4 ms·

Is the share of the profit from this equitable though? Or do these companies take the lion's share?

by gech 10y ago

zaroth 10y ago
Equitable? The raw material is a far cry from the final product which required perhaps hundred of millions in R&D. If people are willing the give a unit of plasma for $7.50 and supply is meeting demand, it seems precisely equitable. The key question is that donating so frequently must be safe for the donor. If there's long term health implications then the firms have to coordinate if necessary to ensure donations are not made too frequently.
- cloudsloth 10y ago
  Showing that people are willing to pay a price does not make it equitable. You have to account for power dynamics and market conditions. I believe the original question was whether there was a relatively even or fair split of 'profits' from the current setup. One could make a case for this being even, and also for it being somehow relational to investment (blood from the giver, r&d + logistics from the receiver). Your 'answer' glosses over all that.
  - peacetreefrog 10y ago
    You're welcome to "make the case" for whatever you want, but this comment suggesting it's something in anyone's control belies what's really going on. The price system and "profit" splits aren't something any one entity (plasma doner nor company) sets down and decides. It (like most prices) is an emergent phenomenon. You might as well "make the case" the morning commute from downtown Chicago up to Evanston should be less than 35 minutes, it's pretty much irrelevant as to how it turns out.
    - cloudsloth 10y ago
      I think you misunderstood me entirely. I wasn't saying it was in someone's control. I was discussing analysis of the system as it is.
      - peacetreefrog 10y ago
        In that case I agree, it's certainly possible to analyze it, and market forces (number of firms collecting donatations etc) probably has a lot to do with the price, along with laws, alternative opportunities for doners, technology, how much it hurts, etc.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > If people are willing the give a unit of plasma for $7.50 and supply is meeting demand, it seems precisely equitable. The US actually provides 50% of the world's plasma supply, because there are more people in the US willing to donate under the current system than there is a need for it, whereas most of the world (which does not pay for plasma donation) has an ongoing shortage. Plasma, like whole blood, also has a relatively short shelf life and cannot be donated on an as-needed basis, so it's preferable to have more than you need, since you never know when there will be a natural disaster, etc. I've donated plasma. I think the whole process, from the moment I walked in the door to the moment I left, was about two hours. I read a book the whole time and they paid me about $100 (I don't remember exactly how much). It was pretty easy, and I'd do it again if I could.
  - bluedino 10y ago
    Did it all the time for beer money in college

Is the share of the profit from this equitable though? Or do these companies take the lion's share?

by gech 10y ago

Is the share of the profit from this equitable though? Or do these companies take the lion's share?

Equitable? The raw material is a far cry from the final product which required perhaps hundred of millions in R&D. If people are willing the give a unit of plasma for $7.50 and supply is meeting demand, it seems precisely equitable. The key question is that donating so frequently must be safe for the donor. If there's long term health implications then the firms have to coordinate if necessary to ensure donations are not made too frequently.

cloudsloth 10y ago
Showing that people are willing to pay a price does not make it equitable. You have to account for power dynamics and market conditions. I believe the original question was whether there was a relatively even or fair split of 'profits' from the current setup. One could make a case for this being even, and also for it being somehow relational to investment (blood from the giver, r&d + logistics from the receiver). Your 'answer' glosses over all that.
- peacetreefrog 10y ago
  You're welcome to "make the case" for whatever you want, but this comment suggesting it's something in anyone's control belies what's really going on. The price system and "profit" splits aren't something any one entity (plasma doner nor company) sets down and decides. It (like most prices) is an emergent phenomenon. You might as well "make the case" the morning commute from downtown Chicago up to Evanston should be less than 35 minutes, it's pretty much irrelevant as to how it turns out.
  - cloudsloth 10y ago
    I think you misunderstood me entirely. I wasn't saying it was in someone's control. I was discussing analysis of the system as it is.
    - peacetreefrog 10y ago
      In that case I agree, it's certainly possible to analyze it, and market forces (number of firms collecting donatations etc) probably has a lot to do with the price, along with laws, alternative opportunities for doners, technology, how much it hurts, etc.
chimeracoder 10y ago
> If people are willing the give a unit of plasma for $7.50 and supply is meeting demand, it seems precisely equitable. The US actually provides 50% of the world's plasma supply, because there are more people in the US willing to donate under the current system than there is a need for it, whereas most of the world (which does not pay for plasma donation) has an ongoing shortage. Plasma, like whole blood, also has a relatively short shelf life and cannot be donated on an as-needed basis, so it's preferable to have more than you need, since you never know when there will be a natural disaster, etc. I've donated plasma. I think the whole process, from the moment I walked in the door to the moment I left, was about two hours. I read a book the whole time and they paid me about $100 (I don't remember exactly how much). It was pretty easy, and I'd do it again if I could.
- bluedino 10y ago
  Did it all the time for beer money in college