3 ms·

I’m confused by this line of posts. Are you saying making it easier for people to cancel services they don’t need is a bad thing?

WalterBright 5y ago
I'm not actually making a value judgement on that. Just pointing out the consequences maybe not what was intended.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  The consequences would be that more people would be able to cancel services they didn’t want. I find it highly unlikely that those people would agree to continue paying for services they don’t need simply to subsidize other users of the services. So no I’m pretty sure that the result would be many clubs closing, the consequences would be exactly as intended.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  Also I’d like to add that your claim that the gyms would be 10x more expensive and that most would close is baseless. In Sweden there are gyms everywhere even though their are consumer protections against exactly this sort of thing. The gyms in Sweden are generally cheaper than the IS as well. I’m not going to draw a general conclusion from this other than “it’s complicated”. The fact is you don’t really know how gyms would be affected en masse by such a law. The only thing we really know for sure, is that people would have an easier time not using services that they don’t want to use. I don’t really understand who could argue against such a change. Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population. If we want that, then maybe we should just pass laws giving gyms money from the general municipal/state budget. It would accomplish the same thing and be much more fair and honest.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    My basis is that I was told by a couple gym owners that 90% never show up to use the gym, and their business model depended on that. I haven't examined their books myself. Like I wrote, I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out the consequences. The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      You’re not pointing out the consequences. You’re speculating about the consequences. Frankly you should have seen the books before believing something like that. Furthermore it would be a stretch to believe that that situation extrapolates to all gyms. If what they said was actually true, they _should_ go out of business. If their business depends on them exploiting the legal system to thwart their users’ clear will, they are immoral actors and deserve the economic difficulties that would be bestowed upon them. Edit: to you edit > The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years. So basically what you’re tacitly admitting is that a law allowing cancelation might actually be _fine_. It might even turn out fine for your friends. I guess if that’s your position, then I don’t really have any more argument with you.
      - ianai 5y ago
        Your communication to WalterBright is coming across needlessly combative while you seem to be in agreement. Just an FYI.
        CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Your communication to WalterBright is coming across needlessly combative while you seem to be in agreement. Just an FYI. How could you possibly have concluded we're in agreement? This was his initial post in this thread: > 10x more expensive. I bet that'd do wonders to the willingness of customers to sign up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31068220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31068220 I fundamentally disagree with this and made it quite clear in the following posts. This disagreement is basically the whole premise on which this exchange was had.
  - dwighttk 5y ago
    >Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population. Basically where a lot of education funding comes from. (Lotteries)

WalterBright 5y ago

I'm not actually making a value judgement on that. Just pointing out the consequences maybe not what was intended.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
The consequences would be that more people would be able to cancel services they didn’t want. I find it highly unlikely that those people would agree to continue paying for services they don’t need simply to subsidize other users of the services. So no I’m pretty sure that the result would be many clubs closing, the consequences would be exactly as intended.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
Also I’d like to add that your claim that the gyms would be 10x more expensive and that most would close is baseless. In Sweden there are gyms everywhere even though their are consumer protections against exactly this sort of thing. The gyms in Sweden are generally cheaper than the IS as well. I’m not going to draw a general conclusion from this other than “it’s complicated”. The fact is you don’t really know how gyms would be affected en masse by such a law. The only thing we really know for sure, is that people would have an easier time not using services that they don’t want to use. I don’t really understand who could argue against such a change. Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population. If we want that, then maybe we should just pass laws giving gyms money from the general municipal/state budget. It would accomplish the same thing and be much more fair and honest.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  My basis is that I was told by a couple gym owners that 90% never show up to use the gym, and their business model depended on that. I haven't examined their books myself. Like I wrote, I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out the consequences. The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    You’re not pointing out the consequences. You’re speculating about the consequences. Frankly you should have seen the books before believing something like that. Furthermore it would be a stretch to believe that that situation extrapolates to all gyms. If what they said was actually true, they _should_ go out of business. If their business depends on them exploiting the legal system to thwart their users’ clear will, they are immoral actors and deserve the economic difficulties that would be bestowed upon them. Edit: to you edit > The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years. So basically what you’re tacitly admitting is that a law allowing cancelation might actually be _fine_. It might even turn out fine for your friends. I guess if that’s your position, then I don’t really have any more argument with you.
    - ianai 5y ago
      Your communication to WalterBright is coming across needlessly combative while you seem to be in agreement. Just an FYI.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Your communication to WalterBright is coming across needlessly combative while you seem to be in agreement. Just an FYI. How could you possibly have concluded we're in agreement? This was his initial post in this thread: > 10x more expensive. I bet that'd do wonders to the willingness of customers to sign up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31068220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31068220 I fundamentally disagree with this and made it quite clear in the following posts. This disagreement is basically the whole premise on which this exchange was had.
- dwighttk 5y ago
  >Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population. Basically where a lot of education funding comes from. (Lotteries)