Minor things that bother you

[Scott5114]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

It's easily immoral.

[JayhawkCO]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

[Max Rockatansky]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

The Soviet style was the reverse of the domestic auto market.  You applied to get a car and it often would take you several years to get one.  Although I wouldn't call it moral either since bribing party members apparently would get you bumped up the wait list.  Apparently you're political and social significance also played a factor in how fast you got a car also.

[JayhawkCO]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

The Soviet style was the reverse of the domestic auto market.  You applied to get a car and it often would take you several years to get one.  Although I wouldn't call it moral either since bribing party members apparently would get you bumped up the wait list.  Apparently you're political and social significance also played a factor in how fast you got a car also.

Let's just say that consumerism, in general, is not the best example of morality.

[SEWIGuy]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

It's easily immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

Late stage capitalism? It's the basic rule of supply and demand. It's neither moral, nor is it immoral, it just is.

[1995hoo]

The Soviet style was the reverse of the domestic auto market.  You applied to get a car and it often would take you several years to get one. ...

[JayhawkCO]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

It's easily immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

Late stage capitalism? It's the basic rule of supply and demand. It's neither moral, nor is it immoral, it just is.

Eh. I'm going to disagree there. If the CEO of the company is paying himself $400 billion dollars a year, and because of that, to be profitable, a company has to take a widget that costs $0.25 to produce and then charges $200 for it, even if there's demand at that price point, that's pretty immoral to me.

[SEWIGuy]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

It's easily immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

Late stage capitalism? It's the basic rule of supply and demand. It's neither moral, nor is it immoral, it just is.

Eh. I'm going to disagree there. If the CEO of the company is paying himself $400 billion dollars a year, and because of that, to be profitable, a company has to take a widget that costs $0.25 to produce and then charges $200 for it, even if there's demand at that price point, that's pretty immoral to me.

But these are free will transactions. Someone is willingly paying $200 for that widget. Unless it is a lifesaving widget, or the company and the competitor are colluding on the price, I have never thought that charging a price that the market dictates is immoral.

[kernals12]

Because the sales price of a car has little to do with the cost of production.

Which is immoral.

Uh...what? The price of any good has mostly do with the demand for the product. Unless we are talking about price gauging in times of scarcity, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, thats hardly immoral.

It's easily immoral.

Morality can be measured in a lot of ways. Late-stage capitalism isn't our best guiding light.

Late stage capitalism? It's the basic rule of supply and demand. It's neither moral, nor is it immoral, it just is.

Eh. I'm going to disagree there. If the CEO of the company is paying himself $400 billion dollars a year, and because of that, to be profitable, a company has to take a widget that costs $0.25 to produce and then charges $200 for it, even if there's demand at that price point, that's pretty immoral to me.

That is not a remotely viable business model. Another company will come along charging a lower price and steal their market share.

[kphoger]

If the CEO of the company is paying himself $400 billion dollars a year, and because of that, to be profitable, a company has to take a widget that costs $0.25 to produce and then charges $200 for it, even if there's demand at that price point, that's pretty immoral to me.

But, no matter what the CEO's salary, it's still a matter of supply & demand and the price point's being affected by it.  What Scott called immoral is that a product's price has little to do with production cost.  Reducing the CEO's salary to something you find more appropriate doesn't change the inherent nature of supply and demand or its relationship to the price of the product.

[vdeane]

This is why I find "price gouging" arguments interesting.  If something is lifesaving, wouldn't it be better to have it available, if expensive, rather than effectively unavailable due to shortages?  Same with groceries; during the pandemic, when stores were resisting raising prices, my life was miserable bouncing between multiple different stores (I was routinely hitting 3-4 for all grocery trips for a while) and trying to find alternates in order to get everything I needed; once the stores relented and prices went up, my life got a lot easier.

[JayhawkCO]

But these are free will transactions. Someone is willingly paying $200 for that widget. Unless it is a lifesaving widget, or the company and the competitor are colluding on the price, I have never thought that charging a price that the market dictates is immoral.

