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

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

Time spent bargain-hunting is an opportunity cost which has real value, not merely the appearance of being valuable. Of course, those who do nothing productive or worthwhile with their free time have the least to lose from spending hours chasing a few dollars in savings.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Of course, those who do nothing productive or worthwhile with their free time have the least to lose from spending hours chasing a few dollars in savings.

What a thoroughly disgusting apologia for privilege. I can't imagine anyone who ever needed to bargain shop having the temerity to declare that the time spent saving dollars wasn't productive or worthwhile.

You can't spin frugality as wasteful. Can't be done.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What a thoroughly disgusting apologia for privilege. I can't imagine anyone who ever needed to bargain shop having the temerity to declare that the time spent saving dollars wasn't productive or worthwhile.

You can't spin frugality as wasteful. Can't be done.

Maybe it is one of those "impossible dreams?"

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What a thoroughly disgusting apologia for privilege. I can't imagine anyone who ever needed to bargain shop having the temerity to declare that the time spent saving dollars wasn't productive or worthwhile.

You can't spin frugality as wasteful. Can't be done.

You don't seem to have understood what an opportunity cost is. Let's say you spend 8-12 hours per week clipping coupons for a total savings of $50-$70. Your effective hourly wage for that time spent is between $4.16 and $8.75 an hour. That is unambiguously a waste of time from the perspective of economic efficiency. Better to get a part-time job, or to upgrade your education to aim for a promotion, or to learn a revenue-generating or -saving skill (such as woodworking, canning, sewing, &c.). This is without considering the loss of intangibles such as time spent with family and friends, relaxation, fun, self-edification, and so on.

One can tackle the problem of purchasing power/affordability from two directions: reduce cost of goods or increase wages. It is a particularly modern affliction, especially in North America, to focus exclusively on the former while ignoring, and even vilifying ("unions are evil, teachers are overpaid, etc."), the latter. As should be clear by now, the former even comes at the expense of the latter. Yet perversely, those who critique this system are attacked as defenders of privilege and enemies of the poor.

[DiapDealer]

Oh, I get it now: work more, get educated. You're right, that doesn't sound like defending privilege or anything.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, I get it now: work more, get educated. You're right, that doesn't sound like defending privilege or anything.

You don't seem to have an argument anymore. Repeating gibberish isn't a very convincing rhetorical tactic.

[HarryT]

Moderator Notice
It's fine to disagree with someone's opinion, but personal attacks have no place here. Stop it. Now.

[holymadness]

Huh? What personal attacks?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by holymadness

You don't seem to have understood what an opportunity cost is. Let's say you spend 8-12 hours per week clipping coupons for a total savings of $50-$70. Your effective hourly wage for that time spent is between $4.16 and $8.75 an hour. That is unambiguously a waste of time from the perspective of economic efficiency. Better to get a part-time job, or to upgrade your education to aim for a promotion, or to learn a revenue-generating or -saving skill (such as woodworking, canning, sewing, &c.). This is without considering the loss of intangibles such as time spent with family and friends, relaxation, fun, self-edification, and so on.

One can tackle the problem of purchasing power/affordability from two directions: reduce cost of goods or increase wages. It is a particularly modern affliction, especially in North America, to focus exclusively on the former while ignoring, and even vilifying ("unions are evil, teachers are overpaid, etc."), the latter. As should be clear by now, the former even comes at the expense of the latter. Yet perversely, those who critique this system are attacked as defenders of privilege and enemies of the poor.

I don't think this is a one size solution fits all problem.
Sure Wal-Mart underpays, but it is legislation and public opinion that allows this. Other stores pay just as poorly, probably more than you realize.

And if store employees get a living wage government and other union employees will demand and probably get more. Perhaps minimum wages should be directly scaled upon the overall populations income. And don't get me started on poverty in general. People were more generous to the homeless in the depression than they are now it seems.

As for saving money, I spend less than 1/2 hour a week browsing flyers and this saves me an average of $25 a week I figure. Generally I go to the two stores that are closest together with the best sale of things I know I can use.
When I was shopping for 5 people I saved over $200 a month and the time and extra transportation was negligible. Plus I enjoy getting a good bargain. It's not that I am cheap, but a $1 saved is around $1.45 earned as it is after tax dollars and it has allowed me to buy things I maybe could not afford, and put aside some for retirement.

Helen.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

People were more generous to the homeless in the depression than they are now it seems.

