4 ms·

Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really h

Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17

MichaelZuo 4y ago
'MBA types' have been punished for illegal activity, such as price-fixing, in the past. No one has granted them immunity from all future prosecution. So then what's your point? That currently legal actions such as raising prices because a brand wants to move up-market should be made illegal?
- azinman2 4y ago
  I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers and wealth inequality grows.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    The implications of your previous comment suggests so? > Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 It appears to be trying to argue some point, advance some claim, advocate for some cause, etc., relating to organizations increasing their pricing for their goods and services.
- metadat 4y ago
  Ticketmaster is still going strong with no truly serious threats to their Enshittififation business plan. Seems pretty immune to me.
hbrn 4y ago
Funny that you decided to include fast fashion. Fast fashion by definition is a cheap alternative to high fashion. Similarly, there are cheap alternatives to all of the goods that you mentioned. I suggest you to get out of your first-world bubble. Somehow you seem to think that everyone is entitled to luxury. > The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. First of all, that's a weird statement. The percent of people average income spent on most sectors is close to 100%. Ratios will change, but they don't indicate anything if you don't know how to read them. What's your interpretation of this graph? Is it "billionaires are making movies more expensive and people are forced to save on food"? https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/58367/food-prices_fig09.png?v=4234.6 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/58367/food-prices_fi...

MichaelZuo 4y ago

'MBA types' have been punished for illegal activity, such as price-fixing, in the past. No one has granted them immunity from all future prosecution. So then what's your point? That currently legal actions such as raising prices because a brand wants to move up-market should be made illegal?

azinman2 4y ago
I don’t know what I said that made you jump to the conclusion about legality. I never suggested it was illegal. I’m suggesting despite legality, society suffers and wealth inequality grows.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  The implications of your previous comment suggests so? > Saying just buy from a competitor to See’s is completely missing the point. The point isn’t See’s candies specifically (which I’m so surprised everyone really held onto), but rather the mindset of the MBA type (doesn’t matter if they actually have an MBA) that says let’s just keep increasing prices on this commodity forever until we’ve squeezed all the juice, and once we have, we’ll do it some more. When you apply this to every sector, over time you disproportionally hurt those at the bottom and make them poorer. You also cause inflation, which dwindles the power of savings. This software in the article is doing it for housing, and worse, it seems that it does it more than a human would. You especially see it in entertainment, where now a basketball game is something well beyond the capacity of most. It’s very unfair to me as a society that we say only rich kids can go to Disneyland, and NBA game, or a concert. Or if they do, it’s far less often and they’ve had to save for a long time for it. But you also see it with eating out, car insurance, almost every good except fast fashion, TVs (which are largely subsidized by monetizing your viewing), and some other consumer electronics. The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. I’ll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 https://youtu.be/X29p13cAT1g?t=17 It appears to be trying to argue some point, advance some claim, advocate for some cause, etc., relating to organizations increasing their pricing for their goods and services.
metadat 4y ago
Ticketmaster is still going strong with no truly serious threats to their Enshittififation business plan. Seems pretty immune to me.

hbrn 4y ago

Funny that you decided to include fast fashion. Fast fashion by definition is a cheap alternative to high fashion. Similarly, there are cheap alternatives to all of the goods that you mentioned. I suggest you to get out of your first-world bubble. Somehow you seem to think that everyone is entitled to luxury. > The percent of people’s average income spent on most sectors has gone up over time. First of all, that's a weird statement. The percent of people average income spent on most sectors is close to 100%. Ratios will change, but they don't indicate anything if you don't know how to read them. What's your interpretation of this graph? Is it "billionaires are making movies more expensive and people are forced to save on food"? https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/58367/food-prices_fig09.png?v=4234.6 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/58367/food-prices_fi...