I just don't understand when it became strange for the advertised pricing of the item sold to reflect... the price of the item. It makes me feel crazy to see all the restaurants coming forward...
a ban on service fees would necessitate a drastic shift for restaurants, requiring businesses to fold costs covered by service fees into the advertised pricing of items sold.
I just don't understand when it became strange for the advertised pricing of the item sold to reflect... the price of the item.
It makes me feel crazy to see all the restaurants coming forward saying that SB 478 will force them to put the full price of items on the menu, as if that on its own was clearly a bad thing that required no elaboration. The restaurants that did elaborate straight up said that business would suffer because people wouldn't buy things if they knew how much it would cost up front, as if that wasn't an extremely explicit and unethical consumer manipulation.
One bit further, outside of this bill in CA, I've heard restaurants use a sort of "race to the bottom" logic. It goes something like, "I have to use these hidden fees because the place down the road does it, and people will go eat there instead if they see the menu price is cheaper". But here in CA restaurants would have gotten a free "out" from that, because all competitors would have to stop the practice at the same time.
Sales tax. It started when you all just swallowed unmarked sales tax, as though it weren't a horrifically regressive mode of taxation. Once that seal was broken, it was only a matter of time until...
I just don't understand when it became strange for the advertised pricing of the item sold to reflect... the price of the item.
Sales tax. It started when you all just swallowed unmarked sales tax, as though it weren't a horrifically regressive mode of taxation. Once that seal was broken, it was only a matter of time until hidden costs became normalized.
Sales taxes do serve as a useful way of discouraging consumption and adding social costs to goods. Carbon taxes are just a sliding scale sales tax after all. In tourist destinations, they insure...
Sales taxes do serve as a useful way of discouraging consumption and adding social costs to goods. Carbon taxes are just a sliding scale sales tax after all. In tourist destinations, they insure the tourists pay for some of the services they use which would disproportionately impact locals.
The problem is that they're way too low for many goods, and the funds incorrectly allocated. Sales taxes should be much higher on luxury goods and nonexistent on essentials like clothing and unprocessed food (many states do this already).
All of that said, they absolutely should not be the fundamental basis of state funding. Their collection should be used to offset the social ill for the good (IE waste and environmental damage for goods, rehab for drugs), and offset their regressive nature somewhat by lowering other tax burdens for lower incomes.
An example of a useful tax would be a restaurant sales tax being used to fund food security programs.
Clothing should absolutely be taxed. The fashion industry is one of our most wasteful and ecologically damaging industries. The secondhand market shouldn’t be taxed, but I would argue that there...
Clothing should absolutely be taxed. The fashion industry is one of our most wasteful and ecologically damaging industries. The secondhand market shouldn’t be taxed, but I would argue that there should be higher taxes on new clothes to reduce demand.
Middle grounds I suppose. Basic clothing should definitely be affordable, especially for kids. I think minimum-quality regulations on clothing (via warranties or something) for grownups would help...
Middle grounds I suppose. Basic clothing should definitely be affordable, especially for kids. I think minimum-quality regulations on clothing (via warranties or something) for grownups would help far more for reducing waste than taxes though. It'll also insure the clothes survive to the secondhand market instead of falling apart after a few months.
This can get pretty far into the weeds. For example, some grocery stores sell prepared food, ready to eat, and they might even have some seating, so they’re pretty close to restaurants, and that...
This can get pretty far into the weeds. For example, some grocery stores sell prepared food, ready to eat, and they might even have some seating, so they’re pretty close to restaurants, and that means some things in grocery stores get taxed and other things don’t.
I’m also not sure that the durability of clothing makes up for higher prices. Even good clothing can get damaged so it needs to be replaced. People who would rather have cheaper clothing may know what they’re doing. It may be a fair tradeoff for them.
For something like a carbon tax where it’s not really about revenue, the regressive aspect coukd be fixed by giving the money back in a UBI scheme.
Our local groceries already do this. It's even more complex than that: Hot prepared foods don't qualify for food stamps. Cold prepared foods do. So a hoagie that's not toasted can be bought with...
Our local groceries already do this. It's even more complex than that:
Hot prepared foods don't qualify for food stamps. Cold prepared foods do. So a hoagie that's not toasted can be bought with food stamps, but one that was run through the toaster cannot.
Any remotely competent PoS and inventory system already itemizes what things are taxed and which are not, as well as if they're qualified for benefits usage.
WRT clothing: The point is to make super-cheap clothing nonviable. Sure, expensive clothing breaks, but forcing manufacturers to repair/replace broken clothing say within 3 years means that you've cut off the bottom tier of $5 tshirts that wear out after 3 months.
