth in those communities have to subsidize big co distribution system). I can understand arguments against if they were framed in the context that these gov programs didn't have the infra in place historically to support this in May 16, 1939 - but that is far from the case today. I live in an EM country now that has a simmilar program to how food banks operate in the US (except the gov is doing it) abbreviated as SEMBAKO, and nothing like SNAP/EBT. Yet with technology, private banks are willing to finance peoples purchases of food online while paying full price at the local "stores" people choose to order food from (which is a big deal if you go out sometimes and talk to some of the sellers who would have no access otherwise to the markets they are selling into, some even going as far as sending hand written thank you notes on delivery).
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > 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. No, its not. Even independent groceries (and independent convenience stores that have grocery items) take EBT. There’s essentially no place you can buy groceries where you can’t use EBT. There may be a minimum viable scale, but its apparently very close to the minimum-viable-retail-operation-with-any-grocery-items scale. Uber is playing catch-up, not establishing an edge (much less an edge protected by a moat) compared to other ways of getting groceries.
  - cinquemb 3y ago
    > There may be a minimum viable scale, but its apparently very close to the minimum-viable-retail-operation-with-any-grocery-items scale. Yeah, that's where we are seeing things differently. The reliance on the well established store and their ability to accept EBT vs not needing to have that overhead and still being able accept EBT while provide similar goods. If you sell/deliver direct to consumer without going through a store that can accept/process EBT, you still have to subsidize them (unless you just avoid paying taxes, while still not having access to that EBT sponsored).