Price discrimination can sometimes be a positive to society. Imagine a high-fixed cost business. Say the first phone company. Some things, businesses, are willing to pay X for telecommunication. Some things, homes, are willing to pay X/20. It is totally conceivable that charging businesses X alone or charging businesses and homes X/20 does not generate the marginal profits to offset your huge fixed costs. But, charging business X and homes X/20, does.
In this case, price discrimination allows for the service to exist, and everyone benefits. At one point, first class on airplanes was the same principle. So are discounts on software prices for students.
So I can either spend years in college, work long long hours learning my craft, and here comes some guy who just shows up and makes almost the same income?
Yes. If this was true more and more, the world would probably be a better place. Fewer engineers who suck at math doing substandard work, etc.
We all know what happens when enough profit isn't made...
Well, he owns the company... and he slashed his salary to 70k. So, maybe they are already price competitive, with lower costs of executives and required profit.
That quote is totally apocryphal. He paid a lot because there were so many jobs available in Detroit at the time, that employees didn't care if they were fired. So they went from plant to plant, working for a month or so until their laziness got noticed. Or, if they were forced to work hard, they just quit He wanted them to give a shit about being employed by him.
Also, the Model T wasn't keeping up with demand when he raised their salary, so the idea of "needing customers" was total bullshit.
Yes, it still seems high. Because, and this is going to be amazing, of course you have less money after you spend it.
In your bills, you spend $7,600 just for internet/phone/cable (including mobile). That's really high. Also TV and smartphones are a luxury (any phone and home broadband I'll give you as a necessity).
You are purchasing a 350k+ home, and that's above what you can afford on a salary of 70k (by the standard 1/3 of takehome pay rule).
You're planning for a child and child care, so... is your spouse not also working? Because we''re talking about a single salary of 70k. If your spouse is also working, you should include that as income. With a child, your medical insurance should get subsidized, lowering those costs. Maybe you cannot afford the formula, so have to breast feed (at least some of the time).
But even if I grant all your stuff, I'll say that 183/month isn't all that little for clothing and emergencies.
You don't have to have a smart phone. You don't have to have a house with 2+ acres of land. You don't have to be able to go on vacation every goddamn year to some other country. In fact, I don't.
But, those things are nice. Unless there's some valid reason to deny them to you, why wouldn't we want you to have them.
For instance, if there's an empty seat on an airplane to Paris, and another empty seat coming back, how does it benefit society to not let you ride for free (or the incremental cost in gas)? If there's a vacant house on 2+ acres of land, how does it benefit society not to let you live in it, just because some bank seized it and is waiting until 2020 to sell it on the market?
Of course, like most retail, you want to check it out for free locally, and then order off a competitor on the internet for the savings inherent in not having the infrastructure to allow you to check it out locally.
. They all have posted prices. They dominate global retail. If haggling was efficient and productive then some Egyptian or Bangladeshi retail chains would dominate global retail
Haggling is more efficient and productive, and what you wrote doesn't change that. Walmart, Amazon, Target and Ikea all evolved in an area negotiations weren't frequent.
Amazon modifies it's prices several million times a day. Their offers are take it or leave it, but they definitely do price exploration.
The price tag was one of the most important innovations of capitalism
Why? It certainly leads to market failures due to the inability to price discriminate.
Well, there's a benefit to not being in the minority too. So a totally ignorant member of Congress, merely told that "some computer bill is winning the vote 70-24" would probably vote for it. Cause odds are*, if over 2/3 of people in the Senate want it, it's a good law.
*There are spectacular counter-examples. But those tend to be "nobody go fired for buying IBM" moments.
Oh, you mean you surf the web from your phone and you don't block facebook/google. The same shit happens on your desktop. Block facebook's and google's domains then (or at least all of facebook and Google's analytics).... just like you should on your desktop.
kid growing up in manhatten doesnt need to know things like hunting where a kid in the adirondacks would get much more from learning how to hunt than say...spanish
That assumes they both will live in the area where they grew up. Studies show that removing friction in moving between areas is good for the economy and the workers who can do so.
I don't care about most issues, and a I care a lot about a couple. Unfortunately, I do have to take politicians as a bundle, and they don't agree across the board. I want to be able to vote on my issues independently.
But, I don't want a bunch of disinterested asshats who don't care about hte issue, but are "doing their civic duty" from being influenced by whatever marketing blitz.
You have nothing to lose with a colorful and diverse selection, as people would just wind up with the same choices they'd make if there was only a single choice;
That's empirically not true. Because it has to do with getting customers to spend money, there's been a lot of research in this. If you are a new jam maker on a traveling show, and you offer people 8 types of jam a lot of people who it turns out want to buy jam think it's too hard to decide and go without. That is, the revenue you get from 8 types is less than with 3 types. And that loss of profit is compounded by the extra costs of carrying more inventory (so you don't run out of any flavor).
