Hacker News
points by jvanderbot 11 hours ago | 0 comments
No way.

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 11 hours ago
Is it only $10 extra to have dinner for 4 delivered? IME the cost was much more than that, when you factor in the difference in menu price, the delivery fee, the tip, and the govt surcharges.
[–] jvanderbot 11 hours ago
Fair! But $10 establishes a lower bound on a rational audience's TAM at a quarter billion a year. If it's higher, the TAM goes up without requiring loss of rationality / non-laziness of the customer base.
[–] coredog64 11 hours ago
Chase Sapphire Reserve would net that out to approximately $0 on a monthly basis after credits and rebates.
[–] apparent 10 hours ago
For a mere $800, I can net the fees to "approximately $0"? What a steal!

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 9 hours ago
Oh come on, Chase Sapphire Reserve doesn't just give you Doordash credits. I probably save $5k/yr on travel alone with that card. A subsidized Doordash every month is just an added bonus.

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 9 hours ago
Sounds like you've got a sweet thing going! If most people could save $5,000/yr on things they would have otherwise purchased, then they'd all have CSR, right?

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 11 hours ago
>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.

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 11 hours ago
My example is _not_ preying. That $10 does nothing to help our lives if invested in diversified etfs, for example. The _best_ use of that $10 is to alleviate the instantaneous stressors for 4-5 people all at once so we can relax and solve larger problems (my spouse works for pro-social non-profits, for example).

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 11 hours ago
This is a question that's going to sound stupid and maybe insensitive, but that aside - how do you think people managed to do this in your exact same scenario for the last 50+ years without having a service like this?

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 11 hours ago
Pizza delivery has been a thing for the last 50 years. And in my own childhood, my parents kept tv dinners and other instant sodium-bombs like easy mac or ramen on hand.

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 11 hours ago
You're getting stones thrown at you when you were trying to be polite.

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 11 hours ago
The usual answer to this question: "things were shitty in the past"
[–] hext 11 hours ago
50 years ago most households did not have both parents working full time.
[–] vineyardmike 11 hours ago
People also used to live in caves and wipe their ass with sticks.

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.