Fine. Then let me add the caveat that the widget is made from a scarce resource and there is only one other producer in the market, and they don't charge much less, but the company I'm talking about has a bigger marketing department.

That is not a remotely viable business model. Another company will come along charging a lower price and steal their market share.

Software companies say 'Hi'. They charge more than they need to because of perceived value. One of my dad's friends had software that he was selling for $200. He barely sold any. He raised the price to $1,500 and sold a ton.

But, no matter what the CEO's salary, it's still a matter of supply & demand and the price point's being affected by it.  What Scott called immoral is that a product's price has little to do with production cost.  Reducing the CEO's salary to something you find more appropriate doesn't change the inherent nature of supply and demand or its relationship to the price of the product.

I dunno. I guess I have have a more altruistic view of society whereby I would charge what I feel is a fair value for something, as opposite to wringing out every last cent just because the demand is there. YMMV.

[kphoger]

Fine. Then let me add the caveat that the widget is made from a scarce resource and there is only one other producer in the market, and they don't charge much less, but the company I'm talking about has a bigger marketing department.

So we're not talking about the price of cars at all, then.

I guess I have a more altruistic view of society whereby I would charge what I feel is a fair value for something, as opposite to wringing out every last cent just because the demand is there. YMMV.

Then that has little if anything to do with the CEO's salary.  The company either will or not wring out every last cent whether you think his salary is appropriate or you think it's too high.

[JayhawkCO]

So we're not talking about the price of cars at all, then.

I was never talking about cars to start with. I chimed in with talking about capitalism having some innate immoral tendencies.

Then that has little if anything to do with the CEO's salary.  The company either will or not wring out every last cent whether you think his salary is appropriate or you think it's too high.

But, I guess I would then argue that they're still wringing out "more every last cents" because of the salary. If they were content with making $5 per widget after all overhead was concerned, they could charge a lot less had the CEO been paid a reasonable amount and still be just as profitable, arguably more so because they would be selling a higher volume due to the lower price.

[Scott5114]

To me

material cost to produce the goods
+ enough to pay the workers that produced the good a decent salary
+ enough to pay the management that oversaw the production a decent salary
+ a little extra to ensure the company can invest in itself and stay solvent in bad times
a fair price

Anything beyond that is charging money for the sake of charging money. That's called greed. And greed being immoral is certainly not a new concept—I seem to recall it's even a tenet of Christianity.

So yes, if the cost to produce a product goes down the price of the product should go down. Especially if the change results in a product that is able to do less than it was before. (I can accept that if the cost reduction is negligible enough that it would be offset by inflation or by the overhead of repricing the product, it's not worth bothering with.)

[hotdogPi]

So yes, if the cost to produce a product goes down the price of the product should go down.

Most of these seem to be in two categories:

1. Certain foods, especially seafood, milk, and eggs (even before the recent bird flu), fluctuate from week to week. Produce also depends on whether it's in season. With the exception of seafood, this only applies to grocery stores, not restaurants.

2. Technology. Prices of TVs and computers have gone down until about 2010. CDs have also gone down slightly (significantly if you factor in inflation).

Interestingly, medium-distance Uber rides have had decreased prices recently (and short ones increased), but since that's a service, not a physical item, you can't really place a wholesale price on it.

[Scott5114]

Software companies say 'Hi'. They charge more than they need to because of perceived value. One of my dad's friends had software that he was selling for $200. He barely sold any. He raised the price to $1,500 and sold a ton.

God, yes, software prices make absolutely no sense at all. Especially when you look at video games, where the price seems to be dictated by how big the company making the game is—the big corporate developers consistently charge $60 or $70 for the game, no matter how good it is, and then you also have  to shell out if you want DLC. Meanwhile Stardew Valley and Balatro are both $15, and the former regularly gets free updates because the dev had another idea for something he wanted to add.

