On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:52:50 -0800, Coach wrote: > On Nov 6, 7:19 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> > DavidW wrote: >> >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>> Horry wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:14:13 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >>>>>> -|erc wrote: >> >>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put $500 >> >>>>>> on the price tag!
>> >>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full price >> >>>>>> of the entire contract, >> >>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price >> >>>>>> that you actually have to pay, >> >>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to sleep.
>> >>>>>> And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to normal Coke, >> >>>>>> I just tempted myself >> >>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >> >>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >> >>>>>> it down the sink.
>> >>>>>> Herc >> >>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >> >>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >> >>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in the >> >>>>> first place. Others may intend to, but not attach sufficient >> >>>>> importance to it actually to get round to it.
>> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >> >>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >> >>>> price as the sticker price. >> >>> He asked what the point was.
>> >>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price as >> >>> the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the case, is >> >>> that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry.
>> >> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the checkout >> >> chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its express lane with >> >> DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those with only a few items is >> >> between DIY and standing for ages in a loaded-trolleys queue. I am >> >> required to do _unpaid_ work for Coles now to get out quickly, so in >> >> fairness I should be paying lower prices than those listed for this >> >> work. At present the only compensation I get is not being asked, >> >> "How are you?" by a complete stranger. This is a sigificant >> >> incentive to DIY, but IMO it still doesn't cover the work involved >> >> in all the scanning, weighing, paying and change collecting I am now >> >> required to do.
>> > I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct price >> > for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're being asked >> > to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or rejecting.
>> > So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay less when >> > using the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether you use them.
>> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. >> Since customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout work >> but those at the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that those at >> the DIY checkouts be compensated for that work, either by being paid or >> by paying less for items than those who have their very own Coles >> employee to do the work.
>> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have to >> spend long enough in a queue?
>> > While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to boost >> > store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation on the >> > part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have used >> > watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise is >> > probably good for you.
>> By that logic I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I >> employ them to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I >> then use to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while >> the poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle listening to >> music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
> It may not be music he's listening to. I could be talkback radio > instead.
>>>>>>> -|erc wrote: >>>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put $500 >>>>>>> on the price tag!
>>>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full price of >>>>>>> the entire contract, >>>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price that >>>>>>> you actually have to pay, >>>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to sleep.
>>>>>>> And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to normal Coke, >>>>>>> I just tempted myself >>>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >>>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >>>>>>> it down the sink.
>>>>>>> Herc >>>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >>>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >>>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in the >>>>>> first place. Others may intend to, but not attach sufficient >>>>>> importance to it actually to get round to it.
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >>>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >>>>> price as the sticker price. >>>> He asked what the point was.
>>>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price as >>>> the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the case, is >>>> that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry. >>> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the checkout >>> chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its express lane with >>> DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those with only a few items is >>> between DIY and standing for ages in a loaded-trolleys queue. I am >>> required to do _unpaid_ work for Coles now to get out quickly, so in >>> fairness I should be paying lower prices than those listed for this >>> work. At present the only compensation I get is not being asked, >>> "How are you?" by a complete stranger. This is a sigificant >>> incentive to DIY, but IMO it still doesn't cover the work involved >>> in all the scanning, weighing, paying and change collecting I am now >>> required to do. >> I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct price >> for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're being asked >> to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or rejecting.
>> So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay less when using >> the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether you use them.
> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. Since > customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout work but those at > the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that those at the DIY checkouts be > compensated for that work, either by being paid or by paying less for items than > those who have their very own Coles employee to do the work.
All payments for doing work are the result of a negotiation. There is no intrinsic right to payment just because you do some work. You are free to ask Coles whether they're willing to pay you for the work of doing your own checkout.
And they're free to say no. You then have a choice of not doing the work, or doing it without payment.
> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have to spend > long enough in a queue?
No, of course not. You're not being detained. You can leave whenever you want to. You just can't take your shopping because it's not your property.