The point is that the cheapness of goods shouldn't come at the expense of quality of goods. If we lived in a magical world where it didn't take a toll on the planet every time something is extracted and discarded maybe it wouldn't matter. But every thing that is made and then ends up in a landfill is virtually unrecoverable. Sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes it doesn't. There's 0 reason for making clothing so cheap that it can't last for 20 years with minor repairs. So much industrialized clothing manufacture has cheapened clothes so much that they're impossible to repair, when with minor trivial changes that increase cost marginally it becomes possible to easily repair and modify clothes. But of course, that destroys an entire customer base.
If the jeans cost $200, people would still buy them, but they would also probably re-learn how to repair them if they break.
When industrial manufacture of cheap jeans means they cost $20, the effort to repair becomes greater than the effort to replace and you end up with tons of waste and the lack of a market for a craftsman to repair what is made. You can't justify paying $40 to repair a $20 pair of jeans, but you could certainly justify paying $50 to repair a $200 pair of jeans. Extend that to shoes, where repair is actually quite easy if they're not being made to garbage-tier standards, and you've massively decreased global demand for materials once everyone has a baseline.
Am I the only person out here wearing my $40 (on sale with coupons) jeans for 7+ years because I can't afford to buy more or replace them? Because I am. And I can't justify $200 jeans or $50 to...
Am I the only person out here wearing my $40 (on sale with coupons) jeans for 7+ years because I can't afford to buy more or replace them? Because I am. And I can't justify $200 jeans or $50 to repair them either. And 2nd hand stores rarely stock my size well. (Because we all wear our jeans forever until they die.) I have too many clothes from my preferred downsizing my belongings standard because I won't get rid of them, because I can't replace them easily.
I would not, and do not, buy $200 jeans. It makes no sense to price people out of buying clothing. There has to be a medium between $5 clothes and hundreds of dollars.
No, you are not. That's one of the reasons why I am so upset about needing to replace so many pairs of jeans; they were often difficult for me to put into the budget at the time.. Though I will...
No, you are not. That's one of the reasons why I am so upset about needing to replace so many pairs of jeans; they were often difficult for me to put into the budget at the time.. Though I will admit that I could afford them, in that I could move my money around to buy them, it was usually at the expense of something I would use for relaxation or stress relief. But the thing that kills me is that during that time I spent far more than $200 on jeans.
The idea of $200 jeans is not that clothes need to be expensive, it's more to curb frivolous purchases. You are paying more up front, but you are also meant to pay less over time because you're not buying clothes that are meant to fall apart.
But if I can only buy one pair of jeans, it's probably a) still going to wear out because it's my only pair b) likely not fit me well despite being cashy because I'm plus sized (in fact my clothes...
But if I can only buy one pair of jeans, it's probably a) still going to wear out because it's my only pair b) likely not fit me well despite being cashy because I'm plus sized (in fact my clothes already cost more) and c) I just won't buy them because I can't truly afford to spend that much on one thing.
I'm all for automation and not spending money on fast fashion and what have you. My jeans haven't died yet.
If you can tell me how I'd pay less over time buying $200 jeans than owning 3 pairs of $40 dollar jeans (with a second hand pair or two in there somewhere) for over five years, I'd be thrilled to hear it. $200 would discourage all purchases, not just frivolous ones.
Thats why I proposed mandatory minimum warantees. It lets manufacturers decide where to sit on the spectrum while insuring that its unprofitable to sell garbage. Eddie Bauer used to have...
Thats why I proposed mandatory minimum warantees. It lets manufacturers decide where to sit on the spectrum while insuring that its unprofitable to sell garbage.
Eddie Bauer used to have reasonably priced clothing and would return/replace indefinitely for most anything not unreasonably damaged by the consumer. Like $40 pants.
Then you buy used jeans until you can afford a new pair? Or return the worn out pair for a new pair at no extra cost to you. If you can't find clothes in your size used, you learn to modify...
Then you buy used jeans until you can afford a new pair? Or return the worn out pair for a new pair at no extra cost to you.
If you can't find clothes in your size used, you learn to modify clothes or find a friend who can.
Demand a living wage from your employer if you can't afford basic goods? Just because wages are too low does not mean we shouldn't demand quality goods, we should demand adequate wages.
Target at peak had 450,000 employees. In 2023 had net profit of $4.5 billion. They could pay every employee $5,000 more a year and still have $2.25 billion leftover for shareholders without increasing their profit margin.
