Instacart reaches into your pocket and lops a third off your dollars(pluralistic.net)
pluralistic.net
Instacart reaches into your pocket and lops a third off your dollars
https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/11/nothing-personal/
28 comments
> At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we call this "privacy first": you can't solve all the internet's problems by fixing privacy, but you won't fix most of them unless we get privacy right, and so the (potential) coalition for a strong privacy regime is large and powerful:
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.
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.
Related Consumer Reports post:
https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46205041)
https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46205041)
I have a really hard time believing that people who are actually struggling to make ends meet would use Instacart. This article does point out some pretty despicable behavior, but its attempt to pull at heartstrings falls flat due to the idiotic nature in which the argument is constructed. It’s comparable to complaining how terrible it is that caviar costs different amounts to different homeless people. Should’ve just stuck to the numbers — they are compelling and the story does need to be told.
Have you ever watched Caleb Hammer's "Financial Audit?"
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.
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.
You are privileged enough to be ABLE to make good decisions. Some people are victims of the boots theory of economics and better choices aren't actually an option.
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]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
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]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
You make dangerous assumptions about me in order to justify your preexisting view of poverty and socioeconomic mobility.
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.
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.
You arent wrong that some people just stink at finance. Thats not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about those who WOULD make better decisions if they were able. What is sometimes referred to as "the poverty trap."
> 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.
> 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.
Please absolutely do not use that ragebaiter to draw conclusions about poor people.
I don't need to use him. I know plenty of poors who routinely shoot themselves in the foot IRL.
Cognitive ability/IQ is actually a better metric for predicting poverty than socioeconomic background BTW.
Cognitive ability/IQ is actually a better metric for predicting poverty than socioeconomic background BTW.
No, it famously isn't.
> When you live in a food desert where your only store is a Dollar General that defrauds you at the cash-register, you are more likely to accept a higher price from Instacart, because you have fewer choices than someone in a middle-class neighborhood with two or three competing grocers.
Yes, that’s exactly my point. My family has been poor. 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.
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.
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.
Poverty is nothing if not diverse. You can't judge what others are dealing with based only on what was true for your experiences.
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.
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.
In rural America their often is no bus.
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.
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.
This is also nonsense. Instacart is too new for anyone over 18 to have somehow not died of hunger if they live out of reach of food if they had no way to get food before Instacart’s existence…
The point is that it is an option they have which subtly costs them significantly more money than it advertises. It makes itself appear to be a roughly equal option with a known, easily calculable fee. It can be budgeted, and might for someone working long hours who doesn't have the time to walk however far or travel however long on public transit to get to the grocery store and back (or who simply sees a roughly equal option which saves them a lot of time).
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.
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.
Cars breakdown. Bodies become injured. The weather gets bad. Babysitters get ill or quit.
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.
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.
And your point is that before Instacart all those people died of hunger? Please!
No. I was replying to a parent comment that said:
> 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.
> 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.
> The poorer you are, the less your time costs
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.
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.
There's limitations on how much you can carry on the bus.
I imagine some people use Instacart because they don’t have a car and there are no grocery stores or public transit nearby.
They still usually can buy lots of food from amazon/walmart in bulk with cheap/free home delivery and cook at home.
> Instacart has disclosed its pricing experiments in corporate marketing and investor materials, noting that “shoppers are not aware that they’re in an experiment.”
If it’s not a big deal why don’t they come out and tell the users?
If it’s not a big deal why don’t they come out and tell the users?
Instacart (and other delivery providers) accepts EBT SNAP.
The price of caviar fluctuates a lot depending on quality and where you are buying it, there would really be no reason to get angry about that.
Why doesn't Instacart directly display their sucker ooops "surge pricing" ? This would empower poor people to make an informed choice on directly funding the billionaires associated with Sequoia Capital so that they can buy their next luxury yachts faster. Have some pity for the oligarchs!
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)