>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to boost >> store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation on the >> part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have used >> watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise is >> probably good for you.
> By that logic
By what logic?
I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I employ them
> to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I then use to mow my > lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while the poor employee from Jim's > is sitting in his vehicle listening to music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
> Coach wrote: > > On Nov 6, 7:19 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to > >>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation > >>> on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have > >>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise > >>> is probably good for you.
> >> By that logic I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I > >> employ them to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which > >> I then use to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise > >> while the poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle > >> listening to music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
> > It may not be music he's listening to. It could be talkback radio > > instead.
> Yeah. That changes everything.
Not really. The basic point is still valid whether he's listening to music or listening to talkback radio.
>>>>>>>> -|erc wrote: >>>>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put >>>>>>>> $500 on the price tag!
>>>>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full price >>>>>>>> of the entire contract, >>>>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price >>>>>>>> that you actually have to pay, >>>>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to >>>>>>>> sleep. And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to normal >>>>>>>> Coke, I just tempted myself >>>>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >>>>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >>>>>>>> it down the sink.
>>>>>>>> Herc >>>>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >>>>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >>>>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in >>>>>>> the first place. Others may intend to, but not attach sufficient >>>>>>> importance to it actually to get round to it.
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >>>>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >>>>>> price as the sticker price. >>>>> He asked what the point was.
>>>>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price >>>>> as the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the >>>>> case, is that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry. >>>> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the checkout >>>> chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its express lane with >>>> DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those with only a few items is >>>> between DIY and standing for ages in a loaded-trolleys queue. I am >>>> required to do _unpaid_ work for Coles now to get out quickly, so >>>> in fairness I should be paying lower prices than those listed for >>>> this work. At present the only compensation I get is not being >>>> asked, "How are you?" by a complete stranger. This is a sigificant >>>> incentive to DIY, but IMO it still doesn't cover the work involved >>>> in all the scanning, weighing, paying and change collecting I am >>>> now required to do. >>> I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct >>> price for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're >>> being asked to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or >>> rejecting. So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay less when >>> using the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether you use them.
>> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. >> Since customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout >> work but those at the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that >> those at the DIY checkouts be compensated for that work, either by >> being paid or by paying less for items than those who have their >> very own Coles employee to do the work.
> All payments for doing work are the result of a negotiation. There is > no intrinsic right to payment just because you do some work. You are > free to ask Coles whether they're willing to pay you for the work of doing > your own checkout.
> And they're free to say no. You then have a choice of not doing the > work,
And being detained unreasonably in a queue.
> or doing it without payment.
>> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have >> to spend long enough in a queue?
> No, of course not. You're not being detained. You can leave whenever > you want to. You just can't take your shopping because it's not your > property.
But I have been attracted there on the understanding that I can buy goods there and pay for them and exit the store in a reasonable amount of time. I have wasted my time finding and collecting the items - finding is particularly time consuming - if the amount of waiting time becomes so unreasonable that I have to abandon my goods.
In fact, you would think that the store owners would be anxious to collect their payment very quickly, so if I have to wait excessively I can only conclude that they don't want it and that I should be able to just walk out with the goods, telling the staff that they are quiite welcome to the payment if only they would collect it from me.
>>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation >>> on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have >>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise >>> is probably good for you.
>> By that logic
> By what logic?
By the logic, or the reasoning, that I'm only using time the chick would have used and that I would benefit from the exercise.
> > I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I employ them >> to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I then use >> to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while the >> poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle listening to >> music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
>>>>>>>>> -|erc wrote: >>>>>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put >>>>>>>>> $500 on the price tag!
>>>>>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full price >>>>>>>>> of the entire contract, >>>>>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price >>>>>>>>> that you actually have to pay, >>>>>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to >>>>>>>>> sleep. And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to normal >>>>>>>>> Coke, I just tempted myself >>>>>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >>>>>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >>>>>>>>> it down the sink.