Not sure how many used jeans there will be at that cost, tbh, but I doubt I can afford them either. Will the warranty be 25 years if my $40 ones last 5 years? There's not a lot of value added...
Then you buy used jeans until you can afford a new pair? Or return the worn out pair for a new pair at no extra cost to you.
Not sure how many used jeans there will be at that cost, tbh, but I doubt I can afford them either. Will the warranty be 25 years if my $40 ones last 5 years? There's not a lot of value added here.
If you can't find clothes in your size used, you learn to modify clothes or find a friend who can.
So I'll need to buy even larger pants (even less available) and learn modify them or pay my friend for their labor because I'm not an ass who wouldn't.
This is already a problem at the current prices for anyone outside of standard sizes. Add in that women's clothing tends to have elastic in it and it's a whole other level of the thing.
Demand a living wage from your employer if you can't afford basic goods? Just because wages are too low does not mean we shouldn't demand quality goods, we should demand adequate wages.
Target at peak had 450,000 employees. In 2023 had net profit of $4.5 billion. They could pay every employee $5,000 more a year and still have $2.25 billion leftover for shareholders without increasing their profit margin.
And I work for a public university, I make decent money though no one makes enough. I can afford basic goods. If I had to buy jeans more often I'd have to give that money up from work clothes or something else. But I prioritize what I can. I cannot afford a 500% increase in the cost of all of those basic goods.
An extra 5k a year, for example, if all basic goods get that much more expensive will be eaten up immediately. So no that's not realistic.
I'm asking you to understand that there is probably a middle ground here. Because I think your argument is coming from a lack of understanding.
I'm already not buying disposable clothes. I'm already being as frugal as I can, repairing clothes as needed/able and wearing them for a long time. Your ideal outcome of well made products made by people making fair wages is good. But I'm not unique. I grew up this way, getting new clothes at discount stores and being expected to make them last. What you're proposing is not manageable for many people.
Here, I'm gonna hone in on this example, because I think this highlights the issue well. Here's Darn Tough socks. $25 for 1 pair of socks. But barring fire or pet damage, unconditional lifetime...
Not sure how many used jeans there will be at that cost, tbh, but I doubt I can afford them either. Will the warranty be 25 years if my $40 ones last 5 years? There's not a lot of value added here.
Here, I'm gonna hone in on this example, because I think this highlights the issue well. Here's Darn Tough socks. $25 for 1 pair of socks. But barring fire or pet damage, unconditional lifetime gareuntee.
We will replace your socks free of charge:
If they are not the most comfortable, durable and best-fitting socks you can buy. In a nutshell, if you wear a hole in them, we will replace them free of charge.
If your socks are inadvertently damaged. As long as we can tell that they were once a pair of Darn Tough socks, our warranty will apply.
If you lose one of your socks or can only send us back one sock, we will credit you for half the value of the pair.
All claims made in good faith will be considered.
Sure, they're 10x more expensive than most other socks. But you'll only need to buy 10ish pairs for your entire adult life. So I would expect jeans that cost $200 to last at least 20 years. If not directly, they should be repairable for < $50. So you might be priced out of buying new jeans every 5 years, but you could replace (or resell) your $200 for $100 in 3 years if you changed sizes. Or it would be worthwhile finding a tailor to make a $20 adjustment so that they fit better, or patch a rip or redo a seam.
And I never said "all jeans must cost $200. What I am saying is that clothes should probably have a minimum warranteed period of ~10 years minimum. It lets manufacturers choose how they want to approach the problem.
Expensive first-tier goods means used goods retain their prices longer. I was able to resell a used pack and play for the same price I paid for it...if all clothing was more expensive it'd be more reasonable to pay $40 for lightly-used clothes.
It seems so foriegn when we've been raised in a disposable consumer mindset, but there was a time when appliances had 20 year guarantees. Not advertising a 10 year, but is really a 1/3/10 for all/3 parts/1 part as my new washer/dryer combo is. Sure, your dishwasher might cost 20% more, but it's now 90% less likely to break. It'll be harder to "get started" in life, but your savings will pay dividends over time as you're not awash in crap that needs replaced every 3-10 years.
Presuming they're still in business and presuming I dont just lose my socks which absolutely happens. (Also if there are exceptions for animals or fire that just means loopholes in every warranty)...
Here, I'm gonna hone in on this example, because I think this highlights the issue well. Here's Darn Tough socks. $25 for 1 pair of socks. But barring fire or pet damage, unconditional lifetime gareuntee.
Sure, they're 10x more expensive than most other socks. But you'll only need to buy 10ish pairs for your entire adult life.
