Amazon excepting SNAP???

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Barty

Not sure why the indignation.

I understand that the indignation comes from the idea of trying to entice someone who can't or shouldn't be spending money on something to do so anyway, against their best interest.

Like when Judge Reinhold's character in "Ruthless People" tried to sell the kid the huge, over priced speakers (Caution: Language NSFW):



As for whether Amazon actually is doing that here (or if Amazon might be PERCEIVED to be doing that here, which is apparently the same thing these days) is under discussion.

ApK

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ApK

I understand that the indignation comes from the idea of trying to entice someone who can't or shouldn't be spending money on something to do so anyway, against their best interest.

Like when Judge Reinhold's character in "Ruthless People" tried to sell the kid the huge, over priced speakers (Caution: Language NSFW):



As for whether Amazon actually is doing that here (or if Amazon might be PERCEIVED to be doing that here, which is apparently the same thing these days) is under discussion.

ApK

I don't think Amazon is trying to coerce anyone into anything. If you already shop there or already have Prime which as fjtorres pointed out 30% of SNAP people use then yes that is a reasonable deal even if before taxes (which someone's government gets),even though it is only a $2.25 cents a month savings over the year price. But yes $6 a month is usually easier to come up with than $100 once a year or even $72 and tax.

But I don't think all SNAP people are going to rush out to sign up for prime.

Now the big question is "will Amazon start offering cheaper groceries next year"?
To take advantage of part of that $13 billion that Walmart is getting or even part of the who knows how much from the overpriced neighborhood stores.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Prime seems to be a luxury, not a necessity--for anyone. I don't understand why people who are having financial challenges would sign up for Prime, even at the slightly reduced price.

I doubt I could keep it up (if I had it) even with the price back down at $79.00. That may not sound like a lot but when you are on a budget and something goes wrong so that you suddenly have an extra expense that you now have no extra $ for (even once a year) then it is a problem.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

If they are replacing a $50/month cable bill with a $79/year prime streaming bill, it could make a lot of sense.

Well, so would replacing the cable bill with the regular $99/year fee; is the extra $1.50 a month a deal-breaker when people with limited funds are assessing priorities?

Originally Posted by ApK

...or getting pantry items and needed sundries shipped home for free rather than spending time and gas driving somewhere. I can see ways to use it wisely and helpfully.

But yes, it would require one to use good judgment.

But don't you think most orders of this type would meet the existing $25 threshold? And the folks who are using food stamps can't use them to buy this stuff at Amazon; they've still got to get to whatever local grocery stores. How does Prime benefit them?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In that case you wouldn't believe the many "odd" things people with limited funds buy.

This is one demographic that would really benefit from the Prime perks, especially the transportation-challenged. The savings over neighborhood store prices are substantial enough but the value of fast free delivery is not to be underestimated. Just remember, Amazon sells groceries and other essentials not just "luxuries".

This not a bad thing.

Is it a hardship to combine/delay orders to meet a $25 minimum?

Originally Posted by ApK

I understand that the indignation comes from the idea of trying to entice someone who can't or shouldn't be spending money on something to do so anyway, against their best interest.

Exactly. It feels like they're trying to con people into buying something they don't need because they're making it a "bargain." If people now who are financially strapped are spending their money on Prime membership, fine--it's their business how they decide to allocate their income even if I think they're foolish. But when Amazon tries to attract more such people to spend their money by cutting the price, as if Amazon is doing them some kind of favor (We're charging you less for something you don't need!), it's distasteful.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ApK

I understand that the indignation comes from the idea of trying to entice someone who can't or shouldn't be spending money on something to do so anyway, against their best interest.

Like when Judge Reinhold's character in "Ruthless People" tried to sell the kid the huge, over priced speakers (Caution: Language NSFW):



ApK

So what if it's as big as a Subaru and costs as much? You'll never have to trade this in! This is gonna be with you for the rest of your life! And when you die, they can BURY you in it!

Oh man, I love that movie!

I would like to know what kind of copyright issues there are that are keeping that movie from getting a remastered release?

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by ApK

I understand that the indignation comes from the idea of trying to entice someone who can't or shouldn't be spending money on something to do so anyway, against their best interest.

