Wrong, that’s what they have been conditioned to believe it’s worth because that’s what things are priced at, it has nothing to do with their actual value.
You buy a Gucci handbag for 2k, it cost 50$ to make and sell, the rest is overhead going to investors. You think you paid a fair price because that’s what these things sell for but if you remove the leeches that have nothing to do with producing the good then you’re left with a 50$ handbag.
If someone is willing to buy something for $1 than it’s worth $1. If someone is willing to buy something for $1,000,000 then it’s worth $1,000,000. Even if it’s a single potato chip.
If a company produces a bag for $50 and sells it for $2,000, then the materials and labor were worth $50, while the completed bag, because a single person was willing to buy it for $2k, is worth $2k (even if its only worth that much to that one person).
If all that overhead paying the “leeches” went away and someone was still willing to pay $2k for the bag, guess how much the bag is worth. Hint: $2k.
How do I know? Because, if a thing sells for a price, that’s its price.
On the flip side, if all those leeches drove the price up to $2,001 and no one was willing to spend that much, the bag would not be worth $2,001 and the price would therefore have to fall. If the cost of the “leeches” was keeping the price above what people were willing to pay, the leeches would be fired and the price of the bag would drop, or the company / product will stop existing in its current form.
Are there more people who would buy a Gucci bag for $50 than for $2k? Absolutely, but why the hell would Gucci sell a bag for $50 when people are literally willing to pay $2k.
No one needs a Gucci bag, be it $1 or $1m. Gucci knows this, their customers (hopefully lol) know this, and yet $2k is still the agreed upon price, because it is paid by people willing to pay it.
You contradict yourself immediately in your first sentence. It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time. Someone willing to pay a high price does not set that price for others. We are talking about setting fair prices, not just for a single outlier.
Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?
Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?
That actually hits the nail on the head and I believe that is a perfectly acceptable way to set prices for luxury items like a Gucci bag.
ETA:
It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time.
It can, because people value things differently. One person might not regard a single item as being worth $1 and $2,000 at the same time, but two people could. And, as long as both people exist, the guy who thinks it’s worth $2,000 is who the company is going to sell it to.
I understand its based on perspective, I’m saying that you can’t say an item holds a certain worth objectively. A Gucci bag is only worth 2000 if you can find someone to pay that. I think the word “worth” is doing extra work it doesnt need to.
We may have different understandings, be referring to different definitions of, or be applying our own connotations to the word “worth”. I’m using it as a noun meaning “material or market value”, while I think you may be thinking of it like “The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable”, or even as an adjective meaning something like “Deserving of or meriting”.
If that’s the case, I get what you’re saying and agree, I don’t personally think a Gucci bag is worth what people are willing to pay for it, nor do I think any part of its production justifies that price. Unfortunately, some people have more cents than sense.
That’s where you’re wrong. It’s the frog in hot water thing that’s happening, prices artificially increase to feed the leeches progressively enough that people just accept it.
You’re a victim here and you’re defending it, it’s disgusting.
It’s the same thing with everything that you purchase! 3$ for celery, the CEO is a billionaire the employees make minimum wage? How much do you think that celery cost???
Well it’s fucking not and it’s more expensive than it needs to be because of billionaires.
Just
Like
Everything
Else
But people pay for it so by your logic then the price is fair, right? Unless all of the sudden you decide to go back on your argument, but you wouldn’t do that, right?
Let me quote you before you say “but it’s essential needs”
“even a single potato chip”
There, your said so, even for food, whatever people pay is a fair price in your mind.
Yes, there is. There’s Elon who is worse than Taylor. Bezos, also worse. But there’s more in common between swift and musk than between swift and her fans.
Not really. What about someone like Notch? Sold Minecraft for $2.5B and became an instant billionaire, no exploitation there.
Now he became an asshole after the fact, but there has to be some people who can become extremely wealthy without taking from others. Sure once you get there by luck and hard work then you should be giving back.
What about the guy that Elon had issue with on Twitter from Sweden who sold something to Twitter and become very wealthy but wanted to pay as much tax as possible etc and just be a nice dude.
Where does her money comes from? People who overpay for what she sells compared to what it’s worth.
If they’re paying for it, then that’s what they think it’s worth. She’s not selling necessities.
By that logic, nothing is really a scam since people are just paying what they think something is worth.
Scams involve tricking people, and lying to them. Concert tickets involve saying “this is how much a ticket costs”. They’re not equivalent.
That’s just tricking people into thinking a ticket should cost that much.
Okay.
Wrong, that’s what they have been conditioned to believe it’s worth because that’s what things are priced at, it has nothing to do with their actual value.
