Convenience Culture: Impacts on Consumer Behavior and Ethics

Chelsea emphasizes the need for consumers to critically assess their spending habits and the hidden costs of convenience services.

### Navigating Convenience Culture: A Call for Conscious Consumerism
* 📱 Chelsea shares her reflections on the comments from the latest video essay, discussing the **complexities of convenience culture** and **consumer habits**.
* 💭 The November video essay explores how convenience culture parallels consumer culture, emphasizing the shift towards **cheaper services** that can lead to **increased reliance and mental health issues**.
* 💸 While many convenience services like Uber and Amazon provide ease, they often come at **high costs**, not just financially but also in terms of **labor rights** and the impact on **small businesses**.
* 🤔 Chelsea acknowledges that while some argue that consumer responsibility is limited, having disposable income implies a need for **more discerning spending choices**, especially since delivery apps can **cost significantly more** than traditional options.
* 🌍 She addresses the dual nature of convenience services, noting their **life-changing benefits for people with disabilities** while also urging a **critical examination of their exploitative business practices**.
* 👩 Chelsea highlights the historical context of outsourcing domestic labor from affluent women to underpaid workers, questioning why the responsibility for household tasks isn't **shared more equitably within families**.
* 🛍 She encourages viewers to consider small changes, like **supporting local businesses** instead of relying on convenience apps, to **mitigate the negative impacts** of these services on the economy and society.
* 🌱 Ultimately, Chelsea emphasizes the importance of being **conscious consumers**, advocating for a balance between enjoying conveniences and understanding their **broader implications on labor and mental well-being**.

Hey everyone, it's me, Chelsea. I'm coming at you here from this very impromptu iPhone video, um, just because I've been reading the comments on our latest video essay, and it's sparked a lot of conversation, to say the least. And I just kind of want to talk to you guys.

Um, for the record, I read not every single one of the comments, because I don't think that's possible at this point, but I read quite a lot of them. In fact, sometimes too many for my own mental health. Um, and I just love hearing what you guys have to say. You guys always leave the most thoughtful, interesting comments, and they really make me think and they inspire the work that we do here.

Um, for context, our November video essay, where a lot of this conversation is happening, is all about convenience culture, which is a sister video to our October video essay, which is all about consumer culture. So in the consumer culture video, we talked about how, essentially, our consumer model is moving us towards a paradigm of 'buy more for less.' Period. And that manifests in all different ways, um, and is, no surprise, terrible for our mental well-being and our psychology. But that has sort of become the business model of a lot of industries.

Fast fashion is the perfect example, but this is happening all around our lives. Convenience culture is kind of the parallel to that in that, rather than offering us more tangible products necessarily, it's about offering us more and more services for cheaper and integrating them into every aspect of our lives and increasingly kind of making us reliant on them. And a lot of what we talk about in the video is the fact that these sorts of convenience...

Services, whether it's Amazon or Uber, or you know, all of the food delivery, grocery delivery—all of these things come at a very high cost, whether or not we are the ones paying them (although often we are), because these are extremely expensive services, normally, compared to

the alternative of doing something oneself, etc. Um, and therefore are usually reserved for at least middle-class consumers, uh, but often much higher-income consumers are the ones heavily using these services. Um, that they do come at a cost to a lot of other things, and notably in

the case of service economies, they come at the cost of labor rights. Right? Like, a lot of the business models of these services have been to completely decimate the small businesses that they work with. Like, Amazon makes it essentially impossible to compete as a

small business. We're going into this a lot more in our December essay, but you know, Uber has essentially completely deregulated the taxi industry, has been pushing very hard against public transit. Um, you know, the food delivery apps are terrible for drivers and they're terrible for restaurants. Like, you know, these things again come at a cost, but they also are very much designed to make us more reliant on them. Um, and I say in the video that I use some of this stuff, it's certainly not to

pretend that I'm not part of this consumer economy, because I am. Like, I literally did a month-long food spending challenge in the month of February because I was spending too much on takeout and delivery, and I was not cooking enough at home. But I think when

You talk about convenience spending in particular; there's often, I think, a level of resistance to interrogating those habits that we don't even see necessarily as much with other consumer spending, although you do see it there too. But there have been a lot of comments

in particular that I kind of want to respond to because I think they raise interesting points. Um, one of the comments that I saw a lot on the convenience spending video was something like, 'Just because these companies have terrible labor practices or are exploitative, or whatever the case may be, that's not my responsibility as the consumer.' And I think there is some truth to that, right? Like, there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, however you want to say it. But like, you can definitely

say that there's not a one-to-one correlation between you as the consumer and what is happening as a result of those business practices. But I do think—because here's the thing—definitionally, if you are someone who has the disposable income to be

regularly ordering on, you know, Grubhub or Postmates, or regularly taking Ubers, or regularly buying things off of Amazon Prime, like, by definition you have a level of discernment in your budget, uh, because these things are generally much more expensive than the alternatives. I

mean, literally just delivery apps alone will cost you like three times as much as going into a restaurant in many cases. Like, you have the disposable income to be a more discerning consumer, um, which is why we featured, as one of our guests, a woman who tries to run a sort

of an ethical alternative to some of these apps, and I do personally believe that the more flexibility you have in your budget, the more of an ethical responsibility you have to be thoughtful about where you're spending that money. Again, it's not black or white; it doesn't

mean you'll never spend with these companies, um, or that you'll have completely perfect spending. But I do think it's a good opportunity to think about what that means and really go over your spending choices because these companies are making these enormous profits off of your spending decisions.