Presuming they're still in business and presuming I dont just lose my socks which absolutely happens. (Also if there are exceptions for animals or fire that just means loopholes in every warranty) But yes, I understand the concept.
So I would expect jeans that cost $200 to last at least 20 years. If not directly, they should be repairable for < $50. So you might be priced out of buying new jeans every 5 years, but you could replace (or resell) your $200 for $100 in 3 years if you changed sizes. Or it would be worthwhile finding a tailor to make a $20 adjustment so that they fit better, or patch a rip or redo a seam.
I think I'm trying to to make clear that I'm priced out of buying jeans at all. Especially because changing sizes means buying new ones as often as it means getting them taken in.
I understand buying durable goods. There is a reason I own clothes that are 5-10 years old, and if something becomes damaged I try to repair it or repurpose it. But I think poor folks, of whom I genuinely do not count myself, should not be priced out of clothing. And I think that being told to just learn how to fix your own clothes is probably ignoring how difficult that is, especially for denim.
Fundamentally I'm just finding it all quite dismissive, especially telling me to ask for a raise.
I like this idea. Pretty much every pair of jeans I had purchased during the 2010s had blown apart at the seam because the manufacturers all switched their fabrics to lighter weight denim blends....
I like this idea. Pretty much every pair of jeans I had purchased during the 2010s had blown apart at the seam because the manufacturers all switched their fabrics to lighter weight denim blends. The actual stitching held up but the actual fabric tore apart within an inch of the seam. I probably had to replace 8-12 pairs because of this. A number of them were Levi’s, so it wasn’t necessarily because I was buying cheap.
I don’t necessarily think that they have to be so expensive, but there should be more controls put into place that prevents clothing from being disposable.
Idk, I feel like people get sticker shock. For what denim I do buy, I buy high quality denim from Japan that is made in Japan. A pair of good quality Japanese selvedge jeans is usually between...
Idk, I feel like people get sticker shock. For what denim I do buy, I buy high quality denim from Japan that is made in Japan. A pair of good quality Japanese selvedge jeans is usually between $300-$500. That’s what it costs for high quality clothing made by workers in a developed country.
The thing about clothes that bugs me is that it's extremely difficult to evaluate the actual quality. For one it might not be obvious that the material is a blended fiber fabric; they have labels...
The thing about clothes that bugs me is that it's extremely difficult to evaluate the actual quality. For one it might not be obvious that the material is a blended fiber fabric; they have labels on them that will tell you what it is, but that's not necessarily very clear. But then how does a consumer know how to evaluate the quality of a fabric? The average person would not be able to describe the difference between a twill and a tulle, and even if they did they would need to have a scale and a frame of reference to tell the full quality of the fabric. And that's before it comes to stitching and construction! People get sticker shock because they can buy a $10 shirt that lasts for a decade and a $50 shirt that looks almost the same but falls apart in a few months time, so they err towards lower prices. This is one of the reasons why I like @vord's warranty idea; with any luck, it will mean that clothes will be made to a standard of durability and prevent the need to repair them in the first place.
Labor issues are another can of worms entirely. Something worth talking about, but also not something I'd like to get into right now.
That's a key point. Every single manufacturer, every service provider, everyone, will tell you with a straight face "our (service/product/whatever) is of the highest quality." Reflexively. Without...
extremely difficult to evaluate the actual quality
That's a key point.
Every single manufacturer, every service provider, everyone, will tell you with a straight face "our (service/product/whatever) is of the highest quality." Reflexively. Without hesitation. Their whatever it is has been crafted with care and precision and using only the best and most durable materials.
Which is total bullshit. Obviously. Clearly. They're all lying. But they're allowed to lie, and basically all of them do. There might be a few Johnny-come-latelys who actually are using quality and durability as their standards, but they're lost amid a sea of liars.
And soon enough one of the bigger liar companies will buy that Johnny out specifically to ride that untarnished brand name down into the mud. Eking out a few more years of easy money before consumers catch on that "oh, this (brand) that used to be great is now shit ... damnit!"
So what do you do? Risk throwing money away on something that's only high priced (not quality and priced accordingly, just priced high to fleece suckers), or buy the cheapest crap available since you can't trust it isn't cheap crap?
That pricing is key. You can't count on a high price meaning it's worth it. Lots of products will be positioned at high price points to rake in unearned cash based off marketing and cache, but again it's very tough for a consumer to figure it out. Especially since most of us, with most things we need and use in our lives, aren't experts in those things.