[SEWIGuy]

To me

material cost to produce the goods
+ enough to pay the workers that produced the good a decent salary
+ enough to pay the management that oversaw the production a decent salary
+ a little extra to ensure the company can invest in itself and stay solvent in bad times
a fair price

Anything beyond that is charging money for the sake of charging money. That's called greed. And greed being immoral is certainly not a new concept—I seem to recall it's even a tenet of Christianity.

So yes, if the cost to produce a product goes down the price of the product should go down. Especially if the change results in a product that is able to do less than it was before. (I can accept that if the cost reduction is negligible enough that it would be offset by inflation or by the overhead of repricing the product, it's not worth bothering with.)

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

[Max Rockatansky]

To me

material cost to produce the goods
+ enough to pay the workers that produced the good a decent salary
+ enough to pay the management that oversaw the production a decent salary
+ a little extra to ensure the company can invest in itself and stay solvent in bad times
a fair price

Anything beyond that is charging money for the sake of charging money. That's called greed. And greed being immoral is certainly not a new concept—I seem to recall it's even a tenet of Christianity.

So yes, if the cost to produce a product goes down the price of the product should go down. Especially if the change results in a product that is able to do less than it was before. (I can accept that if the cost reduction is negligible enough that it would be offset by inflation or by the overhead of repricing the product, it's not worth bothering with.)

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

I tend to see the consumers who continue to purchase overpriced and high margin vehicles as more of the villain.  If nobody was buying 70k plus non-luxury vehicles then the volume automakers would lower their prices.  Clearly the consumer base has largely decided (much to my dismay) that such price points are acceptable. 

[JayhawkCO]

To me

material cost to produce the goods
+ enough to pay the workers that produced the good a decent salary
+ enough to pay the management that oversaw the production a decent salary
+ a little extra to ensure the company can invest in itself and stay solvent in bad times
a fair price

Anything beyond that is charging money for the sake of charging money. That's called greed. And greed being immoral is certainly not a new concept—I seem to recall it's even a tenet of Christianity.

So yes, if the cost to produce a product goes down the price of the product should go down. Especially if the change results in a product that is able to do less than it was before. (I can accept that if the cost reduction is negligible enough that it would be offset by inflation or by the overhead of repricing the product, it's not worth bothering with.)

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

We're just going to agree to disagree, but when it's a staple need that everyone in society needs to survive, I do find that trying to get every last cent out of a transaction is greedy, especially while poverty exists.

[Scott5114]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

[SEWIGuy]

To me

material cost to produce the goods
+ enough to pay the workers that produced the good a decent salary
+ enough to pay the management that oversaw the production a decent salary
+ a little extra to ensure the company can invest in itself and stay solvent in bad times
a fair price

Anything beyond that is charging money for the sake of charging money. That's called greed. And greed being immoral is certainly not a new concept—I seem to recall it's even a tenet of Christianity.

So yes, if the cost to produce a product goes down the price of the product should go down. Especially if the change results in a product that is able to do less than it was before. (I can accept that if the cost reduction is negligible enough that it would be offset by inflation or by the overhead of repricing the product, it's not worth bothering with.)

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

We're just going to agree to disagree, but when it's a staple need that everyone in society needs to survive, I do find that trying to get every last cent out of a transaction is greedy, especially while poverty exists.

I made an exception for the bolded above. Usually that situation occurs, however, when shortages occur.

[SEWIGuy]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

[Scott5114]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

I dunno, man. I think you might just not be a very good person.

[JayhawkCO]

I don't find charging what the market bears to be greedy.

How is "taking as much money as I can without being told no" not greedy?

Because its a free-will transaction. If I am willing to pay $200 for the widget, its not greed if I feel I am getting something that is worth that amount.

I dunno, man. I think you might just not be a very good person.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10

"Do not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of the foreigners residing in your land. For if he is poor, he may be oppressed and cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry. For if you oppress him, he will cry out to the Lord, and I will hear his cry." -- Deuteronomy 24:14-15

"Do not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him of his wages." -- Leviticus 19:13

(These quotes brought to you by an avowed atheist.)