5 ms·

It's one thing to make a good deal. But IMHO it's another thing to behave like a parasite.

hyperpape 11y ago
That's a pretty strong claim. I condemn a lot of economic behaviors that prey on people who just aren't as good at reading legalese or terms and conditions. Banks reordering deposits and then charging overdraft fees that are far above their actual costs is one example, or contracts with hard to understand add-ons are another. I don't think this behavior is at all like those shenanigans though. Companies that offer frequent flyer miles spend plenty of time trying to offer the maximum apparent benefit while limiting the ways they actually pay out. It's a game where they're often trying to screw you. Screwing them in return (without violating the law or even their own terms) seems fine. If they had a simple system with decent (or even bad but predictable) rewards, like x miles per dollar spent, none of this would even be an issue. But they see an angle from a more complicated system. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes they pay more than they expected.
- Strom 11y ago
  like x miles per dollar spent Sounds simple? Well it isn't, and it has already been tried. The exploiters will spend a lot of money - on buying money. They will buy gift cards and other such things which can easily be converted back to cash. These kinds of marketing exploits happen everywhere. I remember a nice local event where a mobile carrier offered pre-paid SIM cards at a great discount. People hoarded all these discounted SIMs immediately. Used them to transfer money to some web services (some services offer pay-by-mobile, where the charge is added to your mobile bill). Then proceeded to withdraw the money to their bank accounts. A pretty nifty way to make money.
Someone1234 11y ago
> But IMHO it's another thing to behave like a parasite. Is the name calling/vilifying really helpful? Also companies remind us all the time that they're amoral, but when people treat companies in an amoral fashion suddenly everyone gets upset about it. The ironic thing is that Avis as a company has TONS of complaints. Just google "Avis is a scam" and read all the stories about hidden charges, misleading headline figures, and so on. Pages and pages of them... Because they're amoral and only care about the bottom line. Why is it wrong for people to only care about the bottom line?
- wpietri 11y ago
  That isn't "name calling". It's just naming. What he did is very precisely parasitical. If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same. In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice. Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse. Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers".
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > That isn't "name calling". It's just naming. When applied to a specific individual, it is name calling. As in this case. > What he did is very precisely parasitical. Nope: > par·a·site; an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. Nothing precise about it. More like a slang insult for behaviour you disapprove of. > If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same. But when companies do it everyone ignores it, or screams "buyer beware." When an individual does it people start name calling, villifying, or using moralist arguments. It is a double standard. When Avis does it it is Avis' customer's fault, when a customer does it to Avis, it is still the customer's fault. > In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice. You're now literally playing the "Avis is amoral so it is ok" card. Why is it inherently wrong for individuals to act amoral towards an entity which also acts amoral? > Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse. For the record, I approve of it because Avis would do exactly the same thing in his place, and does to their customers all of the time. I think Avis should be treated the way they treat others. It isn't because I dislike Avis, it is because I like to see equal treatment, and if Avis is treating people badly then they too deserve to be treated just as well (or not). If companies are flexible or show loyalty, I genuinely believe customers return that in kind. Look at Costco. This is not one of those companies. > Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers". Companies have already normalised the behaviour. So much so that we don't even talk about it anymore. In fact we teach kids that companies will try and exploit them if allowed, or take advantage of them, and then teach them a bunch of tricks to look out for when booking or buying (e.g. resort fees, baggage fees, location fees, un-included taxes, et al). It is laughable to suggest that this guy treating Avis just once like Avis treats their customers daily and for many years, has somehow caused Avis to act this way. You're clearly applying one set of standards to companies and a completely different set to individuals (i.e. effectively companies are beyond repute in your mental model, but individuals deserve your disdain for being as bad as companies even if occasionally).
Artemis2 11y ago
Companies aren't to be respected like persons, unless you fully approve of their ethics and their staff's.
imgabe 11y ago
What exactly is parasitic about this behavior? A parasite leeches resources without contributing anything. He paid the amount requested by Avis and adhered to the terms of the agreement that they had set. How is purchasing a product in accordance with the seller's terms parasitic?
- thisone 11y ago
  Until the US mint changed its payment methods people were amassing air miles by buying dollar coins from the mint and then depositing them in their bank account.

