That is an excellent response. In that guy's world, ticket prices for movies should be driven by how much the movie cost to produce. Yet Blair Witch Project tickets were the same price as Titanic tickets.
people assess the value of goods based on how expensive they perceive them to be to manufacture, store and ship, plus some margin
I have never done this in my life. A size 14 shoe should be more expensive than a size 4 shoe, but it isn't. It doesn't cost $30,000 more to manufacture a BMW 5 series than it does a Honda Civic. Even with the car analogy, cars that come from farther away often have a lower shipping cost than cars that are manufactured closer, because distance isn't the driving factor (even though logically it should be).
In my assessment, most people determine the value of goods based on the relative quality of it versus comparable products. I pay $50k for a BMW 5 series, not because it costs more to manufacture or because it has more materials (bigger) than a Honda Civic. I do so because it is a better car. Sure it may cost more to design and build a better car (read: you can make a car cheaper by cutting costs and corners) but not the extent of 10s of thousand of dollars cheaper.
I'm a designer. I always say it doesn't cost any more money to design something better from the start. It costs just as much to make a bad design as it does a good one, but it costs a lot more to fix a bad design, so why not just make it good from the start?
I disagree. I'm willing to pay upwards of $100 for a good (TV Series on DVD, Video Game, Studio Recording, etc.) if that's the cost of quality. Since crappy tv shows, music and games dominate the market and drive the prices, it's practically impossible to make a profit making a good version of any of those.
But it doesn't matter. A rich person who spends 1,000,000 and pays 85,000 in taxes has spent more in taxes than a poor person makes in 4 years of working.
Yes, check cashing places and sales taxes *affect* the poor more, but poor people don't *pay more sales taxes*. Rich people still pay more in sales taxes because they spend more money.
Rich people pay more sales tax than poor people, because they spend more money. Notice I didnt' say they spend a higher percentage of their income. Just total money they spend and total amount of taxes they pay is higher than poor people.
The sales tax probably affects a poor person more, though.
Hasbro (particularly Wizards of the Coast) charge the Texas sales tax when buying "digital trading cards", even though Wizards is in Seattle, and they aren't shipping me any physical goods. My "shipping" address in these cases is my parents' house in Oregon (no sales tax).
I'm curious if Musician's Friend and others who have distribution centers (but not sales) in the state also pay taxes?
And why not just pass the cost on to the customer? It's not like I"m going to stop using Amazon if they tack on 6% sales tax that I already pay everywhere I go anyway.
I have 4 phones, all with data, and I pay $30/month for data for all 4. (AT&T Family plan) I'm not sure which data plan you have that is $40 for each phone per month.
Wait...what??? 6 hours of talk time is all you get? How is that better than the average smart phone??? My iPhone has an advertised 8 hours of talk time (and all the other benefits already mentioned above).
I thought one of your requirements was to have a landline so that you can have a phone with a longer battery life. Now all you have to fall back on is you can swap out the second hand set. (Additional cost of second handset being how much?) Or you can charge your smartphone once, while you sleep, and have it available for pretty much all the next day (with multiple ways to charge during the day).
I'm not implying that this is viable only for me. I am implying that it is viable, and logical for 99% of the population. Even my neophyte old-ass parents and inlaws have dropped their landlines. It's the stubborn few (like yourself?) that insist that they HAVE to have the antiquated technology of a physical line coming into their house. I'm curious to know what technical requirements you have that require a landline, other than battery life? You realize there is no such thing as "long distance plans" on a cell phone? I think you are closing your mind and not seeing many ways to actually SAVE money.
And if your wife's employer is paying for the landline and Internet connection, that frees up money for you to afford a smart phone, which contradicts your original predicament that you don't want to pay for both.
That's cool, though. I have lots of friends who don't like progress and live like it's 1995.
I don't get it...it's not about feeling the need to be "connected every moment of the day". It's about being able to be connected any time you want and need. I go entire days without using any data on my phone (because I work in software and am constantly "connected" at work and home by my computers).
You are definitely right about the status symbol thing. My kid uses my old first gen iPhone. Not even his middle school friends care, because they all have some sort of $200-ish smart phone that was handed down from their parents.
I have a charger on two outlets in my house, and I have 4 computers with USB ports that can charge. I have a charger in my car. I have a computer at work with a USB port.
I haven't had a dead cell phone since I got my first smart phone in 2007. Even my 11-year old carries a usb cable around so he can charge his phone if he stays over at a friends.
Not saying I"m better than you...just saying it's not as hard as many people think to keep the phone charged (especially with the car charger).
With a smart phone you can get rid of your two land lines and your dumb phones, which consolidates the costs into one cost (family plan for 2 cell phones).
I had the same problem with all those bills. Instead of passing on the smart phone, I passed on the land lines.
I agree, except for the "not enough money" part. I'm trying to replace my 1st gen iPhone with a Go phone, and the cheapest one is $79. I might as well just spring $20 more for an iPhone 3Gs.
If $20 up front is too much money for somebody, than I'd suggest somebody doesn't need a cellular plan.
Or you could have a pleasant lunch with a smartphone owner like me who keeps his smartphone tucked away during pleasant lunches. Not all smartphone users are self-important pricks.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, arbitrarily declaring $5 as the "right" price just makes him look like a cheap-ass.
Did he really mean $5 an episode? I figured he meant $5 for an entire series.
That is an excellent response. In that guy's world, ticket prices for movies should be driven by how much the movie cost to produce. Yet Blair Witch Project tickets were the same price as Titanic tickets.
people assess the value of goods based on how expensive they perceive them to be to manufacture, store and ship, plus some margin
I have never done this in my life. A size 14 shoe should be more expensive than a size 4 shoe, but it isn't. It doesn't cost $30,000 more to manufacture a BMW 5 series than it does a Honda Civic. Even with the car analogy, cars that come from farther away often have a lower shipping cost than cars that are manufactured closer, because distance isn't the driving factor (even though logically it should be).
