5 ms·

> even if they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on the outside, the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would make the sandwich $15 or more in th

by Swizec 4y ago

> even if they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on the outside, the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would make the sandwich $15 or more in the end anyway And there you have it, a perfect description of value. The sandwich costs $15 at the airport, because at the airport it’s worth $15. It may be worth less elsewhere, but that’s its value there. They’re not selling a sandwich, they’re selling a sandwich you can have between flights.

bannedbybros 4y ago
[dead]
chatmasta 4y ago
This doesn't account for all the people who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at home. Nor does it account for the people who decide that a $15 beer is a better value at the airport than a $15 sandwich. The value being measured is the markup, not the full price in isolation.
- Swizec 4y ago
  > who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at home /../ or beer Correct. A sandwich is worth more if you want a sandwich than if you don’t.
- KMnO4 4y ago
  I think the fact that you’re allowed to bring most[0] foods on a plane is not well advertised. I always travel with sandwiches that I either make at home or buy. Throw it in your carry on bag and eat it whenever you want. [0]: some restrictions on liquids or if you’re crossing a border with certain foods
- bluedino 4y ago
  You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water
  - nickjj 4y ago
    > You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water You can technically bring an empty bottle of water or container and fill it up inside of the airport. Your options would typically be a water fountain, bathroom sink or asking a bar tender to fill it up. Typically if you go the bar tender route you may end up tipping them so you don't escape some cost there. I've also heard you can bring a frozen water bottle. The idea there is if it were a dangerous liquid then it wouldn't freeze so you're allowed to bring it. The hard part would be ensuring it stays fully frozen while waiting on line.
tshaddox 4y ago
Given that staple food likely has fairly low elasticity of demand and food sellers in airports likely have extensive market power, I wouldn’t really make any conclusions about “value.” If sellers increase the price from $10 to $15 and the quantity of sandwiches demanded doesn’t decrease much at all, that’s a pretty good indicator that “value” to the buyer didn’t increase much. If the sellers’ economic profits went up about the same proportion as the price did, that’s another dead giveaway.
Symbiote 4y ago
That's true, but doesn't mean they aren't also jacking up the price because they have the monopoly on selling a sandwich you can have between flights. Without the artificial barrier of the security perimeter, you'd be able to order food to be delivered to the airport.
- sowbug 4y ago
  It's OK to take food through security.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    Except liquids or gels. But I meant ordering a pizza and having it delivered, or having a street food van selling sandwiches outside. Neither of those are possible.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Food delivered to the airport, lol. Where would the delivery person park? Why would any driver subject themselves to the traffic snarls of an airport, even if you were to meet them outside? No matter how you justify it, having individual drivers deliver individual orders to an airport would cost far more than even the monopolistic, jacked-up airport food. Honestly, just the idea "food to be delivered"... like seriously, dude, the world isn't here to deliver shit right into your lap.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
The value is no higher at the airport than anywhere else. The difference is who is able to capture the surplus value. At the airport, the vendor captures most of the surplus value due to their monopoly. Elsewhere, the consumer captures a lot of the surplus value due to robust competition between different vendors.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  That’s stretching the definition of value a bit. Value is certainly situational - you wouldn’t say that someone selling the last parachute on a plane that’s falling is « capturing the true value of the parachute » - or someone selling a bottle of water to someone dying of dehydration in the desert is capturing the true value of the water
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    I believe I'm using value[1] in the standard economic way as "measure of the benefit provided by a good or service to an economic agent" often framed as "what is the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service?". It's not the same as market price or market value. Market price is what you actually pay, value is the maximum you would hypothetically pay. The difference between the two is the "consumer surplus"[2]. It is situational, but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside. If food was equally scarce in both locations, you would pay the same amount. The value is the same in both locations, but the price is higher in the airport. That means consumer surplus is higher outside the airport. The cost to the producer is also roughly the same, so the producer surplus is higher in the airport. The producer has used their monopoly position to take a larger portion of the economic surplus inside the airport. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
    - ska 4y ago
      > but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside. I think the poster was claiming that in fact the value is not the same. You aren't hungrier, but you are typically more tired, more rushed, and focused on bigger problems than what to eat for lunch, etc. It's a reasonable argument. That doesn't mean it's thing going on.
freediverx 4y ago
That’s a very pro-capitalist way of saying you don’t really care about free markets. If the airport authority allowed competition and/or if they only granted exclusivity tied to reasonable pricing, then this issue wouldn’t exist.

by Swizec 4y ago

bannedbybros 4y ago

[dead]

chatmasta 4y ago

This doesn't account for all the people who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at home. Nor does it account for the people who decide that a $15 beer is a better value at the airport than a $15 sandwich. The value being measured is the markup, not the full price in isolation.

