3 ms·

> If you stop jerking your readers around and give them a good deal, you may be surprised by how many would be willing to subscribe. If you don't think $450 is

> If you stop jerking your readers around and give them a good deal, you may be surprised by how many would be willing to subscribe. If you don't think $450 is worth unlimited online access and home delivery for the Sunday edition, I'm not sure what to do for you. The main cost of reading the news is the time you lose. Why would you spend several hours per week reading something that you think isn't worth $8 per week? It's an inherently contradictory position.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Why would you spend several hours per week reading something that you think isn't worth $8 per week? Worms, meet the world outside the can. You're going to love it.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> The main cost of reading the news is the time you lose. Why would you spend several hours per week reading something that you think isn't worth $8 per week? There are at least two valid reasons. First, the time cost and the money cost are additive. It could be that you value reading the news at more than the time it takes to do it but not by $450/year. Second, there is an opportunity cost. It's plausible that you might be choosing between two newspapers that have comparable coverage, in which case the subscription rate (or lack thereof) could easily break the tie.
- timsally 12y ago
  Money and time aren't always fungible, but since you consider them additive in your argument lets assume they are for this discussion. Starting software engineers bill out at $100 an hour. If you spend 5 hours a week reading the news, the total cost per year in terms of your time is $26,000. Thus the cost of the newspaper itself is 1.7% of the overall cost. The claim that a price cut to something that only contributes 1.7% to the total cost is going to make reading the newspaper worth it is ridiculous on its face. The same rebuttal applies for differentiating between newspapers. Also, there is a strong argument to be made that businesses should not be targeting or care about people who think a 1.7% price cut makes a difference.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Money and time aren't always fungible Things don't have to be fungible to be cumulative. > Starting software engineers bill out at $100 an hour. Billing rates are irrelevant because time and money are not fungible. For example, I can read the newspaper on the train for 25 minutes each way, but it isn't possible to productively use that time for much else because of the constraints of the environment, so the value (i.e. opportunity cost) of using that time is much lower than most other times. Also, most New York Times readers are not software developers. The average American hourly wage is less than a quarter of the one you're using. > The claim that a price cut to something that only contributes 1.7% to the total cost is going to make reading the newspaper worth it is ridiculous on its face. Amdahl's law explains why this is wrong. If you pay $2000/month for a mortgage, why squabble over $40/month difference in the interest rate? Because $40/month is $40/month. You gain more by reducing a $2040/month expense to $2000/month (even though it's only a ~2% reduction) than by reducing a $20/month expense to $1/month (even though it's a 95% reduction). The percentage of the total is completely irrelevant.
    - timsally 12y ago
      > Amdahl's law explains why this is wrong. Amdahl's law doesn't mean what you think it means; it specifically refutes your position. To spell it out: a 100% reduction in 1.7% of the cost is irrelevant to the total cost despite the fact that 100% is a big number.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Your argument is that you spend time value equivalent of $2167/month reading the news, so the monetary cost of a subscription is inconsequential in comparison. The point of Amdahl's law is that a small percentage of a large percentage can be just as just as consequential as a large percentage of a small percentage. So because ~$2200/month is such a significant percentage of your total income, reducing it by 1.7% is not irrelevant. $8/week is $8/week regardless of whether it's a small percentage of a large number or a large percentage of a small number.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Why would you spend several hours per week reading something that you think isn't worth $8 per week? Worms, meet the world outside the can. You're going to love it.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> The main cost of reading the news is the time you lose. Why would you spend several hours per week reading something that you think isn't worth $8 per week? There are at least two valid reasons. First, the time cost and the money cost are additive. It could be that you value reading the news at more than the time it takes to do it but not by $450/year. Second, there is an opportunity cost. It's plausible that you might be choosing between two newspapers that have comparable coverage, in which case the subscription rate (or lack thereof) could easily break the tie.

timsally 12y ago
Money and time aren't always fungible, but since you consider them additive in your argument lets assume they are for this discussion. Starting software engineers bill out at $100 an hour. If you spend 5 hours a week reading the news, the total cost per year in terms of your time is $26,000. Thus the cost of the newspaper itself is 1.7% of the overall cost. The claim that a price cut to something that only contributes 1.7% to the total cost is going to make reading the newspaper worth it is ridiculous on its face. The same rebuttal applies for differentiating between newspapers. Also, there is a strong argument to be made that businesses should not be targeting or care about people who think a 1.7% price cut makes a difference.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Money and time aren't always fungible Things don't have to be fungible to be cumulative. > Starting software engineers bill out at $100 an hour. Billing rates are irrelevant because time and money are not fungible. For example, I can read the newspaper on the train for 25 minutes each way, but it isn't possible to productively use that time for much else because of the constraints of the environment, so the value (i.e. opportunity cost) of using that time is much lower than most other times. Also, most New York Times readers are not software developers. The average American hourly wage is less than a quarter of the one you're using. > The claim that a price cut to something that only contributes 1.7% to the total cost is going to make reading the newspaper worth it is ridiculous on its face. Amdahl's law explains why this is wrong. If you pay $2000/month for a mortgage, why squabble over $40/month difference in the interest rate? Because $40/month is $40/month. You gain more by reducing a $2040/month expense to $2000/month (even though it's only a ~2% reduction) than by reducing a $20/month expense to $1/month (even though it's a 95% reduction). The percentage of the total is completely irrelevant.
  - timsally 12y ago
    > Amdahl's law explains why this is wrong. Amdahl's law doesn't mean what you think it means; it specifically refutes your position. To spell it out: a 100% reduction in 1.7% of the cost is irrelevant to the total cost despite the fact that 100% is a big number.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      Your argument is that you spend time value equivalent of $2167/month reading the news, so the monetary cost of a subscription is inconsequential in comparison. The point of Amdahl's law is that a small percentage of a large percentage can be just as just as consequential as a large percentage of a small percentage. So because ~$2200/month is such a significant percentage of your total income, reducing it by 1.7% is not irrelevant. $8/week is $8/week regardless of whether it's a small percentage of a large number or a large percentage of a small number.