In my assessment, most people determine the value of goods based on the relative quality of it versus comparable products. I pay $50k for a BMW 5 series, not because it costs more to manufacture or because it has more materials (bigger) than a Honda Civic. I do so because it is a better car. Sure it may cost more to design and build a better car (read: you can make a car cheaper by cutting costs and corners) but not the extent of 10s of thousand of dollars cheaper.
I'm a designer. I always say it doesn't cost any more money to design something better from the start. It costs just as much to make a bad design as it does a good one, but it costs a lot more to fix a bad design, so why not just make it good from the start?
I disagree. I'm willing to pay upwards of $100 for a good (TV Series on DVD, Video Game, Studio Recording, etc.) if that's the cost of quality. Since crappy tv shows, music and games dominate the market and drive the prices, it's practically impossible to make a profit making a good version of any of those.
Why not go to both? Apple may keep 30% but whatever is left over is still greater than zero.
But it doesn't matter. A rich person who spends 1,000,000 and pays 85,000 in taxes has spent more in taxes than a poor person makes in 4 years of working.
Yes, check cashing places and sales taxes *affect* the poor more, but poor people don't *pay more sales taxes*. Rich people still pay more in sales taxes because they spend more money.
Rich people pay more sales tax than poor people, because they spend more money. Notice I didnt' say they spend a higher percentage of their income. Just total money they spend and total amount of taxes they pay is higher than poor people.
The sales tax probably affects a poor person more, though.
Texas has no income tax, therefore we have higher sales and property taxes to make up for it.
I grew up in Oregon, with no sales tax, but a 10% income tax and property taxes.
All societies need tax revenue--how the get it varies, but the end result is the same.
Hasbro (particularly Wizards of the Coast) charge the Texas sales tax when buying "digital trading cards", even though Wizards is in Seattle, and they aren't shipping me any physical goods. My "shipping" address in these cases is my parents' house in Oregon (no sales tax).
I'm curious if Musician's Friend and others who have distribution centers (but not sales) in the state also pay taxes?
And why not just pass the cost on to the customer? It's not like I"m going to stop using Amazon if they tack on 6% sales tax that I already pay everywhere I go anyway.
I have 4 phones, all with data, and I pay $30/month for data for all 4. (AT&T Family plan) I'm not sure which data plan you have that is $40 for each phone per month.
Wait...what??? 6 hours of talk time is all you get? How is that better than the average smart phone??? My iPhone has an advertised 8 hours of talk time (and all the other benefits already mentioned above).
I thought one of your requirements was to have a landline so that you can have a phone with a longer battery life. Now all you have to fall back on is you can swap out the second hand set. (Additional cost of second handset being how much?) Or you can charge your smartphone once, while you sleep, and have it available for pretty much all the next day (with multiple ways to charge during the day).
I'm not implying that this is viable only for me. I am implying that it is viable, and logical for 99% of the population. Even my neophyte old-ass parents and inlaws have dropped their landlines. It's the stubborn few (like yourself?) that insist that they HAVE to have the antiquated technology of a physical line coming into their house. I'm curious to know what technical requirements you have that require a landline, other than battery life? You realize there is no such thing as "long distance plans" on a cell phone? I think you are closing your mind and not seeing many ways to actually SAVE money.
And if your wife's employer is paying for the landline and Internet connection, that frees up money for you to afford a smart phone, which contradicts your original predicament that you don't want to pay for both.
That's cool, though. I have lots of friends who don't like progress and live like it's 1995.
I don't get it...it's not about feeling the need to be "connected every moment of the day". It's about being able to be connected any time you want and need. I go entire days without using any data on my phone (because I work in software and am constantly "connected" at work and home by my computers).
You are definitely right about the status symbol thing. My kid uses my old first gen iPhone. Not even his middle school friends care, because they all have some sort of $200-ish smart phone that was handed down from their parents.
Yes. We are dumb Americans and everyone should be like us! I spent 3 years in England trying to fix their spelling before I realised it was pointless.
I have a charger on two outlets in my house, and I have 4 computers with USB ports that can charge. I have a charger in my car. I have a computer at work with a USB port.
I haven't had a dead cell phone since I got my first smart phone in 2007. Even my 11-year old carries a usb cable around so he can charge his phone if he stays over at a friends.
Not saying I"m better than you...just saying it's not as hard as many people think to keep the phone charged (especially with the car charger).
With a smart phone you can get rid of your two land lines and your dumb phones, which consolidates the costs into one cost (family plan for 2 cell phones).
I had the same problem with all those bills. Instead of passing on the smart phone, I passed on the land lines.
I agree, except for the "not enough money" part. I'm trying to replace my 1st gen iPhone with a Go phone, and the cheapest one is $79. I might as well just spring $20 more for an iPhone 3Gs.
If $20 up front is too much money for somebody, than I'd suggest somebody doesn't need a cellular plan.
Or you could have a pleasant lunch with a smartphone owner like me who keeps his smartphone tucked away during pleasant lunches. Not all smartphone users are self-important pricks.
Some people may realize they THEMSELVES don't need to be connected all the time, but truly smart people don't think everyone else is just like them.
It wasn't on facebook, and she hasn't been fired...yet.
First, "you insensitive clod" is used around ironically...
Second, we don't know if the teacher was making the students believe they are bad, as her comments were, in her mind, private.
And I'm an educator, so nothing you just posted is news to me.
What exactly is wrong with calling lazy, sneaky, rude teenagers "lazy", "sneaky" and "rude"?