Like when Judge Reinhold's character in "Ruthless People" tried to sell the kid the huge, over priced speakers (Caution: Language NSFW):



As for whether Amazon actually is doing that here (or if Amazon might be PERCEIVED to be doing that here, which is apparently the same thing these days) is under discussion.

ApK

It's common for people to attribute nefarious motives to corporations rather than altruistic ones. But maybe Amazon is genuinely trying to be nice to people who need it the most? Or, maybe their most self-centered motivation with this program is that they wish is to create thankful customers who, when they rise out of their situation of poverty, will be loyal Amazon customers. Who knows?

One thing that I do know: Amazon has admitted that people who have Prime do spend more than those without it. But with their typical reticence concerning things like this, they refuse to say how much the spending goes up. I had Prime for one year, two or three years ago. To be honest, most of the stuff are things that I could have easily done without; most of the rest of it are things that I never use and actually help clutter the house. My shopping with Amazon went up exponentially during that year. I'm still paying for it (via credit card payments). People in difficult financial situations do not need this.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But don't you think most orders of this type would meet the existing $25 threshold? And the folks who are using food stamps can't use them to buy this stuff at Amazon; they've still got to get to whatever local grocery stores. How does Prime benefit them?

I presume this move is in advance of them accepting SNAP for that stuff. They are apparently interested in exploring that:
http://modernfarmer.com/2017/02/amaz...d-stamps-kind/

I also presume people on SNAP occasionally have to buy stuff thats not SNAP related, like shirts and smoke alarms, and Amazon may want to encourage them to see if they can save money doing that shopping with Prime.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

I had Prime for one year, two or three years ago. My shopping with Amazon went up exponentially during that year. I'm still paying for it (via credit card payments). People in difficult financial situations do not need this.

You're assuming everyone would fall prey to carrying balances on their credit cards like you did. Many people are perfectly capable of only spending that which they can afford to spend that month. I've been a Prime member for several years, and I've never once carried an Amazon balance on my credit card from one month to the next. Some people (even--or especially--those of lower income) know that over-extending themselves with credit card debt is a recipe for disaster. Using a credit card for online purchases does not inherently imply over-spending (Prime or no Prime).

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well, so would replacing the cable bill with the regular $99/year fee; is the extra $1.50 a month a deal-breaker when people with limited funds are assessing priorities?



But don't you think most orders of this type would meet the existing $25 threshold? And the folks who are using food stamps can't use them to buy this stuff at Amazon; they've still got to get to whatever local grocery stores. How does Prime benefit them?



Is it a hardship to combine/delay orders to meet a $25 minimum?



Exactly. It feels like they're trying to con people into buying something they don't need because they're making it a "bargain." If people now who are financially strapped are spending their money on Prime membership, fine--it's their business how they decide to allocate their income even if I think they're foolish. But when Amazon tries to attract more such people to spend their money by cutting the price, as if Amazon is doing them some kind of favor (We're charging you less for something you don't need!), it's distasteful.

What about clothes, school supplies, assorted miscellaneous that is cheaper on Amazon than anywhere else?
Oh yes, because paying for gas and insurance on a car is less than $6 a month. (Oh wait, I think that should be a day especially by the time you add in oil changes, inspections and tags.)

Not everyone drives. Some of us can't see well enough. I don't anyone that could drive me to the store while hubby is at work.
If I needed something from the store right now, I would have to either walk in this heat to the overpriced store or call a taxi. We do have a bus service but it is crappy and yeah I would have to wait in the sun for the bus, no benches, no shade, no nothing.
This is why I have a stocked house and part of the reason I shop at Amazon.
It would cost at least $10 for the taxi.


Hey, I have a little suggestion to the ones that think Prime and Amazon are always luxuries.
Tell them with your wallets. Don't shop there for anything.
Don't ever mention that word either so it doesn't come up in a search. Someone might like the idea they are trying to give a certain group an advantage.

Another thought, on the cost, if you have the money one month but not the next, it doesn't matter because you can always get it again when you have the money or really need something in two days and the $6 would be less than what it would cost locally.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're assuming everyone would fall prey to carrying balances on their credit cards like you did. Many people are perfectly capable of only spending that which they can afford to spend that month. I've been a Prime member for several years, and I've never once carried an Amazon balance on my credit card from one month to the next. Some people (even--or especially--those of lower income) know that over-extending themselves with credit card debt is a recipe for disaster. Using a credit card for online purchases does not inherently imply over-spending (Prime or no Prime).