>>>>>>>>> Herc >>>>>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >>>>>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >>>>>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in >>>>>>>> the first place. Others may intend to, but not attach sufficient >>>>>>>> importance to it actually to get round to it.
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >>>>>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >>>>>>> price as the sticker price. >>>>>> He asked what the point was.
>>>>>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price >>>>>> as the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the >>>>>> case, is that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry. >>>>> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the checkout >>>>> chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its express lane with >>>>> DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those with only a few items is >>>>> between DIY and standing for ages in a loaded-trolleys queue. I am >>>>> required to do _unpaid_ work for Coles now to get out quickly, so >>>>> in fairness I should be paying lower prices than those listed for >>>>> this work. At present the only compensation I get is not being >>>>> asked, "How are you?" by a complete stranger. This is a sigificant >>>>> incentive to DIY, but IMO it still doesn't cover the work involved >>>>> in all the scanning, weighing, paying and change collecting I am >>>>> now required to do. >>>> I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct >>>> price for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're >>>> being asked to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or >>>> rejecting. So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay less when >>>> using the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether you use them. >>> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. >>> Since customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout >>> work but those at the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that >>> those at the DIY checkouts be compensated for that work, either by >>> being paid or by paying less for items than those who have their >>> very own Coles employee to do the work. >> All payments for doing work are the result of a negotiation. There is >> no intrinsic right to payment just because you do some work. You are >> free to ask Coles whether they're willing to pay you for the work of doing >> your own checkout.
>> And they're free to say no. You then have a choice of not doing the >> work,
> And being detained unreasonably in a queue.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "detained". When you're detained you have no choice about staying. Either you're physically retrained, or it's been made apparent that you will be if you attempt to leave.
You may not like waiting in a queue, but doing so is your choice. You can remain in the queue to obtain whatever service is available at the far end of it, or you can depart, and do without the service. So you're not detained.
You're also not detained if you've given prior, possibly implied, consent to having to wait in a queue where departing is not a practical option, as for example, when waiting to get out of a station through a ticket barrier.
>> or doing it without payment.
>>> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have >>> to spend long enough in a queue? >> No, of course not. You're not being detained. You can leave whenever >> you want to. You just can't take your shopping because it's not your >> property.
> But I have been attracted there on the understanding that I can buy goods there > and pay for them and exit the store in a reasonable amount of time. I have > wasted my time finding and collecting the items - finding is particularly time > consuming - if the amount of waiting time becomes so unreasonable that I have to > abandon my goods.
You might have grounds to some sort of breach of contract action (I wouldn't give much for your chances though), but they're not detaining you.
> In fact, you would think that the store owners would be anxious to collect their > payment very quickly, so if I have to wait excessively I can only conclude that > they don't want it and that I should be able to just walk out with the goods, > telling the staff that they are quiite welcome to the payment if only they would > collect it from me.
Sometimes, it's true, store owners seem to want actively to discourage customers from bying stuff. Target is like that. But your option is not to buy from them. You can't just walk out saying that they can have payment if they collect it, because the goods are not yours until the store has accepted payment for them, and they're not obliged to accept payment. Theoretically, you could arrive at the checkout desk, only to have the store say that they don't want to sell the goods to you. It would be a bizarre thing for a retailer to do, of course, but legally, it's possible.
>>>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation >>>> on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have >>>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise >>>> is probably good for you. >>> By that logic >> By what logic?
> By the logic, or the reasoning, that I'm only using time the chick would have > used and that I would benefit from the exercise.
I don't see how your conclusion follows from that.
>>> I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I employ them >>> to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I then use >>> to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while the >>> poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle listening to >>> music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
>>>>>>>>>> -|erc wrote: >>>>>>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put >>>>>>>>>> $500 on the price tag!
>>>>>>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full >>>>>>>>>> price of the entire contract, >>>>>>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price >>>>>>>>>> that you actually have to pay, >>>>>>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to >>>>>>>>>> sleep. And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to >>>>>>>>>> normal Coke, I just tempted myself >>>>>>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >>>>>>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >>>>>>>>>> it down the sink.
