First off, okay that's great but no one is telling you to go use them. You can continue living your life exactly as you were without needing to judge others who live their lives differently from yours.
Second, clearly there are plenty of people who do use them judging from this $17b acquisition that just happened.
[–] Jcampuzano2 13 hours ago
[–] jvanderbot 13 hours ago
Here's how it works out rationally: I just got home from work, the kids are a mess, the house needs cleaning, and my spouse is having a work crisis. The kids favorite treat is chipotle. Of all the options for "use money to make this go away so I can focus on the problem" paying $10 surcharge for doordash is by far the cheapest.
"Hey kids chipotle treats are on the way - but you have to go get your room tidied and leave mom alone" actually does work.
6 million smart, rational engineers, mathematicians, actuaries, professors in the country, each doing this analysis, four times a year, yields 240 million dollars in surcharges without an ounce of laziness.
Then add laziness on top.
[–] apparent 13 hours ago
[–] jvanderbot 13 hours ago
[–] coredog64 13 hours ago
[–] apparent 12 hours ago
I'd be interested to see the math on this. They cover the amount I'd be expected to tip? They cover all the govt-mandated delivery driver fees? I could see how they might end up covering the official "delivery charge" but not the tip and other expected/mandatory fees that go along with actual delivery.
[–] GlickWick 11 hours ago
I don't know why Doordash in particular drives this really strange discourse where people really want to go after people who use it. You're on a technology forum, it shouldn't be surprising that some people here are using resources (money) to buy them convenience. It's practically in our DNA
[–] apparent 11 hours ago
I am not "going after people who use" DD. I just pushed back on the notion that it costs $10 to get dinner delivered for a family of 4.
[–] vlan0 13 hours ago
Exactly this. They know humans will likely pick the path of least resistance. And we are generally bad at problems that have compounding long term outcomes. They are essentially preying on our societal circumstances. My story: Brain will resist using energy for creative solution from within if external solution exists for $.
[–] jvanderbot 13 hours ago
Yes, doordash can prey on laziness, and people will fall into laziness, but in my example the _availability_ of the service is providing a price-adjustment for urgency that matches my own rational prioritization of the evening's needs. It's the most rational, mutually-beneficial argument I can make, and it's real in my house from time to time.
[–] Jcampuzano2 13 hours ago
Our own parents went through this exact scenario that you mentioned plenty of times before any of this even existed without having the to pay the $10 fee.
[–] magneticnorth 13 hours ago
Doordash costs more than that, but chipotle is a good deal more nutritious than the 90's-era tv dinners I remember, so I can understand parents preferring to spend a bit more for that equally-easy solution.
[–] jvanderbot 13 hours ago
From my memory we often piled into the car, got dinner, and went home and my parents had to stay up late to clean while we went to bed.
In my wife's memory, one parent couldn't work - all this stuff had to fall on them.
I'm saying the $10 is a nicety, not a necessity. We would be ok without it. I just think we're a little better with it. It's a market system - if I need it, it's there at a price I can justify. Markets are a good thing.
[–] rcpt 13 hours ago
[–] hext 13 hours ago
[–] vineyardmike 13 hours ago
What is this question? Is the idea of new products, technology, or services strange and problematic to you? Convenience is a major driver of invention.
Also when I was growing up my parents would order delivery plenty - but the only option was pizza because the driver worked for the pizza joint. And yes, it’s true, their parents didn’t order delivery, but they also lived in crushing poverty of the Great Depression and could barely afford to feed their kids during every meal.
[–] zamalek 13 hours ago
8.5% of American households have no car[1]. That isn't a strict majority, but if you can be charitably informal: paying for grocery deliveries is orders of magnitude cheaper than loan+insurance+maintenance for a car.
If you want to become car-less then the like of Instacart make that a realistic prospective (but Instacart specifically makes no sense because stores usually do it for free if you can tolerate next-day).
[–] cwillu 11 hours ago
[–] garlic_enjoyer 13 hours ago
[–] worldsoup 13 hours ago
[–] milkytron 13 hours ago
I was landing from a flight and traveling home late on a Sunday. I also needed to go grocery shopping that night. I did not have a car at the airport, so my choices were either rideshare home for $70, or take the train for $10. The train takes about 30-40 minutes longer, but saves me $60.