You buy a Gucci handbag for 2k, it cost 50$ to make and sell, the rest is overhead going to investors. You think you paid a fair price because that’s what these things sell for but if you remove the leeches that have nothing to do with producing the good then you’re left with a 50$ handbag.
If someone is willing to buy something for $1 than it’s worth $1. If someone is willing to buy something for $1,000,000 then it’s worth $1,000,000. Even if it’s a single potato chip.
If a company produces a bag for $50 and sells it for $2,000, then the materials and labor were worth $50, while the completed bag, because a single person was willing to buy it for $2k, is worth $2k (even if its only worth that much to that one person).
If all that overhead paying the “leeches” went away and someone was still willing to pay $2k for the bag, guess how much the bag is worth. Hint: $2k.
How do I know? Because, if a thing sells for a price, that’s its price.
On the flip side, if all those leeches drove the price up to $2,001 and no one was willing to spend that much, the bag would not be worth $2,001 and the price would therefore have to fall. If the cost of the “leeches” was keeping the price above what people were willing to pay, the leeches would be fired and the price of the bag would drop, or the company / product will stop existing in its current form.
Are there more people who would buy a Gucci bag for $50 than for $2k? Absolutely, but why the hell would Gucci sell a bag for $50 when people are literally willing to pay $2k.
No one needs a Gucci bag, be it $1 or $1m. Gucci knows this, their customers (hopefully lol) know this, and yet $2k is still the agreed upon price, because it is paid by people willing to pay it.
You contradict yourself immediately in your first sentence. It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time. Someone willing to pay a high price does not set that price for others. We are talking about setting fair prices, not just for a single outlier.
Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?
That actually hits the nail on the head and I believe that is a perfectly acceptable way to set prices for luxury items like a Gucci bag.
ETA:
It can, because people value things differently. One person might not regard a single item as being worth $1 and $2,000 at the same time, but two people could. And, as long as both people exist, the guy who thinks it’s worth $2,000 is who the company is going to sell it to.
I understand its based on perspective, I’m saying that you can’t say an item holds a certain worth objectively. A Gucci bag is only worth 2000 if you can find someone to pay that. I think the word “worth” is doing extra work it doesnt need to.
We may have different understandings, be referring to different definitions of, or be applying our own connotations to the word “worth”. I’m using it as a noun meaning “material or market value”, while I think you may be thinking of it like “The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable”, or even as an adjective meaning something like “Deserving of or meriting”.
If that’s the case, I get what you’re saying and agree, I don’t personally think a Gucci bag is worth what people are willing to pay for it, nor do I think any part of its production justifies that price. Unfortunately, some people have more cents than sense.
Edit: added a word for grammar’s sake
That’s where you’re wrong. It’s the frog in hot water thing that’s happening, prices artificially increase to feed the leeches progressively enough that people just accept it.
You’re a victim here and you’re defending it, it’s disgusting.
I’m not buying $2,000 bags lol
It’s the same thing with everything that you purchase! 3$ for celery, the CEO is a billionaire the employees make minimum wage? How much do you think that celery cost???
We’re not talking about celery, we’re talking about a Gucci bag that no one needs. Food, water, and healthcare should be free.
Well it’s fucking not and it’s more expensive than it needs to be because of billionaires.
Just
Like
Everything
Else
But people pay for it so by your logic then the price is fair, right? Unless all of the sudden you decide to go back on your argument, but you wouldn’t do that, right?
Let me quote you before you say “but it’s essential needs”
“even a single potato chip”
There, your said so, even for food, whatever people pay is a fair price in your mind.
As I said further down to the other person. Artists are beholden to record labels, ticket master, and rock nation as the rest of us.
It’s the system that is broken.
Are you pretending she gives away her cut?
“Oh no, I have to keep these billions of dollars while the majority of people can’t imagine ever owning the place they live in!”
Fuck off, stop defending rich people, they exist at our expense.
I’m not defending per se. I was trying to have a discussion on whether there are scales to these people.
Yes, there is. There’s Elon who is worse than Taylor. Bezos, also worse. But there’s more in common between swift and musk than between swift and her fans.
The answer is no, to become that rich you need to not care a single bit about the rest of humanity.
Not really. What about someone like Notch? Sold Minecraft for $2.5B and became an instant billionaire, no exploitation there.
Now he became an asshole after the fact, but there has to be some people who can become extremely wealthy without taking from others. Sure once you get there by luck and hard work then you should be giving back.
What about the guy that Elon had issue with on Twitter from Sweden who sold something to Twitter and become very wealthy but wanted to pay as much tax as possible etc and just be a nice dude.
Or conversely you have to place your own self worth so high that I would consider it a mental disorder.