Overstock to Amazon: "If they go to 10 cents, I'll go to 9 cents"

[pl001]

Originally Posted by frahse

I can see the title of the book and the subsequent TV series.
I may drop everything and dash off a screen script.

"The evil Price Reducers!"

Or "Who killed the living wage"

There are consequences to all actions and I get annoyed when people only look at the retail price of a purchase. But I acknowledge the general public is usually too ignorant and stupid to know otherwise, and those that do are usually too self-centered to care.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by pl001

...the general public is usually too ignorant and stupid to know otherwise, and those that do are usually too self-centered to care.

I think that's being a little too harsh on people. Yes, it would perhaps serve your own interest to do your shopping in ways that support the nearby economy as much as possible, whether that is the local neighbourhood or the country you live in.

But when you look at the reality, with prices sometimes varying by hundreds of percent between various stores, it's easy to see why people do what they do. It doesn't make someone ignorant, stupid or self-centered when they choose to buy in a way that makes a very real difference to their own bottom line, instead of in a way that not only will punish them immediately, but that may very well not make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Personally I'm following somewhat of a middle road. For minor purchases I often consciously seek out products and vendors that will support my local and national economies. But for a more major purchase, price is king. Does that make me stupid or self-centered? Perhaps. I think of it as being frugal and careful with my money, but maybe that's the same thing.

[Kumabjorn]

It's called rational choice. The consumer is supposed to act out of optimized self-interest. If she doesn't then the economy goes astray, companies can no longer make safe predictions and stop investing.

[pl001]

"Hundreds of percent" differences in price? That's rare, certainly not common. Typically the difference is only a few percent. On big ticket items quality, seller reputation and service mean far more to me than a few percent on price.

Some people will spend hours comparison shopping or wait weeks for a sale to save $10. Evidently their time isn't worth anything, thus the need to be so frugal I suppose.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

It's called rational choice. The consumer is supposed to act out of optimized self-interest. If she doesn't then the economy goes astray, companies can no longer make safe predictions and stop investing.

Sure, but there is a lot more to "optimized self-interest" than price alone. Most people can't grasp that concept anymore.

[HomeInMyShoes]

There are sites that will email you when prices drop on ebooks. I've found that very useful to use as a potential read list.

When I buy twenty or thirty books a year, saving $5 a book is $100 to $150. Which is a reasonable return on a couple of hours of entering the books I'm looking for.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by pl001

"Hundreds of percent" differences in price? That's rare, certainly not common.

Depends on what you're shopping for and where you're shopping. I agree it's not the norm if you take all types of products into account, but for some categories it certainly is very common.

Bicycle parts is one such category, just the other day I had to choose between spending $35 for a new derailleur at a local shop, or ordering the same exact derailleur for $10 online. And that's for a low-end derailleur for my winter beater bike, for higher end stuff the price difference is obviously much higher.

Another is small electronics. If you order directly from Hong Kong the price difference is usually in the hundreds of percent class. That is changing a bit with more and more importers setting up shop on Amazon, but in terms of helping the local economy that's only marginally better than ordering directly from Hong Kong.

Typically the difference is only a few percent. On big ticket items quality, seller reputation and service mean far more to me than a few percent on price.

Yes, I agree, if it's only a few percent difference, you might as well shop as locally as you can. For both the benefit in service and to benefit your local economy.

Some people will spend hours comparison shopping or wait weeks for a sale to save $10. Evidently their time isn't worth anything, thus the need to be so frugal I suppose.

I have zero problems with waiting weeks to save $10, provided I don't need the product right away. Why throw money away if you don't have to?

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by pl001

Sure, but there is a lot more to "optimized self-interest" than price alone. Most people can't grasp that concept anymore.

Never claimed that price was the only factor. After market service, customer service, wide selection, proximity, choice of colors, reputation, vanity and other factors are all part of optimization for the individual. When it's aggregated however, price tends to come up on top every time.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do a Google Search for "Standard Oil". This is precisely what they did (and is the way that Mr Rockerfeller made his zillions). It was the actions of Standard Oil that led to the introduction of anti-trust laws.

This is true, although it's worth pointing out that it was 1890 and involved a scarce product (oil) and not a retailer selling products available to any other retailers.

The general point remains true, however - despite repeated claims that low price retailers like WM are going to drive competitors out of business and then jack prices up, this never happens. WM has driven some competitors out of business, but it has not jacked up its prices. The same is true of Amazon, and the same was true of B&N and Borders vs. smaller stores.

There is *always* competition in the retail space; if WM raised its prices, competitors would instantly pounce because WM does not own the companies that produce the goods sold in its stores, just like Amazon doesn't own exclusive rights to the books sold in its stores, and unlike standard oil which *did* own almost all of the oil refineries in the US.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by pl001

"Hundreds of percent" differences in price? That's rare, certainly not common. Typically the difference is only a few percent.

