4 ms·

They're just doing price discrimination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination). It's economical

They're just doing price discrimination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination). It's economically efficient to match customers with their precise ability to pay, right? Sure. Yet what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society. When you slice and dice every market segment such that everyone gets a product with just barely positive ROI, you spread cynicism, misery, and a zero-sum mindset and you actually reduce overall productivity. Yeah, okay, if you require as policy that seats decline and people have a certain amount of legroom, prices might rise a bit, and on the margin, people would take fewer trips and thereby GDP would tick lower or something. So what? Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips by some infinitesimal percentage of it reduces the overall misery of society. The crappy thing about enshittification is we're all part of the same system and participate in the same economy. Hyperoptimization for cost is spiritually shitting where you eat.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society It’s called friction and it’s amply modelled in economics. (Luxury is in many cases exemption from transactional friction.) > Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips taken by some infinitesimal percentage In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.
- quotemstr 1y ago
  > In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying. True. Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? We have minimum wages and we don't let people sell cars made of cardboard, even to those otherwise unable to buy transportation. I'm not sure economists have properly modeled the mass psychic effects of enshittification or, more generally, model the morale and spirit of the people as a proper factor of production.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort. Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. > not sure economists have properly modeled Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
    - quotemstr 1y ago
      > Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why. It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior. Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that? Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt? Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors. You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear. > Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done? You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation. It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf. > Where's the economics model that captures that? Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer? > You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society It’s called friction and it’s amply modelled in economics. (Luxury is in many cases exemption from transactional friction.) > Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips taken by some infinitesimal percentage In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.

quotemstr 1y ago
> In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying. True. Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? We have minimum wages and we don't let people sell cars made of cardboard, even to those otherwise unable to buy transportation. I'm not sure economists have properly modeled the mass psychic effects of enshittification or, more generally, model the morale and spirit of the people as a proper factor of production.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort. Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. > not sure economists have properly modeled Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
  - quotemstr 1y ago
    > Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why. It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior. Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that? Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt? Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors. You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear. > Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done? You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation. It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf. > Where's the economics model that captures that? Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer? > You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.