I agree it’s morally wrong, but to argue that “it’s not worth the price” when literally people are buying it at that price is not an oversimplification, but the definition, with exceptions (e.g. fraud).
We’re just used to things having a fixed price, at least for consumer goods, and it not being dependent on who is buying and selling it (which is interesting because that is something that didn’t exist until the mid 1800s, this is almost a reversion to the “old way” but just ridiculously unfair, imo).
What the poster said was a useless, sophomoric quip. Its just finding some way to be outraged, which seems to be the goal most of the time.
Prior to the mid 1800s, there were no price tags, and people basically bartered the price on everything. It was the goal of the seller to get as much out of the buyer as possible. Variable pricing based on customer or time or whatever is nothing new. It’s actually probably older than fixed pricing.
Worth is subjective, specific to the individual, and even for an individual it is not some static number. If someone is willing to pay a certain price for something, that is how much it’s worth to them. Basic economics. Like I’m not stupid rich, so I would not buy a luxury vehicle that is north of 100k. I could probably scrape enough money together to put a down payment that would make it manageable for me, but that’s still not worth it to me. The price would have to be much lower to be worth it for me. However, for Bill Gates, that 100k is nothing and might be worth it to him. Hell, even just buying a new Honda, there is going to be a spread of how much people pay at a dealership based on what they believe it is “worth” or what the best price they can get is.
So, saying that by introducing variable pricing means their products are “not worth their price” is patently ridiculous, with even just a basic understanding of economics. I don’t agree with the practice, because back in the day it was one seller against one buyer, and now it would be some massive corporation with tons of data against a single buyer and that’s just ridiculously lopsided. But what the original poster said is just mindless outrage.
I agree it’s morally wrong, but to argue that “it’s not worth the price” when literally people are buying it at that price is not an oversimplification, but the definition, with exceptions (e.g. fraud).
We’re just used to things having a fixed price, at least for consumer goods, and it not being dependent on who is buying and selling it (which is interesting because that is something that didn’t exist until the mid 1800s, this is almost a reversion to the “old way” but just ridiculously unfair, imo).
What the poster said was a useless, sophomoric quip. Its just finding some way to be outraged, which seems to be the goal most of the time.
What the hell are you talking about?
Prior to the mid 1800s, there were no price tags, and people basically bartered the price on everything. It was the goal of the seller to get as much out of the buyer as possible. Variable pricing based on customer or time or whatever is nothing new. It’s actually probably older than fixed pricing.
Worth is subjective, specific to the individual, and even for an individual it is not some static number. If someone is willing to pay a certain price for something, that is how much it’s worth to them. Basic economics. Like I’m not stupid rich, so I would not buy a luxury vehicle that is north of 100k. I could probably scrape enough money together to put a down payment that would make it manageable for me, but that’s still not worth it to me. The price would have to be much lower to be worth it for me. However, for Bill Gates, that 100k is nothing and might be worth it to him. Hell, even just buying a new Honda, there is going to be a spread of how much people pay at a dealership based on what they believe it is “worth” or what the best price they can get is.
So, saying that by introducing variable pricing means their products are “not worth their price” is patently ridiculous, with even just a basic understanding of economics. I don’t agree with the practice, because back in the day it was one seller against one buyer, and now it would be some massive corporation with tons of data against a single buyer and that’s just ridiculously lopsided. But what the original poster said is just mindless outrage.