How do you know what's a quality lawnmower versus a crappy POS that's gonna rust out and stop running next year? Who can tell a good shirt from a shit one? Is this brand of canned soup really worth the extra 75% they want to charge over the "cheap" store brand? Hand tools, computer parts, home furnishings, clothes, food, anything.
Most first world people utilize thousands of products over the course of a year, and we basically guess every single time as to which are quality and which are just inflated shite pumped up by marketing and lies.
For a while the Information Age allowed online adopters to use the new channels, the new ways of exchanging information with one another, to have an edge over the companies trying to push crap. But corporations have figured that out, and now they pay (or otherwise manipulate) online channels such as search engines and review sites and forums to push the crap and downplay the Johnnies.
It's not a race to the bottom. We're there. Hello bottom. Now they're just pod racing the canyons on the bottom. Or, rather, forcing all of us to carve those canyons.
Most of us have experienced the annoyance (or worse) of smacking head first into one of the walls when we tried to make an informed purchase and only after the fact found out we'd chosen poorly and bought the lie. What can you do though? Become an expert in everything?
Most people just buy crap and expect it to be crap. It's a consumer defense mechanism.
Back in the heyday of /r/malefashionadvice around 10 years ago, everyone seemed to be getting nice selvedge jeans, but there also seemed to be a new jeans crotch blowout post every day as well. I...
Back in the heyday of /r/malefashionadvice around 10 years ago, everyone seemed to be getting nice selvedge jeans, but there also seemed to be a new jeans crotch blowout post every day as well. I personally noticed heavy wear in that area on my one expensive pair of selvedge jeans, and I stopped wearing them after it started to look bad. Maybe it's because heavy denim was in style and all the jean makers switched fabrics without somehow adjusting their patterns for the difference in material.
I know the previous poster was talking about cheap fabric, but have you noticed that some of the vaunted high quality denim jeans don't actually end up lasting longer as well?
Honestly I’m not exactly sure what some people are doing in their pants - like are they doing squats at the gym or something? I haven’t noticed any particularly self destructing. But a) I don’t...
Honestly I’m not exactly sure what some people are doing in their pants - like are they doing squats at the gym or something?
I haven’t noticed any particularly self destructing. But a) I don’t get hyper slim clothes anymore, which malefashionadvice is still stuck on, and is probably not great for the structural integrity of your jean crotches b) I don’t generally destroy my clothes through wear to begin with.
I think the tightness has a lot to do with it. I saw on that sub a lot of Americans squeezing themselves into Japanese sized skinny jeans three sizes too small and that’s going to cause wear just because the clothes no longer match the anatomy.
Maybe it's because 10 years ago was also the heyday of /r/fitness and everyone was also squatting 3x a week, drinking a gallon of milk a day, and getting massive thighs.
Maybe it's because 10 years ago was also the heyday of /r/fitness and everyone was also squatting 3x a week, drinking a gallon of milk a day, and getting massive thighs.
But how long will those jeans last as compared to some mixed-fiber fast fashion pair? 5 years? 10? And if the base material quality is good, they can be patched or mended when needed, carrying...
But how long will those jeans last as compared to some mixed-fiber fast fashion pair? 5 years? 10? And if the base material quality is good, they can be patched or mended when needed, carrying them even further onward. It's the boots problem in a nutshell. People buy cheap stuff because its more accessible now, but far more expensive in the long term, both for the consumer and the environment.
Most consumers don't think about the long term costs. That's why it's somewhat essential to regulate manufacturers from bottoming out the quality floor. Poor consumers will almost always reach for...
Most consumers don't think about the long term costs. That's why it's somewhat essential to regulate manufacturers from bottoming out the quality floor. Poor consumers will almost always reach for the bottom.
See also: This is how Walmart ate America and paved the way for Amazon.
Sure, and that’s part of why I fork over $400 for pants. But a common reaction is “why would you pay $400 for pants!?” I’m not sure people would be okay in a world where all jeans cost >$300 but...
Sure, and that’s part of why I fork over $400 for pants. But a common reaction is “why would you pay $400 for pants!?”
I’m not sure people would be okay in a world where all jeans cost >$300 but are exquisitely crafted. Having the whole range of market prices is for the best, in the end.
That's where the used market thrives. It already works that way for cars and computers. It makes sense in a world where quality for most goods is at an acceptably high minimum threshold a...
That's where the used market thrives.
It already works that way for cars and computers. It makes sense in a world where quality for most goods is at an acceptably high minimum threshold a used/refurb market would expand to cover the low end.