They were.
Basic psychology: once government stated that helping the poor was the government's job, a lot of people took them at their word.

THE ECONOMIST has done several reports over the years tracking charitable giving and there is an inverse correlation between depth of government social services and the populace's charitable contributions. And not just in money; the biggest effect is in time commitments.

The same applies to other issues like wages and benefits; people see "minimum wage" and think it is exactly that, the minimum acceptable. A starting point for entry level jobs. And originally it was exactly that and only the young and bottom-rung workers got the minimum. But as the government kept raising the minimum companies didn't raise salaries for the upper tiers and more and more people got lumped in with the young and unskilled and perception hasn't changed. Now it is the wage for people that companies feel they can replace at a moment's notice and thus see no reason to pay any more than forced by law. Raises in those jobs are now negotiated in the political arena instead of in the job market.

Law of unintended consequences at work.
Sad and bad but not unexpected.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They were.
Basic psychology: once government stated that helping the poor was the government's job, a lot of people took them at their word.

THE ECONOMIST has done several reports over the years tracking charitable giving and there is an inverse correlation between depth of government social services and the populace's charitable contributions. And not just in money; the biggest effect is in time commitments.

The same applies to other issues like wages and benefits; people see "minimum wage" and think it is exactly that, the minimum acceptable. A starting point for entry level jobs. And originally it was exactly that and only the young and bottom-rung workers got the minimum. But as the government kept raising the minimum companies didn't raise salaries for the upper tiers and more and more people got lumped in with the young and unskilled and perception hasn't changed. Now it is the wage for people that companies feel they can replace at a moment's notice and thus see no reason to pay any more than forced by law. Raises in those jobs are now negotiated in the political arena instead of in the job market.

Law of unintended consequences at work.
Sad and bad but not unexpected.

Heh, do you believe the lot of the average worker was better before the creation of social safety nets, when the poor were obliged to rely on charity? The country with the 5th highest rate of charitable giving, The United States, also has the highest level of economic inequality of OECD countries after... Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.

On the contrary, the shift away from charity as a means of income redistribution has had exactly the intended consequence. A million people giving change to panhandlers and soup kitchens is wasteful and inefficient compared to pooling resources to enable access to shelter, food, education, medical care, and a guaranteed income at a national or state level.

The pseudo-psychologizing about minimum wage is unsubstantiated twaddle. There is no blind spot in the perception of acceptable wages on the part of companies; incomes have been quite deliberately uncoupled from productivity for decades as a result of union-busting, offshoring, and lobbying to convince lawmakers that increasing the costs of doing business would hurt productivity and increase unemployment, i.e. debunked theories of trickle-down economics.

Helen, I will reply to your post when I'm no longer on my phone.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by holymadness

On the contrary, the shift away from charity as a means of income redistribution has had exactly the intended consequence.

Agreed.
100%.

It has shifted the allegiance of the poor from the local community to the government. And in many areas, the allegiance is directly tied to specific political parties, which sends the discussion beyond the bounds of the thread and forum so I'll exit stage right.----------------->

[fjtorres]

Getting back to Overstock vs Amazon, people tend to overeact to price wars.
Those wars rarely reset the pricing expectations of the targetted market.

Though it *has* happened.
(The eink four hour price war of 2010 comes to mind. But that was more of a pivot in pricing models towards subsidized hardware, anyway.)

Me, I'm keeping an eye on overstock: this "challenge" to Amazon might be a prelude to enter the ebook business.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Agreed.
100%.

It has shifted the allegiance of the poor from the local community to the government. And in many areas, the allegiance is directly tied to specific political parties, which sends the discussion beyond the bounds of the thread and forum so I'll exit stage right.----------------->

I see that it bothers you that the poor have the option to vote according to their economic self-interest. Sure, life would be so much easier for the ultra-rich, corporations, and their shills if no one in politics represented the underclasses, but then you would have nothing to complain about and wouldn't that be sad?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by holymadness

I see that it bothers you that the poor have the option to vote according to their economic self-interest. Sure, life would be so much easier for the ultra-rich, corporations, and their shills if no one in politics represented the underclasses, but then you would have nothing to complain about and wouldn't that be sad?

Some people are only happy with what they have got if others are far worse of. I don't think fjtorres is one of them. He is trying to stay away from political debate as it is against the forum rules except in the designated forum. I am sure he would dearly love to engage more heatedly in this discussion as perhaps would I, but not enough to ignore the rules.

Helen