>>>>>>>>>> Herc >>>>>>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >>>>>>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >>>>>>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in >>>>>>>>> the first place. Others may intend to, but not attach >>>>>>>>> sufficient importance to it actually to get round to it.
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >>>>>>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >>>>>>>> price as the sticker price. >>>>>>> He asked what the point was.
>>>>>>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price >>>>>>> as the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the >>>>>>> case, is that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry. >>>>>> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the >>>>>> checkout chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its >>>>>> express lane with DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those >>>>>> with only a few items is between DIY and standing for ages in a >>>>>> loaded-trolleys queue. I am required to do _unpaid_ work for >>>>>> Coles now to get out quickly, so in fairness I should be paying >>>>>> lower prices than those listed for this work. At present the >>>>>> only compensation I get is not being asked, "How are you?" by a >>>>>> complete stranger. This is a sigificant incentive to DIY, but IMO it >>>>>> still doesn't cover the work involved in all the >>>>>> scanning, weighing, paying and change collecting I am now >>>>>> required to do. >>>>> I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct >>>>> price for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're >>>>> being asked to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or >>>>> rejecting. So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay >>>>> less when using the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether >>>>> you use them. >>>> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. >>>> Since customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout >>>> work but those at the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that >>>> those at the DIY checkouts be compensated for that work, either by >>>> being paid or by paying less for items than those who have their >>>> very own Coles employee to do the work. >>> All payments for doing work are the result of a negotiation. There >>> is no intrinsic right to payment just because you do some work. You are >>> free to ask Coles whether they're willing to pay you for the work >>> of doing your own checkout.
>>> And they're free to say no. You then have a choice of not doing the >>> work,
>> And being detained unreasonably in a queue.
> I think you misunderstand the meaning of "detained". When you're > detained you have no choice about staying. Either you're physically > retrained, or it's been made apparent that you will be if you attempt > to leave.
> You may not like waiting in a queue, but doing so is your choice. You > can remain in the queue to obtain whatever service is available at the > far end of it, or you can depart, and do without the service. So > you're not detained.
> You're also not detained if you've given prior, possibly implied, > consent to having to wait in a queue where departing is not a > practical option, as for example, when waiting to get out of a > station through a ticket barrier.
>>> or doing it without payment.
>>>> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have >>>> to spend long enough in a queue? >>> No, of course not. You're not being detained. You can leave whenever >>> you want to. You just can't take your shopping because it's not your >>> property.
>> But I have been attracted there on the understanding that I can buy >> goods there and pay for them and exit the store in a reasonable >> amount of time. I have wasted my time finding and collecting the >> items - finding is particularly time consuming - if the amount of >> waiting time becomes so unreasonable that I have to abandon my goods.
> You might have grounds to some sort of breach of contract action (I > wouldn't give much for your chances though), but they're not > detaining you.
>> In fact, you would think that the store owners would be anxious to >> collect their payment very quickly, so if I have to wait excessively >> I can only conclude that they don't want it and that I should be >> able to just walk out with the goods, telling the staff that they >> are quiite welcome to the payment if only they would collect it from >> me.
> Sometimes, it's true, store owners seem to want actively to discourage > customers from bying stuff. Target is like that. But your option is > not to buy from them. You can't just walk out saying that they can have > payment if they collect it, because the goods are not yours until the > store has accepted payment for them, and they're not obliged to accept > payment. Theoretically, you could arrive at the checkout desk, only to > have the store say that they don't want to sell the goods to you. It > would be a bizarre thing for a retailer to do, of course, but legally, > it's possible.
You're not saying anything very encouraging here. You even make it sound as though Coles has me over a barrel.
>>>>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>>>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social >>>>> obligation on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would >>>>> have >>>>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra >>>>> exercise is probably good for you. >>>> By that logic >>> By what logic?
