5 ms·

The major reason is far too many people exhibit an exaggerated state of self entitlement which they use to excuse their actions including those which put others

The major reason is far too many people exhibit an exaggerated state of self entitlement which they use to excuse their actions including those which put others at risk. Some will do it just to spite others, some will do it out ignorance. We just have so many people who have the means to travel that you cannot properly contain any outbreak so you do the best to mitigate the impact The end result usually is the same, someone else will pay. Which means business big and small for which some litigant finds a twist which a jury is sympathetic to.

m3kw9 7y ago
I know a few ppl that are saying the flight can’t be refunded and just be pretty ignorant about everything around
mlthoughts2018 7y ago
I think you mean corporations display an exaggerated sense of self-entitlement, and by not making full refunds easy and well-understood, they create these negative externalities. Asking individuals to bear the financial risk related to these types of emergencies seems wrong to me on all levels, moral, pragmatism, effectiveness, social fairness, etc. These types of risks should be borne by corporations in the form of strictly less profit for executives and shareholders. Not by raising prices, not by cutting staff, not by reducing employee benefits. These are risks that have to absorbed by classes of people with extreme financial reserves to cushion the blow, not by classes of people without those means.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Corporations are people. Not just legally people, which they are, but in plain fact they are legal fictions which are wrapped around the actions of people.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    I don't understand why people have such a hard time with that. If Airbnb cancels the reservation, the person renting out the room has an empty room and doesn't get paid. The housekeeper they hire to clean up after each guest doesn't get hired. The guy in the sandwich cart the guest would have bought from doesn't get paid. The corporation doesn't make a profit from the transaction (that was the one we're supposed to want, right?), but that wasn't most of the price to begin with, and the profits go to "shareholders" which are mostly the retirement accounts of ordinary people. They should cancel it anyway.
- ornornor 7y ago
  Agree with you although it’s a very, very unpopular opinion in North America where most HN readers are from.
- ghaff 7y ago
  AirBnB is probably not the best example given that the cost of last minute cancellations is mostly borne by the people renting out their places (some of which are admittedly full-time businesses) rather than AirBnB itself.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  The costs of the cancellations may exceed the profits of the company (In which case it's still appropriate for investors to take the loss, I'm just pointing out that there's a wider range of possibilities). Or the pricing of refundable tickets vs non-refundable tickets. It turns out if you agree to take on the risk of cancellation, most corporations are willing to give you a lower price on the ticket. Constraining the conditions that they can factor into non-refundable tickets will impact prices, so you can't just ignore consumer behavior, which for things like airplane tickets is to pay as little as possible...
  - ghaff 7y ago
    There are some kinds of trips where there's no real option to book in a way that you can cancel a week before the trip. But, by and large, you can book flexibly if you're willing to pay the premium. I'm not sure it's usually worth it in the case of airline tickets given that flexible tickets are often 2x and you can usually cancel for a $250 or so fee. But hotels usually have flexible rates for a 10% to 20% upcharge. That's what I usually do anyway (it's work travel policy) and it's certainly what I'm doing over the coming months.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    > “ It turns out if you agree to take on the risk of cancellation” This is a common fallacy that we can use the pricing mechanism to account for the risk. But whether it’s food poisoning (cheaper prices for expired goods), labor externalities (cheaper prices for goods made with slave / child / exploitative labor), or geopolitical risks (cheaper prices for travel that can be cancelled for reasons that regular citizens simply cannot adequately prepare for), across the board it’s a failed idea. The information asymmetries and burdens are simply too lopsided against regular consumers. Pricing as information aggregation (thus reflecting correct understanding of risks impounded in prices) is not a thing. It is theorized but fails to exist. And risks of insolvency are far worse for individuals than for corporations, on multiple levels.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      I'm not suggesting the pricing mechanism can be used to fully account for the risk, I'm suggesting that it isn't simply a matter of banning certain contractual conditions, that it is prudent to also consider the inevitable increase in prices that will accompany some of those actions. If you are comfortable with the higher prices, fine. As I point out in my other comment, real world behavior suggests a preference for low prices. I'm not arguing against regulation, I'm arguing for regulation that acknowledges that certain regulations have an obvious impact on pricing. There's plenty of middle ground. Bed and breakfast regulation could include a provision allowing the government to make public health the higher priority and require refunds during some declared period of time, and let operators set their own terms otherwise.