Grocery stores offer more than 3 types, because they assume you already have a jam preference, and want to satisfy it. Advertisers for jam companies try to change the minds of young people, because they assume that by 30 your preferences are locked.
Slashdot Mirror
Price discrimination can sometimes be a positive to society. Imagine a high-fixed cost business. Say the first phone company. Some things, businesses, are willing to pay X for telecommunication. Some things, homes, are willing to pay X/20. It is totally conceivable that charging businesses X alone or charging businesses and homes X/20 does not generate the marginal profits to offset your huge fixed costs. But, charging business X and homes X/20, does.
In this case, price discrimination allows for the service to exist, and everyone benefits. At one point, first class on airplanes was the same principle. So are discounts on software prices for students.
Someone will offer shipped cars. I assume it will be Amazon. They will probably not be 24-hour turn around, however.
I'll see your list, and raise you: Does 500k / year really seem that high now?
Yes. If this was true more and more, the world would probably be a better place. Fewer engineers who suck at math doing substandard work, etc.
I mean, he had executives from Yahoo and Google apply as well.
And no, he did not give a bump to the other people. In fact, I don't think he's paying them much more.
I've gotten important robocalls from my utility companies. They do not leave a voicemail.
As long as you never have an emergency or something like that, that requires someone to reach out to you.
We all know what happens when enough profit isn't made...
Well, he owns the company... and he slashed his salary to 70k. So, maybe they are already price competitive, with lower costs of executives and required profit.
Or one of the non-Google Android branches. But iOS is far less tracky than Google, as far as I can tell
That quote is totally apocryphal. He paid a lot because there were so many jobs available in Detroit at the time, that employees didn't care if they were fired. So they went from plant to plant, working for a month or so until their laziness got noticed. Or, if they were forced to work hard, they just quit He wanted them to give a shit about being employed by him.
Also, the Model T wasn't keeping up with demand when he raised their salary, so the idea of "needing customers" was total bullshit.
Yes, it still seems high. Because, and this is going to be amazing, of course you have less money after you spend it.
In your bills, you spend $7,600 just for internet/phone/cable (including mobile). That's really high. Also TV and smartphones are a luxury (any phone and home broadband I'll give you as a necessity).
You are purchasing a 350k+ home, and that's above what you can afford on a salary of 70k (by the standard 1/3 of takehome pay rule).
You're planning for a child and child care, so... is your spouse not also working? Because we''re talking about a single salary of 70k. If your spouse is also working, you should include that as income. With a child, your medical insurance should get subsidized, lowering those costs. Maybe you cannot afford the formula, so have to breast feed (at least some of the time).
But even if I grant all your stuff, I'll say that 183/month isn't all that little for clothing and emergencies.
Of course, like most retail, you want to check it out for free locally, and then order off a competitor on the internet for the savings inherent in not having the infrastructure to allow you to check it out locally.
Well, there's a benefit to not being in the minority too. So a totally ignorant member of Congress, merely told that "some computer bill is winning the vote 70-24" would probably vote for it. Cause odds are*, if over 2/3 of people in the Senate want it, it's a good law.
*There are spectacular counter-examples. But those tend to be "nobody go fired for buying IBM" moments.
Oh, you mean you surf the web from your phone and you don't block facebook/google. The same shit happens on your desktop. Block facebook's and google's domains then (or at least all of facebook and Google's analytics).... just like you should on your desktop.
What? If you don't have a Facebook account, you don't have their apps. If you don't have their apps, they aren't tracking you.
If you install a different OS, Google will not track you.
That assumes they both will live in the area where they grew up. Studies show that removing friction in moving between areas is good for the economy and the workers who can do so.
Contracts are rarely thrown out entirely. Usually just the unconscionable portion are removed/modified.
If you're about to be laid off, why would you quit? Don't you want your unemployment insurance to kick in?
In theory, they are bidding each feature on a sheer cost basis
It increased McDonald's sales because the burgers have a bad reputation, and the breakfast has a good reputation.
Bull. My time is precious. I'm not going to devote five hours to jam optimization, It's not limited by external factors, but by my patience.
I don't care about most issues, and a I care a lot about a couple. Unfortunately, I do have to take politicians as a bundle, and they don't agree across the board. I want to be able to vote on my issues independently.
But, I don't want a bunch of disinterested asshats who don't care about hte issue, but are "doing their civic duty" from being influenced by whatever marketing blitz.
That's empirically not true. Because it has to do with getting customers to spend money, there's been a lot of research in this. If you are a new jam maker on a traveling show, and you offer people 8 types of jam a lot of people who it turns out want to buy jam think it's too hard to decide and go without. That is, the revenue you get from 8 types is less than with 3 types. And that loss of profit is compounded by the extra costs of carrying more inventory (so you don't run out of any flavor).
Grocery stores offer more than 3 types, because they assume you already have a jam preference, and want to satisfy it. Advertisers for jam companies try to change the minds of young people, because they assume that by 30 your preferences are locked.