If I did the rideshare, I could probably do the grocery shopping myself and get home a little bit later than when the train would get me home. Or I could take the train, order the grocery delivery, and then get home, unpack, and go to sleep. I chose to take the train and do grocery delivery. When I got home from the train, the delivery driver was walking up to my door with bags in hand. It worked out perfectly.
I could have taken the train and also done the grocery shopping myself, but it would have been very late by then and I had to be up early for work the next day.
[–] tshaddox 13 hours ago
> So then, all that is really left is convenience.
But nearly all technology and services you pay for arguably boil down to “convenience,” in the sense that people in the past either did the thing themselves or survived without it.
[–] apsurd 11 hours ago
[–] longerthoughts 13 hours ago
This misses the point. One is you devoting your own time and attention to doing the task, the other is delegating it so you can use your time for other things. Some people are going to burn the extra time scrolling (not great), others are going to help their kids with homework or get a workout in.
I'm all for people getting time back even with the downside that not everybody will choose to use it well. If people are choosing brainrot over living well, there's a bigger issue than delivery services.
[–] mrits 13 hours ago
I don't think there are many people using this because they think they get it faster.
[–] hyperbovine 13 hours ago
[–] Jcampuzano2 13 hours ago
In my opinion this scenario may actually end up promoting unhealthy habits for your children which is what these companies want.
[–] throw4rehgff 11 hours ago
If I take my kid grocery shopping 4-5 times a month versus three times a month and then ordering DoorDash the other two times is that really going to make a difference?
In fact, ordering DoorDash will also teach your kid how to value time. Especially if you spend it with them doing other things.
[–] creaturemachine 10 hours ago
I struggle to see the teachings behind watching little brown men bringing meals to the door.
[–] LexiMax 13 hours ago
Virtue signaling.
[–] joking 13 hours ago
I know why they do it, that doesn't mean I like how the world works.
[–] Danox 13 hours ago
[–] IncreasePosts 13 hours ago
[–] tonymet 13 hours ago
To say “ i can’t believe people use it “ is obviously a lie. It’s a magic food delivery machine. It’s the closest thing to the Star Trek Replicator we have .
I don’t like it, and you could make a million arguments about why it’s either bad, unhealthy, bad economics etc. But it’s perfectly obvious why the business is huge.
[–] giwook 12 hours ago
LMAO wat
[–] tonymet 9 hours ago
[–] quickthrowman 13 hours ago
Paying an extra $10-12 in tips and fees to have some courier a meal directly to your door is ridiculously cheap, a courier service would charge 4x as much for a similar courier trip.
[–] mrweasel 13 hours ago
I completely understand the grocery deliveries, it's a trade off, time vs. money. Personally I think the delivery costs are to high, but I also live four minutes away from the supermarket on foot. For others it's one less thing to deal with and they can do the shopping in the evening when the kids are put to bed or have the groceries ready when they come home after a long day. For them the delivery fee is well worth the value the service provides.
It's the $10+ for getting McDonalds multiple times a week I struggle with. People are free to make that choice obviously, but I feel like the delivery services are praying on people who are already struggling, especially when they team up the Buy Now Pay Later companies.
[–] cwillu 11 hours ago
[–] sumeno 10 hours ago
[–] quickthrowman 8 hours ago
The rest of the delivery charge is ‘baked’ into the price of the food.
[–] jansan 13 hours ago
[–] jansan 14 hours ago
[–] lizardking 13 hours ago
[–] fosron 13 hours ago
[–] jansan 13 hours ago
[–] Liuser 13 hours ago
I’m not going judge how folks spend their money. It’s their money and they’re all valid reasons regardless.
You'll always get some people who argue that time is money and that the saved time that people have from ordering from these services is an opportunity cost. But the reality is I'd wager that for probably 99% of the population, this is actually not true and the economics doesn't work out favorably after accounting for all the fees.
So then, all that is really left is convenience. And personally, I don't really find it that convenient at all. Often times the time it takes for an order to land on your doorstep is meaningfully longer than it would have taken for you to drive to the store and pick it up yourself.
In other words - these services really just profit off of laziness. And the sad part is I think we're just promoting a lazy society overall with lots of the newer services being offered.