My spending hasn't gone up just because we have Prime. If we need something we get it, if we don't need it, we don't buy anything. * Over a certain amount, hubby and I talk about all purchases. Credit cards paid off every month.
Though there are months when he asks how did the bill get so high. Then we go over every purchase. It is usually well we did this $50,(oil change) and then that $60,(battery)$100 on the gas card, vacation $100. Found the extra $300 in a hurry. That was the last one.
*except cookbooks and stuff from the thrift shops at times.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And the folks who are using food stamps can't use them to buy this stuff at Amazon; they've still got to get to whatever local grocery stores. How does Prime benefit them?

They don't need to go to any grocery store if they can get a family member to go get the groceries for them. Then they only need to buy whatever else they need online.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

What about clothes, school supplies, assorted miscellaneous that is cheaper on Amazon than anywhere else?
Oh yes, because paying for gas and insurance on a car is less than $6 a month. (Oh wait, I think that should be a day especially by the time you add in oil changes, inspections and tags.)

But you don't NEED Prime to shop at Amazon and take advantage of lower prices. All you have to do is meet a $25 minimum for free shipping. A little planning and combining of orders, and that's not so difficult.

Not everyone drives. Some of us can't see well enough. I don't anyone that could drive me to the store while hubby is at work.
If I needed something from the store right now, I would have to either walk in this heat to the overpriced store or call a taxi. We do have a bus service but it is crappy and yeah I would have to wait in the sun for the bus, no benches, no shade, no nothing.
This is why I have a stocked house and part of the reason I shop at Amazon.
It would cost at least $10 for the taxi.

I don't drive. I walk or take a bus.

Hey, I have a little suggestion to the ones that think Prime and Amazon are always luxuries.
Tell them with your wallets. Don't shop there for anything.
Don't ever mention that word either so it doesn't come up in a search. Someone might like the idea they are trying to give a certain group an advantage.

Another thought, on the cost, if you have the money one month but not the next, it doesn't matter because you can always get it again when you have the money or really need something in two days and the $6 would be less than what it would cost locally.

It seems like you are conflating shopping at Amazon with using Prime. I'm all for shopping at Amazon--it's both convenient and economical. Prime, however, is a luxury.

And let me say again that if people who have financial struggles want to use Prime, that's their business. My issue is with AMAZON trying to pretend that they're somehow doing folks a favor by cutting the Prime price by a paltry amount. If Amazon wants to do something for the financially strapped among us, let them offer a percent discount on certain merchandise or find some other way that isn't taking extra money from those people. They're acting in a very calculated and cynical way to line their own pockets while pretending they're being good guys.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by ApK

Some silly data analyst probably mistakenly thought their job was to accurately analyse data rather than try to skew and/or ignore it for political correctness. I'm sure they were disabused of that notion.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps they only employed 'silly data analysts' to decide where to implement same-day delivery when they should've also employed people in other positions better equipped to consider the bigger picture in making the expansion decisions.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But you don't NEED Prime to shop at Amazon and take advantage of lower prices. All you have to do is meet a $25 minimum for free shipping. A little planning and combining of orders, and that's not so difficult.



I don't drive. I walk or take a bus.



It seems like you are conflating shopping at Amazon with using Prime. I'm all for shopping at Amazon--it's both convenient and economical. Prime, however, is a luxury.

And let me say again that if people who have financial struggles want to use Prime, that's their business. My issue is with AMAZON trying to pretend that they're somehow doing folks a favor by cutting the Prime price by a paltry amount. If Amazon wants to do something for the financially strapped among us, let them offer a percent discount on certain merchandise or find some other way that isn't taking extra money from those people. They're acting in a very calculated and cynical way to line their own pockets while pretending they're being good guys.

I hope you have a better bus system than we do.

On the last part, now your luxury makes sense to me. And totally agreeing on the paltry part.
Now if they are using Prime to cut entertainment costs, then the $6 is a killer deal.
They do have some very cute kid shows.

Oh wait, you would need good internet for that and so another expense.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Perhaps. Or, perhaps they only employed 'silly data analysts' to decide where to implement same-day delivery when they should've also employed people in other positions better equipped to consider the bigger picture in making the expansion decisions.

Same thing, different point of view.