And even just the way we talk about these things, the way we normalize them, the way we show them on social media—that all has an impact on how effective these companies are at being able to continue getting away with murder, in some cases. Um, and similarly,

another comment was something to the effect of, you know, 'these conveniences are game changers for...for disabilities.' Um, which I want to say, first and foremost, we acknowledge that in the video, and I think that's true. Like, a lot of these consumer services that are

hyper-convenient, um, are life-changing for people who rely on them from an ability perspective, and I never want to dismiss that. But I also think that two things can be true at once: they can be game-changing for certain portions of the population, and we can still exert

more pressure on them and on ourselves, um, to have them not offer so much convenience at the expense of so much exploitation, um, and so much erosion of many sectors of the economy and, again, of our mental health. Because when we look at how much we're spending on these

Things we can see a direct relationship between increased consumption and decreased happiness. The increased need, the increased isolation—like these things have a very negative impact. Um, but I also think, to some extent, the disability conversation, as it pertains to the business practices, let's

say, or the labor practices of some of these companies, is—I don't want to say a distraction because it's not, because it's true—but it is also, I think, the wrong question to be asking ourselves. In the sense of, why can't we do both? Why

can't we ask both of these companies that are more profitable than the GDP of a lot of nations? Um, it reminds me a lot of when you speak about fast fashion consumption in particular. Um, there will almost always inevitably—it's in every video we've ever done talking

about fast fashion—comments about, 'Well, some people can only afford fast fashion.' First of all, okay, true enough. But for everyone on this video who does have more consumer—viable consumer options, let's talk about it. Um, and more importantly, the very business model of a lot of

these companies, like fast fashion for example, um, even if we're leaving aside, you know, shopping secondhand and all of these other alternatives, um, which again may not be applicable to everyone but are certainly applicable to a lot of people, um, even if we leave all of that aside,

the business model of these companies only functions if people are buying way more of the items than they would at a more expensive store. Um, so, you know, for me, we can still be critical of, you know, companies that rely on creating 52 micro-seasons a year so that people are

constantly bringing new clothes into their closet, or doing hauls or updating their wardrobe every season, while acknowledging that not enough people have enough options for buying higher-quality, more sustainably and ethically made products. Um, I just think in general, when it comes to these consumer

decisions, like we can walk and chew gum, and we can also acknowledge where there is a real level of need while pointing out where there's a real level of excess. You know, and similarly, some of the comments were talking about how a lot of these conveniences um were essentially, in the past, performed by women,

and I think that's a really unique thing. I think it's a really interesting angle to explore because we talk about all the time on the channel the way that women's labor has been stretched so thin in both the domestic and

professional space, because now women are expected to work full-time and be full-time caregivers at home, um and sort of the domestic, essentially the unpaid intern of their own house at this point. Um, and we talk about that all the time and how much

that is a massive problem. And I think there's a couple things to acknowledge there, and they're sort of uncomfortable, right? Because one of them, when you look at the stats of who is engaging in all of these convenience services, right? Because again, they are

very expensive by definition. Like if you are someone who is getting all of your groceries delivered regularly, getting meals delivered, uh regularly taking car services, um having services come to your home, you know, all these kinds of things, by definition you are a higher-income individual because

They are expensive, and we see that in the numbers. We can see how people are spending on them. So what you're often saying by saying that these services have replaced the labor of women is, for a certain class of women, and often that correlates with other things like being, you know,

aside from just being a higher income, they're also usually white; they're also usually heterosexual. All of these other things. You have essentially taken the labor from them and put it into what is often, as we discussed in the video, a subclass of underpaid,

unregulated, uh, not even employed workers who have no benefits, who have no recourse, in many cases are not even documented immigrants, um, who have no sick leave, who have no maternity leave. Like we are outsourcing the labor of a certain class of women

onto, again, a subclass of worker—you know, essentially a serfdom. Um, and I think it's worth interrogating ourselves because this is not a new thing, right? Like the domestic labor of more affluent women being outsourced to less affluent people, usually women,

usually women of color. Like that is not—that's not new. This is—it's just been sort of industrialized at a scale that we've never seen before. Um, and my question for a lot of these situations in the home, and again there are always going to be instances where it is

absolutely necessary to engage in these conveniences, even, you know, at a really, really high rate. But for all the times where it isn't, my first question for the people who are outsourcing this labor to, you know, an underpaid worker is, why are we not?