Not rare at all. Price out any kind of cable at Best Buy, and then check it on Amazon or Monoprice.

Hell, my local Radio shack wanted $20 for a 3 foot cat5 cable 6 years ago. Tell me that isn't wishful thinking.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pl001

Some people will spend hours comparison shopping or wait weeks for a sale to save $10. Evidently their time isn't worth anything, thus the need to be so frugal I suppose.

While time can certainly be considered valuable, it can't be accrued and actually spent on commodities, the way money can. Which is why the "time is money" axiom is pretty much irrelevant with regard to "searching for a bargain" (unless one is using vacation time to bargain-hunt).

In my experience, nobody uses time they can't afford to save $10 they don't feel like wasting.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

WM has driven some competitors out of business, but it has not jacked up its prices.

I agree. Their strategy seems to be to squeeze suppliers, not customers.

The same is true of Amazon . . . .

Disagree on this one. As Catlady noted in #11, Amazon has lately made big increases in many general merchandise items of a sort not seen at WalMart. Last year we bought staples like dog food, peanut butter, and laundry detergent from Amazon, with Amazon as the supplier. Not this year.

For publishers, and authors, I suppose this is good. Low Amazon retail prices are an off and on tactic, not a permanent mission.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pl001

US consumers will actually pay more for products made in the US. Just a couple months ago I was pleasantly surprised to see many US-made options when shopping for carseats. I didn't see that a couple years ago. And companies like Edelbrock and Weathertech proudly advertise the fact they still manufacture in the US and are able to charge a premium because of it. I expect a big campaign when Motorola starts selling the US-assembled X-Phone.

And if you can't see what's wrong with taking jobs that used to be able to support a family and shipping them overseas to factories paying slave labor rates in countries with long records of human rights abuses, well, that should have been obvious.

What frustrates me the most is how difficult it has become to even find quality products anymore. Everything is turning into disposable junk. Often, very expensive disposable junk.

What I can't see is how driving the company in the ground within a few years is better than at least saving local jobs in R&D, accounting, administration, etc? In a vast majority of cases keeping US manufacturing jobs is really not an option simply because companies don't have the pricing power and buyers are not willing to pay more for it. Some admirable campaigns notwithstanding, they have yet to yield any results on any larger scale and may only work in some specific cases. For the vast majority of companies the options are relocating/outsourcing production or dying.

And you are forgetting that the US$ 500.- and up you pay for an assembly line worker in China for 40 hours perweek is a very good wage there. And please skip that "slave labor" nonsense. Those days are long gone. Of course, work in production is no picnic -- that is why they get paid very well by local standards.

The US shouldn't be competing for these kinds of jobs, anyway. You need higher end jobs to make a living wage in America. Trying to keep half-dead, uncompetitive factories alive is not the way.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

There is *always* competition in the retail space; if WM raised its prices, comzpetitors would instantly pounce because WM does not own the companies that produce the goods sold in its stores, just like Amazon doesn't own exclusive rights to the books sold in its stores, and unlike standard oil which *did* own almost all of the oil refineries in the US.

Walmart hasn't raised its prices yet they are being undercut by the Dollar Store chains on the low end and challenged by Target at their sweetspot.

And Amazon... Well, right now we are seeing why they don't play it the BPH way; there will always be a challenger looking to muscle in on their turf.

[speakingtohe]

When I was young it was all about what I wanted, whether I needed it or could afford it. I didn't spend the rent money on a pair of shoes or go so far in debt I couldn't get out, but many of my friends did.

Now I am old and have figured out that if I don't have it and am surviving without it, I don't need it. I think age is a big factor.

I do support local business within reason, not as an act of charity, but because I appreciate the convenience. But 80 % of my purchases are at bigger stores with more variety and lower prices and longer shopping hours.

I have been shopping around for years for a dishwasher. My 40 year old dishwasher still works although it has its moments. So I not only don't need it, but am a bit afraid of replacing working equipment with a lemon When I do buy one it will be partially based on price and partially on features and warranties and installation costs. I have probably spent 5 or 6 hours a year looking at dishwashers. No doubt it was time I could have spent more profitably but not time I would have spent more profitably.

Essentials I buy ahead on sale and it takes little time to check the flyers. I don't buy months in advance, but 3-4 weeks seems sensible if the price is right and I rarely waste anything. I generally only buy what I need or want. This saves me about 30% overall, and usually get a better quality product than the cheapest available.

I spend pretty big bucks on computer equipment, so I shop around. My biggest splurge is dining out. I'd rather spend $50 on a dinner to remember than $10-$20 on mediocre.

But this is just me. Others have their priorities, or did not have the dubious advantage of being brought up dirt poor. Most are not stupid or ignorant or even selfish, they just have not had time or opportunity to learn any better.

Helen