>> By the logic, or the reasoning, that I'm only using time the chick >> would have used and that I would benefit from the exercise.
> I don't see how your conclusion follows from that.
I have selected another example and applied to it the principle on which you based your conclusion above that I am not actually losing anything by using the DIY checkout (sorry, that I am actually _gaining_ by it), despite the fact that I am doing work that I didn't do when I used the express line and people with loaded trolleys don't do. Is it that hard to follow?
>>>> I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I employ them >>>> to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I then use >>>> to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while the >>>> poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle listening to >>>> music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
DavidW wrote: > You're not saying anything very encouraging here. You even make it sound as > though Coles has me over a barrel.
I think that's overstating it. All it means is that you either have to accept the terms on which Coles agrees to trade with you, or not trade with them. You can't expect to force them to trade with you on your terms any more than they can force you to trade with them on theirs.
>>>>>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>>>>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social >>>>>> obligation on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would >>>>>> have >>>>>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra >>>>>> exercise is probably good for you. >>>>> By that logic >>>> By what logic? >>> By the logic, or the reasoning, that I'm only using time the chick >>> would have used and that I would benefit from the exercise. >> I don't see how your conclusion follows from that.
> I have selected another example and applied to it the principle on which you > based your conclusion above that I am not actually losing anything by using the > DIY checkout (sorry, that I am actually _gaining_ by it), despite the fact that > I am doing work that I didn't do when I used the express line and people with > loaded trolleys don't do. Is it that hard to follow?
Yes. The problem lies in the word "should" (where it has a meaning akin to "must"). Write "could" and I'd have no difficult with it, but then it wouldn't make the point you want.
>>>>> I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I employ them >>>>> to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I then use >>>>> to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while the >>>>> poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle listening to >>>>> music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
>> You're not saying anything very encouraging here. You even make it >> sound as though Coles has me over a barrel.
> I think that's overstating it. All it means is that you either have to > accept the terms on which Coles agrees to trade with you, or not trade > with them.
With milk there at $1.37/L and >$2.00/L anywhere I don't have the same poor choice of checkout options, they effectively _do_ have me over a barrel. (Bear in mind that the milk price was the same before the express lane was eliminated.)
> You can't expect to force them to trade with you on your > terms any more than they can force you to trade with them on theirs.
>>>>>>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>>>>>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social >>>>>>> obligation on the part of the retailer, you're only using time >>>>>>> you would have >>>>>>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra >>>>>>> exercise is probably good for you. >>>>>> By that logic >>>>> By what logic? >>>> By the logic, or the reasoning, that I'm only using time the chick >>>> would have used and that I would benefit from the exercise. >>> I don't see how your conclusion follows from that.
>> I have selected another example and applied to it the principle on >> which you based your conclusion above that I am not actually losing >> anything by using the DIY checkout (sorry, that I am actually >> _gaining_ by it), despite the fact that I am doing work that I >> didn't do when I used the express line and people with loaded >> trolleys don't do. Is it that hard to follow?
> Yes. The problem lies in the word "should" (where it has a meaning > akin to "must"). Write "could" and I'd have no difficult with it, but > then it wouldn't make the point you want.
Can you just explain why I should not feel that I gain in the mowing example just as I apparently do at the DIY checkout, or do you believe that I do also gain by doing the mowing instead of the guy from Jim's? (Most wouldn't.)
>>>>>> I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I employ them >>>>>> to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I then >>>>>> use to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise >>>>>> while the poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle >>>>>> listening to music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
>>> You're not saying anything very encouraging here. You even make it >>> sound as though Coles has me over a barrel. >> I think that's overstating it. All it means is that you either have to >> accept the terms on which Coles agrees to trade with you, or not trade >> with them.
> With milk there at $1.37/L and >$2.00/L anywhere I don't have the same poor > choice of checkout options, they effectively _do_ have me over a barrel. (Bear > in mind that the milk price was the same before the express lane was > eliminated.)