For people to decide on their own based on their needs and use cases? For the latter, I think the cheaper end of clothing is getting a bit exaggerated. For the average white collar worker who does...
For people to decide on their own based on their needs and use cases? For the latter, I think the cheaper end of clothing is getting a bit exaggerated. For the average white collar worker who does crazy things like: drive in cars, sit at desks, eat at restaurants, your fast fashion should not be imploding within a year.
I have uniqlo shirts and pants that I've worn regularly for >6 years now with no signs of wear.
Certainly if you do physical labor in them that changes the equations, but that's what I mean with "need". They're as much a tool as a hammer or screwdriver, in that case.
Yes, but it does make prices and payment more complicated to understand, even though computers can deal with it. We are talking about predictability for consumers doing math in their heads.
Yes, but it does make prices and payment more complicated to understand, even though computers can deal with it. We are talking about predictability for consumers doing math in their heads.
And that's why the taxes should always be baked into the cost shown on the shelf. Not hidden behind the final receipt at the register. Mildly tangential that others touched on, I'd like to see a...
And that's why the taxes should always be baked into the cost shown on the shelf. Not hidden behind the final receipt at the register.
Mildly tangential that others touched on, I'd like to see a ban on psychological tricks like $9.99 instead of $10 as well, because I feel it's an artificial distortion of market demand. If a psychological trick of $0.01 is the difference between somebody buying and not-buying a good, it should err on the side of not buying a good.
I don't think @Promonk is arguing against sales tax in general, just specifically unmarked sales tax. As in the price is displayed as $19.99 but you end up paying $21.69 because the 8.5% sales tax...
I don't think @Promonk is arguing against sales tax in general, just specifically unmarked sales tax. As in the price is displayed as $19.99 but you end up paying $21.69 because the 8.5% sales tax wasn't included on the sticker. That's the very definition of a hidden fee, even if the extra line item on the receipt isn't going to the retailer as revenue.
In other countries that have sales tax, it's included in the sticker price. So you're still paying it, but it's labeled up front so you know what to expect at checkout. In those places, hidden fees haven't been normalized in the same way they were in the US, so presumably they would also be more resistant to these newer "service fees" and the like.
This is specifically what I was addressing. I agree that all advertised prices of goods should reflect the entire cost of the good, taxes and fees inclusive (potentially with some leeway for...
as though it weren't a horrifically regressive mode of taxation.
This is specifically what I was addressing. I agree that all advertised prices of goods should reflect the entire cost of the good, taxes and fees inclusive (potentially with some leeway for online purchasing where local sales taxes and shipping might not be known until checkout).
Fair enough. It is worth pointing out however that the only people concerned about curbing consumption are the ones who can afford to consume. My experience of sales tax in other states (we don't...
Fair enough.
It is worth pointing out however that the only people concerned about curbing consumption are the ones who can afford to consume.
My experience of sales tax in other states (we don't have it here, which is why I said "you all") is that entirely the wrong things are taxed, the rate makes no sense, and the burden is disproportionately on the people making a working wage. A billionaire won't give a shit about a 5% tax on diapers or whatever, but that same rate is going to be appreciable to a lower income family.
I'm not a religious person, but I do agree with what the Man said in Luke 12:48: "...For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Mostly that's what I meant, but I am opposed to sales tax for many things. I think it burdens the working class disproportionately. I'm from a state that's been stubbornly refusing to implement...
Mostly that's what I meant, but I am opposed to sales tax for many things. I think it burdens the working class disproportionately.
I'm from a state that's been stubbornly refusing to implement one for decades though. Maybe I've got a wonky view.
I think it is to soften the psychological blow. Why things are $9.99 instead of just $10.00. Instead of a $20 burger, it is $10 burger. Add a $5 gratuity for the wait staff, $3 for the cooks, $2...
I just don't understand when it became strange for the advertised pricing of the item sold to reflect... the price of the item.
I think it is to soften the psychological blow. Why things are $9.99 instead of just $10.00.
Instead of a $20 burger, it is $10 burger. Add a $5 gratuity for the wait staff, $3 for the cooks, $2 maintenance fee for the restaurant premises.
They're also competing against non-restaurant alternatives, like buying a sandwich or other prepared food in a grocery store or packing a lunch. So, the whole restaurant industry could lose...
They're also competing against non-restaurant alternatives, like buying a sandwich or other prepared food in a grocery store or packing a lunch. So, the whole restaurant industry could lose business and that's bad for them.
I still think it's the right thing to do, but it's a tough industry and it's understandable that they're not going to go along with it on their own.
