3 ms·

A few problems with this article: 1. The absurd proposition that it's unjust that you will find a better deal if you spend more time looking for one. Of course

A few problems with this article: 1. The absurd proposition that it's unjust that you will find a better deal if you spend more time looking for one. Of course you will. 2. The claim that e-commerce is a regressive tax on the poor because purchases are bigger percentage of the poor's income. You can say the same thing about any purchase. A burger is a bigger percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's income. Paribus is providing a great service, but this is a marketing/PR article pretending to be serious economic commentary and analysis. It's just hopping on the bandwagon of a narrative that's politically en vogue (that the world is stacked against the poor).

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> They're trying to take advantage of a narrative that's politically en vogue (that the world is stacked against the poor). Are you seriously implying that this is a mere matter of opinion? Sociocultural disadvantage is what being poor means, for as long as mankind has measured wealth. Certainly there's disagreement about what should be done about that, if anything, but the fact of the situation is not in doubt.
- pkinsky 11y ago
  A cause can be moral, and right, and successful, and still attract shills attempting to jump on the bandwagon. I'm gay, I'm really happy with how LGBT rights are progressing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when Frito-Lay rolls out a line of rainbow Doritos. (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0918/Doritos-releases-rainbow-chips-in-support-of-LGBT-pride http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0918/Doritos-releases...)
ericglyman 11y ago
Hey Marco, Thanks for the kind words on the service. On your feedback, here's my take: 1. Stepping back, isn't it more absurd that people are, by default, charged more unless they spend significant time dealhunting? The claim is not that the disparity itself is unjust, just that it's time for this to come to an end. 2. For all of the biggest e-Commerce players (Amazon, Walmart, etc.), their biggest business lines (and ones where they're investing the most) are in the sales of basic necessities (food, household goods, etc.). So considering how dynamic pricing will impact people (esp. re: basic necessities) is important. I'm not sure why you're dismissing the key point so quickly -- if we care at all about helping bridge the income divide, we should care about helping the poorest get the most affordable prices. In any case, I wrote the article because it really did shock us. Joe is a real person and a friend and we hope it does some good to show a small slice of what we're seeing.
- berberous 11y ago
  >> "1. Stepping back, isn't it more absurd that people are, by default, charged more unless they spend significant time dealhunting? The claim is not that the disparity itself is unjust, just that it's time for this to come to an end." I strongly dislike such tactics since it causes people to waste a ton of time dealhunting, but isn't this usually to the benefit of the poor? These tactics allow companies to price discriminate and charge the rich more -- since they won't spend the time clipping coupons, waiting inline on black friday, or waiting for sales -- and thus theoretically subsidizes the 'discounted' prices for the poor. On a separate note, what information from my email gets sent to your servers? Do you run a search for "Amazon", "receipts", etc. in GMail's cloud, then only send matching email to your server?
  - ericglyman 11y ago
    Me too man! On time spent dealhunting -- data from the Federal Reserve shows that it goes the other way: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/wp2014-24.pdf http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-.... It's counter-intuitive, but the wealthy actually spend more time shopping than the poor, not less. On the second -- exactly. Paribus is designed to only pull in emails that appear to be from known merchants (Amazon, Bonobos, Best Buy, etc.).
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    > I strongly dislike such tactics since it causes people to waste a ton of time dealhunting, but isn't this usually to the benefit of the poor? These tactics allow companies to price discriminate and charge the rich more -- since they won't spend the time clipping coupons, waiting inline on black friday, or waiting for sales -- and thus theoretically subsidizes the 'discounted' prices for the poor. Even without ericglyman's link to corroborating data, I would assume it goes the other way. Coupon-clipping and online deal-hunting requires time and, especially, emotional energy that the poor often don't have; and since the poor generally have to use essential items until they physically fail, and then scrabble frantically for the first available half-decent replacement, they don't have the luxury of waiting for special sales.
- 11y ago

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> They're trying to take advantage of a narrative that's politically en vogue (that the world is stacked against the poor). Are you seriously implying that this is a mere matter of opinion? Sociocultural disadvantage is what being poor means, for as long as mankind has measured wealth. Certainly there's disagreement about what should be done about that, if anything, but the fact of the situation is not in doubt.

pkinsky 11y ago
A cause can be moral, and right, and successful, and still attract shills attempting to jump on the bandwagon. I'm gay, I'm really happy with how LGBT rights are progressing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when Frito-Lay rolls out a line of rainbow Doritos. (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0918/Doritos-releases-rainbow-chips-in-support-of-LGBT-pride http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0918/Doritos-releases...)

ericglyman 11y ago

Hey Marco, Thanks for the kind words on the service. On your feedback, here's my take: 1. Stepping back, isn't it more absurd that people are, by default, charged more unless they spend significant time dealhunting? The claim is not that the disparity itself is unjust, just that it's time for this to come to an end. 2. For all of the biggest e-Commerce players (Amazon, Walmart, etc.), their biggest business lines (and ones where they're investing the most) are in the sales of basic necessities (food, household goods, etc.). So considering how dynamic pricing will impact people (esp. re: basic necessities) is important. I'm not sure why you're dismissing the key point so quickly -- if we care at all about helping bridge the income divide, we should care about helping the poorest get the most affordable prices. In any case, I wrote the article because it really did shock us. Joe is a real person and a friend and we hope it does some good to show a small slice of what we're seeing.

berberous 11y ago
>> "1. Stepping back, isn't it more absurd that people are, by default, charged more unless they spend significant time dealhunting? The claim is not that the disparity itself is unjust, just that it's time for this to come to an end." I strongly dislike such tactics since it causes people to waste a ton of time dealhunting, but isn't this usually to the benefit of the poor? These tactics allow companies to price discriminate and charge the rich more -- since they won't spend the time clipping coupons, waiting inline on black friday, or waiting for sales -- and thus theoretically subsidizes the 'discounted' prices for the poor. On a separate note, what information from my email gets sent to your servers? Do you run a search for "Amazon", "receipts", etc. in GMail's cloud, then only send matching email to your server?
- ericglyman 11y ago
  Me too man! On time spent dealhunting -- data from the Federal Reserve shows that it goes the other way: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/wp2014-24.pdf http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-.... It's counter-intuitive, but the wealthy actually spend more time shopping than the poor, not less. On the second -- exactly. Paribus is designed to only pull in emails that appear to be from known merchants (Amazon, Bonobos, Best Buy, etc.).
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > I strongly dislike such tactics since it causes people to waste a ton of time dealhunting, but isn't this usually to the benefit of the poor? These tactics allow companies to price discriminate and charge the rich more -- since they won't spend the time clipping coupons, waiting inline on black friday, or waiting for sales -- and thus theoretically subsidizes the 'discounted' prices for the poor. Even without ericglyman's link to corroborating data, I would assume it goes the other way. Coupon-clipping and online deal-hunting requires time and, especially, emotional energy that the poor often don't have; and since the poor generally have to use essential items until they physically fail, and then scrabble frantically for the first available half-decent replacement, they don't have the luxury of waiting for special sales.
11y ago