You seem to be indicating that you'd feel less oppressed by Coles if they charged you $2.00 per litre. If it will make you feel better, you can send the 63 cents difference to me each time you buy some milk.
>> You can't expect to force them to trade with you on your >> terms any more than they can force you to trade with them on theirs.
>>>>>>>> While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>>>>>>> boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social >>>>>>>> obligation on the part of the retailer, you're only using time >>>>>>>> you would have >>>>>>>> used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra >>>>>>>> exercise is probably good for you. >>>>>>> By that logic >>>>>> By what logic? >>>>> By the logic, or the reasoning, that I'm only using time the chick >>>>> would have used and that I would benefit from the exercise. >>>> I don't see how your conclusion follows from that. >>> I have selected another example and applied to it the principle on >>> which you based your conclusion above that I am not actually losing >>> anything by using the DIY checkout (sorry, that I am actually >>> _gaining_ by it), despite the fact that I am doing work that I >>> didn't do when I used the express line and people with loaded >>> trolleys don't do. Is it that hard to follow? >> Yes. The problem lies in the word "should" (where it has a meaning >> akin to "must"). Write "could" and I'd have no difficult with it, but >> then it wouldn't make the point you want.
> Can you just explain why I should not feel that I gain in the mowing example > just as I apparently do at the DIY checkout, or do you believe that I do also > gain by doing the mowing instead of the guy from Jim's? (Most wouldn't.)
I didn't say you should feel that you gain in the DIY case, just that there was an arguable benefit that accrues to you at no cost.
The obvious difference from the Jim's Mowing example is that there you have the clearly cheaper course open to you of owning the required equipment and doing the work yourself. When looking to see whether there's a benfit, you have to make sure you're comparing with the right alternative.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:16:11 +0000, Horry wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:52:50 -0800, Coach wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 7:19 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> > DavidW wrote: >>> >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> Horry wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:14:13 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> >>>>>> -|erc wrote: >>> >>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put >>> >>>>>> $500 on the price tag!
>>> >>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full price >>> >>>>>> of the entire contract, >>> >>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price >>> >>>>>> that you actually have to pay, >>> >>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to >>> >>>>>> sleep.
>>> >>>>>> And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to normal >>> >>>>>> Coke, I just tempted myself >>> >>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >>> >>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >>> >>>>>> it down the sink.
>>> >>>>>> Herc >>> >>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >>> >>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >>> >>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in >>> >>>>> the first place. Others may intend to, but not attach sufficient >>> >>>>> importance to it actually to get round to it.
>>> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >>> >>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >>> >>>> price as the sticker price. >>> >>> He asked what the point was.
>>> >>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price >>> >>> as the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the case, >>> >>> is that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry.
>>> >> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the checkout >>> >> chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its express lane with >>> >> DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those with only a few items is >>> >> between DIY and standing for ages in a loaded-trolleys queue. I am >>> >> required to do _unpaid_ work for Coles now to get out quickly, so >>> >> in fairness I should be paying lower prices than those listed for >>> >> this work. At present the only compensation I get is not being >>> >> asked, "How are you?" by a complete stranger. This is a sigificant >>> >> incentive to DIY, but IMO it still doesn't cover the work involved >>> >> in all the scanning, weighing, paying and change collecting I am >>> >> now required to do.
>>> > I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct >>> > price for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're being >>> > asked to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or rejecting.
>>> > So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay less when >>> > using the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether you use them.
>>> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. >>> Since customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout >>> work but those at the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that those >>> at the DIY checkouts be compensated for that work, either by being >>> paid or by paying less for items than those who have their very own >>> Coles employee to do the work.
>>> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have to >>> spend long enough in a queue?
>>> > While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>> > boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation >>> > on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have >>> > used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise >>> > is probably good for you.