m3kw9 7y ago

I know a few ppl that are saying the flight can’t be refunded and just be pretty ignorant about everything around

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

I think you mean corporations display an exaggerated sense of self-entitlement, and by not making full refunds easy and well-understood, they create these negative externalities. Asking individuals to bear the financial risk related to these types of emergencies seems wrong to me on all levels, moral, pragmatism, effectiveness, social fairness, etc. These types of risks should be borne by corporations in the form of strictly less profit for executives and shareholders. Not by raising prices, not by cutting staff, not by reducing employee benefits. These are risks that have to absorbed by classes of people with extreme financial reserves to cushion the blow, not by classes of people without those means.

dragonwriter 7y ago
Corporations are people. Not just legally people, which they are, but in plain fact they are legal fictions which are wrapped around the actions of people.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  I don't understand why people have such a hard time with that. If Airbnb cancels the reservation, the person renting out the room has an empty room and doesn't get paid. The housekeeper they hire to clean up after each guest doesn't get hired. The guy in the sandwich cart the guest would have bought from doesn't get paid. The corporation doesn't make a profit from the transaction (that was the one we're supposed to want, right?), but that wasn't most of the price to begin with, and the profits go to "shareholders" which are mostly the retirement accounts of ordinary people. They should cancel it anyway.
ornornor 7y ago
Agree with you although it’s a very, very unpopular opinion in North America where most HN readers are from.
ghaff 7y ago
AirBnB is probably not the best example given that the cost of last minute cancellations is mostly borne by the people renting out their places (some of which are admittedly full-time businesses) rather than AirBnB itself.
maxerickson 7y ago
The costs of the cancellations may exceed the profits of the company (In which case it's still appropriate for investors to take the loss, I'm just pointing out that there's a wider range of possibilities). Or the pricing of refundable tickets vs non-refundable tickets. It turns out if you agree to take on the risk of cancellation, most corporations are willing to give you a lower price on the ticket. Constraining the conditions that they can factor into non-refundable tickets will impact prices, so you can't just ignore consumer behavior, which for things like airplane tickets is to pay as little as possible...
- ghaff 7y ago
  There are some kinds of trips where there's no real option to book in a way that you can cancel a week before the trip. But, by and large, you can book flexibly if you're willing to pay the premium. I'm not sure it's usually worth it in the case of airline tickets given that flexible tickets are often 2x and you can usually cancel for a $250 or so fee. But hotels usually have flexible rates for a 10% to 20% upcharge. That's what I usually do anyway (it's work travel policy) and it's certainly what I'm doing over the coming months.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  > “ It turns out if you agree to take on the risk of cancellation” This is a common fallacy that we can use the pricing mechanism to account for the risk. But whether it’s food poisoning (cheaper prices for expired goods), labor externalities (cheaper prices for goods made with slave / child / exploitative labor), or geopolitical risks (cheaper prices for travel that can be cancelled for reasons that regular citizens simply cannot adequately prepare for), across the board it’s a failed idea. The information asymmetries and burdens are simply too lopsided against regular consumers. Pricing as information aggregation (thus reflecting correct understanding of risks impounded in prices) is not a thing. It is theorized but fails to exist. And risks of insolvency are far worse for individuals than for corporations, on multiple levels.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I'm not suggesting the pricing mechanism can be used to fully account for the risk, I'm suggesting that it isn't simply a matter of banning certain contractual conditions, that it is prudent to also consider the inevitable increase in prices that will accompany some of those actions. If you are comfortable with the higher prices, fine. As I point out in my other comment, real world behavior suggests a preference for low prices. I'm not arguing against regulation, I'm arguing for regulation that acknowledges that certain regulations have an obvious impact on pricing. There's plenty of middle ground. Bed and breakfast regulation could include a provision allowing the government to make public health the higher priority and require refunds during some declared period of time, and let operators set their own terms otherwise.