Why did the state legislature pass the new law so quickly, though?
The last time I went to a restaurant with a service fee was at a fricking El Torito, where there was a tiny little sign less than 1" tall that told of it. That sign was on the podium for the...
The last time I went to a restaurant with a service fee was at a fricking El Torito, where there was a tiny little sign less than 1" tall that told of it. That sign was on the podium for the maitre'd, who was not standing there but was instead at the front of it and ushered us to a table before we had a chance to see it. It was not in lieu of a tip, and in fact there was a disclaimer on the receipt - the place where I first found out about the fee - that said that it was not a tip and that I should still tip the waitstaff. That service fee went entirely to the house. The waitstaff were all pretty good, and it wasn't fair to not tip them well, so I paid that as well, but overall my meal was something like 35% higher than what they listed on the menu. That's insane.
I avoid restaurants in general these days, and when I do go it's generally not to places that have those fees in place. They're immoral and should be illegal as well. Tipping is arguably immoral as well, having become a custom because here in the US it was used as an excuse to not pay minorities a full wage.
The price that is advertised should be the price that you pay. Period. There is no acceptable excuse for this behavior. It all boils down to "we want more money and will use any trick that helps us achieve that goal".
I live in New Zealand, and this is insane to me. When I see something costs $20 here, that's exactly what it costs. The way Americans have a price, before tax, before tip, how the hell do you even...
I live in New Zealand, and this is insane to me. When I see something costs $20 here, that's exactly what it costs.
The way Americans have a price, before tax, before tip, how the hell do you even know what you're likely going to end up paying when purchasing anything?
Most people have an idea what sales tax is in the area they live in. Like where I'm at, it's roughly 10%. That's including city/county sales tax, state sales tax, and maybe some other special tax...
Most people have an idea what sales tax is in the area they live in. Like where I'm at, it's roughly 10%. That's including city/county sales tax, state sales tax, and maybe some other special tax like for a transportation district or "community improvement" district. And these don't change that often. They certainly never go down...Anyway, that rough 10% is applicable across the whole metro, though it could be slightly less in some parts, and slightly higher in some parts, as counties/cities can set their own rates. And I know this applies to sales here, not services. There's no tax on a haircut or bringing something in for repair because those are services, not the selling/buying of an item.
As someone who was born in the US and has lived in the US for 37+ yrs, sales taxes have tripped me up exactly once. As a kid, when I tried to buy something from the store, didn't have enough money, then my parents had to step in with a few more bucks. It never surprised me again.
I bought a $1899 Macbook Pro earlier this year. I didn't walk in with $1899 in cash. I mean, I didn't use any cash -- I just used a 0% interest for 24mo credit card. But even if I did pay with cash/debit card, I would know that I need an additional ~$190 for sales taxes. Maybe even a little more, just in case I was wrong with my tax assumptions. Maybe 13% instead of 10%.
The one area where I'll admit it gets tricky is tourism taxes, particularly on hotels. Like I know there's tax, I just don't know how much it is. This is probably true in lots of places across the world: locals love legally fleecing tourists. Obviously I'm not a tourist in my own city so I don't know the taxes for hotel stays; very rarely stay in hotels in my own city. And I certainly don't know tourism taxes in other cities. And that can hurt sometimes. Some hotels websites include prices with tax, while others don't. I was recently in Seattle and had to extend my stay by a night due to a flight cancellation. Front desk said it'd be $341 for that night. That's high, but it is what it is. However, it was really $402 and some change after taxes. That's about an 18% tourism tax rate. Oof.
But again, it's not like I came on this trip with only $341 in extra cash in my pocket for extra expenses. I'm not budgeting down to the penny. If anything, I just have a few less drinks at the bar or something.
Is it weird? Yeah probably compared to the rest of the world. But it's not as crazy as foreigners make it out to be.
Thing is, that's a lot of utterly unnecessary knowledge one has to carry around. Have to know the tax rate. Have to know what it does and doesn't apply to. Have to know what certain things have...
Thing is, that's a lot of utterly unnecessary knowledge one has to carry around.
Have to know the tax rate.
Have to know what it does and doesn't apply to.
Have to know what certain things have extra taxes/fees allowed.
All resolved by just having a very simple and universal piece of legislation that says all stated, displayed, and/or advertised prices must be the full amount for the item/service including all taxes and fees.
Requiring anyone (especially small businesses) who want to physically display prices, to have to-the-cent accurate prices, when tax varies (slightly) by postal code, is really an unfair ask. If...
