3 ms·

That stance seems to be the problem and what lead us all to where we are now. Maybe we should consider paying for more things, not less.

Gualdrapo 1y ago
> Maybe we should consider paying for more things, not less. People would be so happy. As the people "owning" a Volkswagen ID.3 or ID.4 when they learned they need to pay a monthly fee for more horsepower. https://futurism.com/car-full-performance-ev-paywall https://futurism.com/car-full-performance-ev-paywall
- dns_snek 1y ago
  That's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Paying for a service which costs money != Paying a subscription to digitally unlock a physical feature in a product that you already paid for.
- jjice 1y ago
  Service vs product. I pay ongoing for my services and I expect to purchase my product once.
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
maybe we should consider getting more wages so we could pay for more things. oh wait, that's not really up for our consideration (past a certain point I suppose)
- dns_snek 1y ago
  This logic implies that money spent on advertising isn't eventually recouped from you. Given that businesses don't engage in charity, there must be an invisible hand of the market reaching into your pocket and taking $5 when you aren't looking, while you thank them for providing you with a "free" service.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    this logic implies that if people had the money to spend on services and they spent that money on services the invisible hand of the market would say "no, that's enough for me, I don't need to take any more" this logic also implies that money recouped eventually is just as valuable to people who are living paycheck to paycheck as money taken at the beginning of the month when people need to figure out how they are going to make it to the end of the month when, damn, the sink in the bathroom just sprung a leak. this logic furthermore implies that if one were to press and say hey, show me the data on the invisible hand taking the 5 dollars, the distribution of such (for example are there incomes which would be better served by the invisible hand taking what it can, and incomes better served by paying?) that such data would be forthcoming - but experience shows that sometimes logics do not deliver all they imply. finally this logic implies that budgeting does not work the way it does, that people do not know how much they are getting paid and they look at their bills and they say hey we can afford to pay for this service or not. No, the logic seems to think that people get paid the amount they get paid, see how much they can afford and also eat until the end of the month, but since they know the invisible hand will be taking from them somehow they bravely say let the children starve, we are going to support the economy dang it.

Gualdrapo 1y ago

> Maybe we should consider paying for more things, not less. People would be so happy. As the people "owning" a Volkswagen ID.3 or ID.4 when they learned they need to pay a monthly fee for more horsepower. https://futurism.com/car-full-performance-ev-paywall https://futurism.com/car-full-performance-ev-paywall

dns_snek 1y ago
That's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Paying for a service which costs money != Paying a subscription to digitally unlock a physical feature in a product that you already paid for.
jjice 1y ago
Service vs product. I pay ongoing for my services and I expect to purchase my product once.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

maybe we should consider getting more wages so we could pay for more things. oh wait, that's not really up for our consideration (past a certain point I suppose)

dns_snek 1y ago
This logic implies that money spent on advertising isn't eventually recouped from you. Given that businesses don't engage in charity, there must be an invisible hand of the market reaching into your pocket and taking $5 when you aren't looking, while you thank them for providing you with a "free" service.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  this logic implies that if people had the money to spend on services and they spent that money on services the invisible hand of the market would say "no, that's enough for me, I don't need to take any more" this logic also implies that money recouped eventually is just as valuable to people who are living paycheck to paycheck as money taken at the beginning of the month when people need to figure out how they are going to make it to the end of the month when, damn, the sink in the bathroom just sprung a leak. this logic furthermore implies that if one were to press and say hey, show me the data on the invisible hand taking the 5 dollars, the distribution of such (for example are there incomes which would be better served by the invisible hand taking what it can, and incomes better served by paying?) that such data would be forthcoming - but experience shows that sometimes logics do not deliver all they imply. finally this logic implies that budgeting does not work the way it does, that people do not know how much they are getting paid and they look at their bills and they say hey we can afford to pay for this service or not. No, the logic seems to think that people get paid the amount they get paid, see how much they can afford and also eat until the end of the month, but since they know the invisible hand will be taking from them somehow they bravely say let the children starve, we are going to support the economy dang it.