Outsourcing it to our husband; why are we not outsourcing it to the other adult in the marriage? Because, as we've discussed in many videos, we can see in these more affluent households that even when women are working full-time and no longer have

the time to do any of these domestic tasks, the husbands aren't increasingly taking on domestic labor. It is just becoming more and more unbalanced within the relationship. But I say all of this to say, uh, none of this is black and white, right? This is not to

say that we should never take a car service or never order anything off of Amazon or any of this stuff. The point is to interrogate where we are resistant to examining our own habits, to examining what we think that we need, um, and what is actually additive to our

lives versus just cluttering our lives. Um, and I do talk a little bit generationally about how we can see that younger people are much more frequently engaging with these kinds of convenience apps; they're ordering online more, the two-day shipping, they're ordering food,

they're taking car services—all of these things. It's not to be like, ooh, you know, I'm not, you know, a boomer over here being like, 'Gen Z doesn't know how to work anymore,' anything like that. I'm part of this generation, right, that's that's

engaging with these things at a much higher rate. I think the question becomes, to what extent do we feel that we're entitled to outsource so much of our lives without any concern of what it means on the other end, without any concern of who is actually now having to

be responsible for that labor, and what is their life like? Um, and I do think that we can be conscientious of that. I do think that we can interrogate those companies, interrogate those systems, be more vocal, be more engaged in our own communities about how we sort of resist

the essentially total takeover, in a lot of cases, by these unregulated gig worker-based economies. Um, even something as simple as, you know, it's about to be the holidays; like, how many of us could challenge ourselves to shop as local as possible, to avoid as much as possible

using these apps to actually go to a restaurant or even just call them to order directly, because many of them will have their own delivery services that they go outside of these apps because the apps take such a huge portion of their income that they can't afford to

be on them. Um, or even just going to pick it up ourselves, or doing small things, small acts that allow us to still have convenience, still enjoy these things in our lives, but be a little bit more conscientious about the cost that they're coming at. Just kind of a final

thought. I always love talking to you guys, and I take your comments and feedback very seriously. And I understand that the role that these conveniences play in our lives is complicated, and it definitely doesn't have a black-or-white answer, and there's never going to

be a solution that works for everyone. Um, but I do think that, for a lot of us, the first step I think to becoming just overall more conscious individuals is to become conscious of our own decisions, and it's something that I try to do all the time, um, that I'm, you know, certainly

In no way am I perfect; I could improve on a million different fronts. Um, but I think it's always a conversation worth having, and I think if we just reject out of hand that a better alternative is possible, or that we as consumers have some power to push

back on some of these really exploitative practices, I think we'll just be a lot better off for it. Um, but anyway, that's just my little chat with you guys. Bye.

Let's Talk About Entitlement Culture

The Financial Diet helps you rethink your relationship with money, culture, and class.

Education & commentary on the systems we interact with every day, from influencer culture, to economic systems, to financial privilege.

Talk to us at hello@thefinancialdiet.com

The Financial Diet

Chelsea addresses comments on their latest video essay about convenience culture.

She acknowledges reading many comments and appreciates viewers' thoughtful feedback.

The November essay on convenience culture is linked to the October essay on consumer culture, focusing on 'buy more for less'.

Convenience culture offers services cheaply, integrating them into daily life and creating reliance.

Costs and Consequences of Convenience Culture

Convenience services are expensive, often unaffordable for lower-income individuals, and negatively impact labor rights.

Examples include Amazon's impact on small businesses and Uber's effect on the taxi industry and public transit.

Chelsea admits to using these services but emphasizes the need for mindful consumption.

She highlights resistance to examining convenience spending habits compared to other consumer spending.

Consumer Responsibility and Ethical Consumption

Chelsea addresses the argument that consumers aren't responsible for exploitative business practices.

She argues that those with disposable income for convenience services have a greater ethical responsibility.

She mentions featuring a guest who offers ethical alternatives and stresses the importance of thoughtful spending.

The normalization of convenience services on social media impacts their continued success.

Chelsea acknowledges that convenience services are life-changing for people with disabilities.

She emphasizes that acknowledging this doesn't negate the need to address exploitation and economic consequences.

She questions why both convenience and ethical considerations can't be addressed simultaneously.

Comparing Convenience Culture to Fast Fashion

The discussion parallels the fast fashion debate, acknowledging affordability while criticizing excessive consumption.

She points out that fast fashion's business model relies on overconsumption.

She advocates for critical examination of companies creating excessive micro-seasons and promoting overconsumption.

Chelsea suggests a balanced approach: acknowledging need while addressing excess.

Convenience, Women's Labor, and Class Inequality

The conversation shifts to how convenience services have historically replaced women's labor.

Chelsea discusses the disproportionate burden on women in both professional and domestic spheres.

She highlights that users of convenience services are often higher-income, white, and heterosexual women.

This outsourcing of labor often involves underpaid, unregulated workers, many undocumented, with no benefits.

Chelsea questions why the labor isn't outsourced to husbands or other partners in affluent households.

Chelsea discusses generational differences in convenience app usage.

She questions the entitlement to outsource labor without considering the consequences for workers.

She encourages conscious consumer choices, supporting local businesses and avoiding exploitative apps.

Chelsea emphasizes the need for conscious decision-making and acknowledges the complexity of the issue.

She encourages viewers to reject the idea that better alternatives are impossible and to push back against exploitative practices.