>>> By that logic I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I >>> employ them to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which I >>> then use to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise while >>> the poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle listening to >>> music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
>> It may not be music he's listening to. I could be talkback radio >> instead.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:18:15 +0000, Horry wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:16:11 +0000, Horry wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:52:50 -0800, Coach wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 7:19 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> > DavidW wrote: >>>> >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>> Horry wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:14:13 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> -|erc wrote: >>>> >>>>>> What is the point of cashback? If something costs $500 put >>>> >>>>>> $500 on the price tag!
>>>> >>>>>> When advertising mobile phones you have to give the full price >>>> >>>>>> of the entire contract, >>>> >>>>>> should be the same with cashback, they should give the price >>>> >>>>>> that you actually have to pay, >>>> >>>>>> not after cashback, that'll put that annoying practice to >>>> >>>>>> sleep.
>>>> >>>>>> And what's with vanilla Coke in an identical can to normal >>>> >>>>>> Coke, I just tempted myself >>>> >>>>>> to a can and got a big surprise, some numb nut put vanilla >>>> >>>>>> essense in my Coke and I poured >>>> >>>>>> it down the sink.
>>>> >>>>>> Herc >>>> >>>>> It's a form of yield management, whereby the price people >>>> >>>>> ultimately pay is a function of how much value they attach to >>>> >>>>> money. Some people won't intend to apply for the cash back in >>>> >>>>> the first place. Others may intend to, but not attach >>>> >>>>> sufficient importance to it actually to get round to it.
>>>> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management >>>> >>>> His complaint is about firms which advertise the post-cashback >>>> >>>> price as the sticker price. >>>> >>> He asked what the point was.
>>>> >>> It's debatable whether it's legal to use the post cashback price >>>> >>> as the sticker price anyway. The problem, as is so often the >>>> >>> case, is that the ACCC has bigger fish to fry.
>>>> >> What about grocery prices when the customer takes over the >>>> >> checkout chick duties? The Coles near me has replaced its express >>>> >> lane with DIY checkouts, so the choice now for those with only a >>>> >> few items is between DIY and standing for ages in a >>>> >> loaded-trolleys queue. I am required to do _unpaid_ work for Coles >>>> >> now to get out quickly, so in fairness I should be paying lower >>>> >> prices than those listed for this work. At present the only >>>> >> compensation I get is not being asked, "How are you?" by a >>>> >> complete stranger. This is a sigificant incentive to DIY, but IMO >>>> >> it still doesn't cover the work involved in all the scanning, >>>> >> weighing, paying and change collecting I am now required to do.
>>>> > I think your mistake here is in assuming that there's a correct >>>> > price for goods. There isn't. There is merely the price you're >>>> > being asked to pay, which you have the choice of accepting or >>>> > rejecting.
>>>> > So there's no rationale for saying that you should pay less when >>>> > using the DIY exits. It's entirely your choice whether you use >>>> > them.
>>>> My premise is that one is normally paid for doing work for others. >>>> Since customers with loaded trolleys don't have to do the checkout >>>> work but those at the DIY checkouts do, it seems reasonable that >>>> those at the DIY checkouts be compensated for that work, either by >>>> being paid or by paying less for items than those who have their very >>>> own Coles employee to do the work.
>>>> BTW, can I claim to have been illegally detained by Coles if I have >>>> to spend long enough in a queue?
>>>> > While I don't doubt that these checkouts have been installed to >>>> > boost store profits, and not out of some sense of social obligation >>>> > on the part of the retailer, you're only using time you would have >>>> > used watching the chekout chick do the work, and the extra exercise >>>> > is probably good for you.
>>>> By that logic I should do the work of, say, Jim's Mowing, should I >>>> employ them to mow my lawn. I pay them to bring the equipment, which >>>> I then use to mow my lawn, thereby gaining the benefit of exercise >>>> while the poor employee from Jim's is sitting in his vehicle >>>> listening to music and getting fat eating a hamburger.
>>> It may not be music he's listening to. I could be talkback radio >>> instead.
|
