3 ms·

> Yes, it was full retail, but I got what I wanted, no regrets. That's something worth noting. People say you vote with your wallet, but they don't. If you nee

by gutnor 11y ago

> Yes, it was full retail, but I got what I wanted, no regrets. That's something worth noting. People say you vote with your wallet, but they don't. If you need to see something in person, then by all means, pay the shop the price it asks and do not buy it on Amazon later. If you need to see it, then buy it where you can see it, not send mixed signals: thumbs up for amazon, thumbs down to the local shop while you actually needed the opposite. I have no shame shopping better price on Amazon or others. But once I have needed to put a foot into a physical store, a physical store will get my money.

jefurii 11y ago
This. You're paying more in the physical store, but you derived benefit from the experience of going in there. If you want to live in a future where you can go to attractive stores and look at physical items, you have to be willing to help support those stores. Real estate and staff are not free.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If you want to live in a future where you can go to attractive stores and look at physical items, you have to be willing to help support those stores. If you want to live in a future where you can go to attractive stores and look at physical items, a sufficient number of other people must be willing to help support those stores. Your choice to do so or not has a very small impact on the viability of the model, and a much larger impact on your own realized utility, making it a classic tragedy of the commons situation where the rational thing for each individual to do is defect (using the store as showroom and buying by discount online where available), but the consequence of each individual doing the rational thing is the collapse of the common system which provides value.
pjlegato 11y ago
> People say you vote with your wallet, but they don't. They do; they just don't vote the way you think they ought to. Empirically, given a similar quality item, almost all people vote for lower prices, almost always, despite any amount of haranguing about how it'd be morally better to pay slightly more because of this or that benefit. Other examples: * During the US deindustrialization of the 1970s-1980s, there was a big "Buy American" campaign, touting the many benefits of paying slightly more to preserve the US industrial base and its jobs. It was completely ineffective. * The political climate in San Francisco is ostensibly heavily biased against chain stores, yet the new City Target in SOMA had lines around the block when it opened. Laws to restrict chain stores by fiat were even deemed necessary to stem the tide of chains, even though empirically they do pretty well in the city -- meaning many residents actually do want to spend their money at chains. * Almost everywhere a new Wal-Mart opens, people complain about all the local mom and pop retailers that'll be put out of business. Yet the new Wal-Mart is usually packed. Years later, it remains in business. They close locations that aren't profitable. People do indeed vote with their wallets. They just don't usually vote the way you think they should.
- gutnor 11y ago
  'Voting with their wallet' is actually an expression used to remind people that what they actually buy is what is affecting the market, not what they say or what they wish. What I'm actually saying is that if you need to enter a physical store for some type of goods, then it is not stupid to pay a markup. That's actually paying for a service you need (and for the record, it is very unlikely that it is a service I need). In all the example you gave, it is ok to tell people to stop complaining and vote with their wallet. eg: you complain you want mom and pop retailer to survive but you only shop at WalMart, vote with your wallet or shut up. ( again for the record, a lot of the mom and pop retailer just sucked, the added value they provided was limited to the convenience of being located where you once did most of your shopping, not expert advices, choice, accessibility, or any kind of flexibility or service. They were replaced because once they lost the location advantage, they simply provided not reason to set a foot in their shop ever again. If you regularly go to a village lost in the middle of the countryside, you probably understand what I mean )

by gutnor 11y ago

jefurii 11y ago

This. You're paying more in the physical store, but you derived benefit from the experience of going in there. If you want to live in a future where you can go to attractive stores and look at physical items, you have to be willing to help support those stores. Real estate and staff are not free.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> If you want to live in a future where you can go to attractive stores and look at physical items, you have to be willing to help support those stores. If you want to live in a future where you can go to attractive stores and look at physical items, a sufficient number of other people must be willing to help support those stores. Your choice to do so or not has a very small impact on the viability of the model, and a much larger impact on your own realized utility, making it a classic tragedy of the commons situation where the rational thing for each individual to do is defect (using the store as showroom and buying by discount online where available), but the consequence of each individual doing the rational thing is the collapse of the common system which provides value.

pjlegato 11y ago

> People say you vote with your wallet, but they don't. They do; they just don't vote the way you think they ought to. Empirically, given a similar quality item, almost all people vote for lower prices, almost always, despite any amount of haranguing about how it'd be morally better to pay slightly more because of this or that benefit. Other examples: * During the US deindustrialization of the 1970s-1980s, there was a big "Buy American" campaign, touting the many benefits of paying slightly more to preserve the US industrial base and its jobs. It was completely ineffective. * The political climate in San Francisco is ostensibly heavily biased against chain stores, yet the new City Target in SOMA had lines around the block when it opened. Laws to restrict chain stores by fiat were even deemed necessary to stem the tide of chains, even though empirically they do pretty well in the city -- meaning many residents actually do want to spend their money at chains. * Almost everywhere a new Wal-Mart opens, people complain about all the local mom and pop retailers that'll be put out of business. Yet the new Wal-Mart is usually packed. Years later, it remains in business. They close locations that aren't profitable. People do indeed vote with their wallets. They just don't usually vote the way you think they should.

gutnor 11y ago
'Voting with their wallet' is actually an expression used to remind people that what they actually buy is what is affecting the market, not what they say or what they wish. What I'm actually saying is that if you need to enter a physical store for some type of goods, then it is not stupid to pay a markup. That's actually paying for a service you need (and for the record, it is very unlikely that it is a service I need). In all the example you gave, it is ok to tell people to stop complaining and vote with their wallet. eg: you complain you want mom and pop retailer to survive but you only shop at WalMart, vote with your wallet or shut up. ( again for the record, a lot of the mom and pop retailer just sucked, the added value they provided was limited to the convenience of being located where you once did most of your shopping, not expert advices, choice, accessibility, or any kind of flexibility or service. They were replaced because once they lost the location advantage, they simply provided not reason to set a foot in their shop ever again. If you regularly go to a village lost in the middle of the countryside, you probably understand what I mean )