4 ms·
I reject the premise that something simply being cheaper is an abusive situation. This is the sort of thinking that leads people to state that (for example) sm
by esotericn 7y ago
I reject the premise that something simply being cheaper is an abusive situation.
This is the sort of thinking that leads people to state that (for example) smaller apartments shouldn't exist, because someone will be forced to live in them. A purely theoretical person, of course, no-one they actually know - some sort of downtrodden non-entity.
The entire economy is set up on the basis that negotiation is a thing that people can and will do. If you don't do it, you're setting yourself up to get shafted at every turn; this sort of thing is the least of your issues.
I wouldn't rent a flat like this because it sounds bloody stupid. It makes me think of American sponsored things. 123 North Street brought to you by Coca-Cola(tm) and Amazon(R). Weird unnecessary legalistic nonsense.
- ianai 7y agothis would clearly have an income effect where instead of paying $x on stuff i would normally buy elsewhere i would pay $quota at amazon. Down the road, after plenty of competition has been destroyed, they can raise their prices and quotas to their best needs, not mine. It’s the sort of thing that starts out OK and winds up abusive.
- esotericn 7y agoYou choose to engage in it. I would personally stay far away from any rental agreement that had weird corporate subscriptions going on.