5 ms·

> can keep raising the price of See’s candies without losing customers. “Look at all that price elasticity l!” Meanwhile ordinary people become poorer. Minor n

• azinman2 4y ago
  Personally I don’t consider it a luxury good. It’s candy, not bread, but it’s there for the masses. It’s just an example being done to literally everything. Give the actual product didn’t change, just the pricing, it actively takes money away from ordinary people and gives it to a few. Would you consider Disneyland similarly a luxury? It’s sad how expensive it’s gotten to keep Wall Street happy, meanwhile it allows for rich kids to go but not poor. Same with baseball games. Same with literally everything. Raising prices to make more profit disproportionally hurts the poor, and makes them poorer.
  • jefftk 4y ago
    A 'luxury good' in the technical sense is one where when your income goes up your spending on that good goes up disproportionately. So: * Rice, Buses: 'inferior goods', because as people get richer they shift their spending to other goods. * Bread, Cars: 'normal goods', because as people get richer they spend more on them. * Caviar, Sports Cars: 'luxury goods', a category of normal goods where as as people get richer they spend a much larger percentage of their income on them. See's Candy is a high-end candy brand, and I would expect it to function as a luxury good here.
    • azinman2 4y ago
      I wouldn’t equate it with caviar or sports cars. It used to be a treat for the masses. My grandparents would often have a box, and were anything but luxury - sharecropping farmers retired and living on social security. I don’t think they ever bought a “luxury” item. But perhaps this is regional as it’s HQed in South SF.
      • jefftk 4y ago
        I do think it's likely more of a luxury item nationally, yeah; I didn't realize you were talking specifically about Sees in its local area. But even then, I wouldn't be surprised at all if had your grandparents suddenly had 20% more money their spending on Sees would have gone up by more than 20%.
      • mbesto 4y ago
        Luxury goods have a definition and has little do with how luxurious the potential buyer is: In economics, a luxury good (or upmarket good) is a good for which demand increases more than what is proportional as income rises, so that expenditures on the good become a greater proportion of overall spending. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods, where demand increases proportionally less than income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods
        • dredmorbius 4y ago
          The etymology is interesting, and even more emphatic: c. 1300, "sexual intercourse;" mid-14c., "lasciviousness, sinful self-indulgence;" late 14c., "sensual pleasure," from Old French luxurie "debauchery, dissoluteness, lust" (12c., Modern French luxure), from Latin luxuria "excess, extravagant living, profusion; delicacy" (source also of Spanish lujuria, Italian lussuria), from luxus "excess, extravagance; magnificence," probably a figurative use of luxus (adj.) "dislocated," which is related to luctari "wrestle, strain" (see reluctance). <https://www.etymonline.com/word/luxury https://www.etymonline.com/word/luxury>
          • mbesto 4y ago
            luxury != luxury goods
            • dredmorbius 4y ago
              Etymology informs. It is not definition, but does show sense evolution. That said, this etymology tends to support your position, given that at the heart of luxury is the sense of self-indulgence. Which would seem to apply to the non-essential nature of See's Candies. Regardless, I wasn't arguing for or against your view, only providing what seems to be an interesting datapoint. Cheers.
  • carlosjobim 4y ago
    Of course Disneyland is a luxury. Do you want to delete the word luxury from the human vocabulary? And for what?
    • lotsoweiners 4y ago
      To go one step further…it is at sellout capacity at luxury prices. Lowering prices would create an untenable situation.
• cody_coconuts 4y ago
  I think one of the problems is that people will treat these as the same. They follow Buffet's lead because the end goal is money. Everything else is a number on a spreadsheet
• sushid 4y ago
  minor minor nits - it's price inelasticity and it's affect not effects
  • mbesto 4y ago
    fixed.