Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> I used to think that highly competitive markets with low prices are the best, but now I am not so sure. Those kind of markets tend to push the quality down as well as squeeze the workers.

I have also mostly changed my mind here. Largely because I've worked in a quality focused shop and seen the difference. But, I also appreciate that cheaper means more people can access goods and services, even if at a lower quality.



sort by: page size:

> prices are low because the quality of products is low

I don't see how this is a bad thing. If people want to buy cheap low quality products they should be able to.


> I don’t want to have to check the price of every item on the manufacturers site to see if I can get it cheaper there.

No one is forcing you to comparison shop. You're trying to take freedom from others so you can financially justify being lazy.

> I understand the anticompetitive concerns, but there is also a big advantage for consumers to be able to have a single market that has the lowest prices available and easy ordering.

Not when that "lowest price available" is now inflated from what it would have been. Consumers lose because now they pay higher prices than they otherwise would have.


> why should somebody from a poorer market only have access to bad quality products

It would be even worse if customers in the poorer market only had access to products they can't afford. The important thing IMHO is that the lower quality version also has a lower price, and that, in case of re-import, there's a way for customers to know.


> It makes me sad to time and time again learn that the low prices of services I love are unsustainable and instead subsidized by treating someone unfairly downstream.

In general, price competitiveness on the market is based on some form of workforce exploitation.

I know it's not a zero sum game and so on, but someone is paying the difference on the discounted price you are offered.


> He didn't claim to be the cheapest

Ugh! Every independent tradesperson that’s spun that line (“I’m not cheap, I’m quality” etc) with me has turned out to be a liar. Super expensive without the quality part …

Most are conmen and incompetent at running a business and price isn’t a strong signal for a good one

Anyone who comes in strong with the hard man, “I’m expensive for a reason” spiel is a hard no now


> Your prices felt too inexpensive. Knowing something was handmade I would have paid more than I did.

Interesting if you read my comment elsewhere here that is a point that I made as well in a different way.

That said perhaps there is a way to tweak the pricing so that they have different perceptions of quality for the price paid. Don't lose the low end market but give an option for those that want to pay more.


> Have you ever shopped around for lower pricing?

It's one thing to shop for a lower price, it's quite another to notice someone's desperate and take advantage.

> The collective population of the world does this when we chose to purchase things for cheaper prices made in countries with more lax environmental and labor laws.

An a lot of people object to that, too, and they often lack the power to make any other decision.


> by using their advantages in the market and not by being better quality or more consistent

But they have a lower price.

That's competition working as intended.

Yes, the lower price thing should win out against the more expensive product.

> to charge supracompetitive prices.

We aren't seeing too high prices.

We are seeing low prices and then competitors that suck complaining about the fact that they suck in comparison to the more competitive company.


> Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company?

Well, yes actually, if the higher cost of those products buys me something that I believe to be worthwhile. There's a whole bunch of stuff I am willing to pay more for, higher quality, better customer service, local ownership or representation, good labor practices, environmental concern, and on and on. I hate this idea that somehow price is the only thing that companies can compete on.


> But you can't raise the price on a low-quality product and expect a great sales response.

Well… obviously.

My point wasn’t that raising the price is always a good idea; it was that it sometimes is. It’s worth mentioning because even the idea that it’s sometimes sensible is surprising to many.


> it's soo frustrating to see how we're ripped off for no good reason

It isn’t for no good reason, the prices are higher for the exact same reason they are lower in Germany: the price set allows the company to make the most money.

Whether prices are high or low, the reason is always exactly the same: it makes the most money.


> it does lead to "crafty consumers" using the unit price as their highest priority criteria for selecting products, and disregarding factors like quality and nutrition.

That will happen no matter what. If you are poor you pay attention to price of the things you buy more then quality.

I know it from practice, only when you have some financial stability you can educate yourself to pick the best product and not just kg/$.

> This leads to way too many products in the ultra low price segment, and a hard time for makers of higher quality products.

I don't think there is any kind of competition between quality product vs cheap products. Be it food or tools or etc. Both cater to different segment. Its like saying that if ford or fiat slash their prices by half, mercedes will loose some of the customers.

Poorer people don't have much choice but to settle for cheaper options. When you have more money you will not buy processed food etc even though its cheap then quality unprocessed food because its hidden cost of health damage is too high.


> If we, workers, consumers, voters, would work together and think a bit more before we work, buy, vote we could change a lot.

Sure. The issue, though, is that people are very price-sensitive because of the above reasons. So retailers bring in the cheaper off-shored products, and the cycle continues.

I think this could be regulated, but it would go against the various free-trade agreements. Which means that maybe we should rethink those.


>I personally do not see how SMBs can compete when they are paying 4x more for labor.

This makes the error of assuming that the only thing a consumer values is cost. That isn't actually the case, but it varies greatly.


> there are product differences that reduce prices but not quality (eg eggs and milk that don't require refrigeration, vastly less packaging, few advertisements)

Being aware of products on sale for cheaper does not help if they're on another continent. (Given that the EU is basically an agricultural-subsidy league, it's not surprising to see produce for cheaper, either, though it depends on local wages as well.)

But the real thing which drives down the prices isn't just savvy, it's that these customers care about the price and are wiling to go to additional efforts to pay less, whether by shopping at a less-traditional or inconvenient place, or by using coupons. Meanwhile the rich-white-single-programmer happily cruises down to a nearby Whole Foods because he really doesn't care about an extra few dollars on his grocery bill; he even buys the pre-sliced fresh fruit as a convenience.

With regards to milk, note that you can find boxed milk in the US (UHT milk, or even milk powder)... it's just not as common, and culturally is regarded as an inferior good. As for eggs, you'll have to blame the USDA for the mandate that they are washed before shipment (as opposed to by the customer).


> If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us ...

Doesn't this tend to become "they're almost free to produce" with the actual pricing for end consumers not becoming cheaper? From the point of view of the sellers just expanding their margins instead.


> So that just means stuff costs a bit more and less net profit margins for companies right? Not ideal but it should be economically viable I would think?

Except you still need to compete with other companies who can undercut your product on price now. A few $ here or there might not matter for some, but most people are going to sort by price and buy the cheapest one. Now there are second order effects - the high volume sellers get economies of scale during manufacturing and better deals from suppliers when they buy in bulk. Now you’re competing with products who are priced much lower. How long before you go out of business?

All is not lost. You could potentially put a “proudly made in $country” tag on your product and charge a premium. You’ll go low volume, high margin. It’s viable and many manufacturers do it. But only the ones with a direct relationship with customers. A supplier making a tiny wizbang can’t sell them to Apple or Ford expecting a premium.


> Yes there is, especially if it results in the consumer paying more for a product.

I don't see why ever-decreasing prices seems to be your metric for good here.

I voluntarily pay more for certain things because it is a more ethical choice in those cases.


> How would you feel if you woke up one morning and couldn't go buy some eggs from the supermarket until you joined their club for 100$ a month?

Sounds like the local co-op; turns out they sell better products and generally provide a better shopping experience...

>But if people disagree with the pricing model and it drives away customers

If you change a pricing model (and it's not cheaper) you'll get a ton of complaints no matter what you do. Their model will work fine.

next

Legal | privacy