That's a pretty strong claim. I condemn a lot of economic behaviors that prey on people who just aren't as good at reading legalese or terms and conditions. Banks reordering deposits and then charging overdraft fees that are far above their actual costs is one example, or contracts with hard to understand add-ons are another. I don't think this behavior is at all like those shenanigans though. Companies that offer frequent flyer miles spend plenty of time trying to offer the maximum apparent benefit while limiting the ways they actually pay out. It's a game where they're often trying to screw you. Screwing them in return (without violating the law or even their own terms) seems fine. If they had a simple system with decent (or even bad but predictable) rewards, like x miles per dollar spent, none of this would even be an issue. But they see an angle from a more complicated system. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes they pay more than they expected.

Strom 11y ago
like x miles per dollar spent Sounds simple? Well it isn't, and it has already been tried. The exploiters will spend a lot of money - on buying money. They will buy gift cards and other such things which can easily be converted back to cash. These kinds of marketing exploits happen everywhere. I remember a nice local event where a mobile carrier offered pre-paid SIM cards at a great discount. People hoarded all these discounted SIMs immediately. Used them to transfer money to some web services (some services offer pay-by-mobile, where the charge is added to your mobile bill). Then proceeded to withdraw the money to their bank accounts. A pretty nifty way to make money.

Someone1234 11y ago

> But IMHO it's another thing to behave like a parasite. Is the name calling/vilifying really helpful? Also companies remind us all the time that they're amoral, but when people treat companies in an amoral fashion suddenly everyone gets upset about it. The ironic thing is that Avis as a company has TONS of complaints. Just google "Avis is a scam" and read all the stories about hidden charges, misleading headline figures, and so on. Pages and pages of them... Because they're amoral and only care about the bottom line. Why is it wrong for people to only care about the bottom line?

wpietri 11y ago
That isn't "name calling". It's just naming. What he did is very precisely parasitical. If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same. In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice. Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse. Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers".
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > That isn't "name calling". It's just naming. When applied to a specific individual, it is name calling. As in this case. > What he did is very precisely parasitical. Nope: > par·a·site; an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. Nothing precise about it. More like a slang insult for behaviour you disapprove of. > If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same. But when companies do it everyone ignores it, or screams "buyer beware." When an individual does it people start name calling, villifying, or using moralist arguments. It is a double standard. When Avis does it it is Avis' customer's fault, when a customer does it to Avis, it is still the customer's fault. > In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice. You're now literally playing the "Avis is amoral so it is ok" card. Why is it inherently wrong for individuals to act amoral towards an entity which also acts amoral? > Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse. For the record, I approve of it because Avis would do exactly the same thing in his place, and does to their customers all of the time. I think Avis should be treated the way they treat others. It isn't because I dislike Avis, it is because I like to see equal treatment, and if Avis is treating people badly then they too deserve to be treated just as well (or not). If companies are flexible or show loyalty, I genuinely believe customers return that in kind. Look at Costco. This is not one of those companies. > Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers". Companies have already normalised the behaviour. So much so that we don't even talk about it anymore. In fact we teach kids that companies will try and exploit them if allowed, or take advantage of them, and then teach them a bunch of tricks to look out for when booking or buying (e.g. resort fees, baggage fees, location fees, un-included taxes, et al). It is laughable to suggest that this guy treating Avis just once like Avis treats their customers daily and for many years, has somehow caused Avis to act this way. You're clearly applying one set of standards to companies and a completely different set to individuals (i.e. effectively companies are beyond repute in your mental model, but individuals deserve your disdain for being as bad as companies even if occasionally).

Artemis2 11y ago

Companies aren't to be respected like persons, unless you fully approve of their ethics and their staff's.

imgabe 11y ago

What exactly is parasitic about this behavior? A parasite leeches resources without contributing anything. He paid the amount requested by Avis and adhered to the terms of the agreement that they had set. How is purchasing a product in accordance with the seller's terms parasitic?

thisone 11y ago
Until the US mint changed its payment methods people were amassing air miles by buying dollar coins from the mint and then depositing them in their bank account.