Swizec 4y ago
> who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at home /../ or beer Correct. A sandwich is worth more if you want a sandwich than if you don’t.
KMnO4 4y ago
I think the fact that you’re allowed to bring most[0] foods on a plane is not well advertised. I always travel with sandwiches that I either make at home or buy. Throw it in your carry on bag and eat it whenever you want. [0]: some restrictions on liquids or if you’re crossing a border with certain foods
bluedino 4y ago
You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water
- nickjj 4y ago
  > You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water You can technically bring an empty bottle of water or container and fill it up inside of the airport. Your options would typically be a water fountain, bathroom sink or asking a bar tender to fill it up. Typically if you go the bar tender route you may end up tipping them so you don't escape some cost there. I've also heard you can bring a frozen water bottle. The idea there is if it were a dangerous liquid then it wouldn't freeze so you're allowed to bring it. The hard part would be ensuring it stays fully frozen while waiting on line.

tshaddox 4y ago

Given that staple food likely has fairly low elasticity of demand and food sellers in airports likely have extensive market power, I wouldn’t really make any conclusions about “value.” If sellers increase the price from $10 to $15 and the quantity of sandwiches demanded doesn’t decrease much at all, that’s a pretty good indicator that “value” to the buyer didn’t increase much. If the sellers’ economic profits went up about the same proportion as the price did, that’s another dead giveaway.

Symbiote 4y ago

That's true, but doesn't mean they aren't also jacking up the price because they have the monopoly on selling a sandwich you can have between flights. Without the artificial barrier of the security perimeter, you'd be able to order food to be delivered to the airport.

sowbug 4y ago
It's OK to take food through security.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  Except liquids or gels. But I meant ordering a pizza and having it delivered, or having a street food van selling sandwiches outside. Neither of those are possible.
listenallyall 4y ago
Food delivered to the airport, lol. Where would the delivery person park? Why would any driver subject themselves to the traffic snarls of an airport, even if you were to meet them outside? No matter how you justify it, having individual drivers deliver individual orders to an airport would cost far more than even the monopolistic, jacked-up airport food. Honestly, just the idea "food to be delivered"... like seriously, dude, the world isn't here to deliver shit right into your lap.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

The value is no higher at the airport than anywhere else. The difference is who is able to capture the surplus value. At the airport, the vendor captures most of the surplus value due to their monopoly. Elsewhere, the consumer captures a lot of the surplus value due to robust competition between different vendors.

medvezhenok 4y ago
That’s stretching the definition of value a bit. Value is certainly situational - you wouldn’t say that someone selling the last parachute on a plane that’s falling is « capturing the true value of the parachute » - or someone selling a bottle of water to someone dying of dehydration in the desert is capturing the true value of the water
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  I believe I'm using value[1] in the standard economic way as "measure of the benefit provided by a good or service to an economic agent" often framed as "what is the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service?". It's not the same as market price or market value. Market price is what you actually pay, value is the maximum you would hypothetically pay. The difference between the two is the "consumer surplus"[2]. It is situational, but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside. If food was equally scarce in both locations, you would pay the same amount. The value is the same in both locations, but the price is higher in the airport. That means consumer surplus is higher outside the airport. The cost to the producer is also roughly the same, so the producer surplus is higher in the airport. The producer has used their monopoly position to take a larger portion of the economic surplus inside the airport. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
  - ska 4y ago
    > but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside. I think the poster was claiming that in fact the value is not the same. You aren't hungrier, but you are typically more tired, more rushed, and focused on bigger problems than what to eat for lunch, etc. It's a reasonable argument. That doesn't mean it's thing going on.

freediverx 4y ago

That’s a very pro-capitalist way of saying you don’t really care about free markets. If the airport authority allowed competition and/or if they only granted exclusivity tied to reasonable pricing, then this issue wouldn’t exist.