Requiring anyone (especially small businesses) who want to physically display prices, to have to-the-cent accurate prices, when tax varies (slightly) by postal code, is really an unfair ask.
If the move then, is to make taxes more uniform across larger areas, and then add the requirement, then great. But I don’t know how likely that is to ever happen.
Being that the small business physically displaying the price either would be at a set location where the tax rate wouldn't change or, if mobile, already has to pay separate taxes to each area...
Requiring anyone (especially small businesses) who want to physically display prices, to have to-the-cent accurate prices, when tax varies (slightly) by postal code, is really an unfair ask.
Being that the small business physically displaying the price either would be at a set location where the tax rate wouldn't change or, if mobile, already has to pay separate taxes to each area they operate in, it's not a huge deal.
There'd also be no reason to adjust prices unless the small business is trying to maintain their margins down to the penny. A $5 all-in taco isn't going to magically no longer be profitable if the food truck is in a 7% tax zip today and an 8% tax zip tomorrow. It's going to be priced at a round number that covers all applicable cases, not $4.87 today and have to change the board to be $4.93 tomorrow.
But businesses already know their taxes. They just apply it at the register. How is it any different for them to change their stickers to reflect their post tax price? Grocery stores and big box...
But businesses already know their taxes. They just apply it at the register. How is it any different for them to change their stickers to reflect their post tax price? Grocery stores and big box stores adjust their prices all the time, it's just a part of their pricing model to maintain their margins.
I guess you get weird non-round prices that customers wouldn't like? That's fine, just round it a few cents up or down to a number customers feel fine with.
The only difference is when the calculation happens (before the register or at the register). It's also very common for a majority cash business to build their tax into their prices so they can sell merchandise at whole numbers. They price it with their tax liability in mind and then calculate the amount of sales tax owed come tax time.
But this issue isn't really about the burden on businesses from calculating their prices before the register no matter how I turn this over. This is absolutely about customer marketing.
I've done signage at a couple of stores in the past; the idea that it takes any more effort than collecting the tax at the POS is ridiculous. Here's how it works: Scan price signs or UPCs to check...
I've done signage at a couple of stores in the past; the idea that it takes any more effort than collecting the tax at the POS is ridiculous.
Here's how it works:
Scan price signs or UPCs to check if an update is needed, and add them to a queue.
Go to a print station and start the print job. The system spits out new labels and large format signage in the requested formats, with pricing that's already adjusted for the region the store is in (because pricing varies even when you're not baking taxes into the signage.)
The POS already has to know the tax rate for the store and which items are exempt or subject to additional fees (e.g. environmental taxes, bottle deposits, etc). If you're a large company operating in many markets, it's a solved problem. If you're a marginal business hand-making signs, you're in one location and can do trivial arithmetic.
Taxes can also vary by city in other countries too, and nobody has any issue complying. It's just more tautological American exceptionalism nonsense. Nothing can ever be improved because nothing can ever be improved.
Small businesses typically have a single location. That’s much simpler than being Amazon or Walmart. Or, what’s to prevent them from maintaining the sticker price but changing how much goes to the...
Small businesses typically have a single location. That’s much simpler than being Amazon or Walmart.
Or, what’s to prevent them from maintaining the sticker price but changing how much goes to the company vs. government after a tax update if changing price tags is too much work?
Well said. Taxes are generally pretty easy to mentally calculate and plan for. After a lifetime of doing it you just intuitively add the taxes into your mental calculations without really thinking...
Well said. Taxes are generally pretty easy to mentally calculate and plan for. After a lifetime of doing it you just intuitively add the taxes into your mental calculations without really thinking about it. But two things really annoy me:
Additional fees, like when purchasing tickets to something, or even things like your phone bill where there'll be convenience fees and blablabla fees and such-and-such fees on top of the taxes you've already mentally prepared for. That shit is deceptive and I avoid it as much as possible. So something won't just be $99.99 plus taxes, it'll be $99.99 plus taxes plus a $4 convenience fee plus another $3.27 we-lost-our-last-class-action-lawsuit-and-had-to-pay-out-millions-so-we're-passing-that-cost-onto-you fee.
Inconsistent fees/taxes. You might have one subscription that is $19.99 per month and you get charged $19.99 per month. Then you have another subscription that is $19.99 per month but you get charged $19.99 plus taxes on it. Not a huge deal but it irks me.
This is from a month ago, but I missed it. From the article: ...
This is from a month ago, but I missed it. From the article:
California restaurant owners can now sigh with relief after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Saturday, June 29, that allows restaurant surcharges to remain legal, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. Significantly, Senate Bill 1524 went into effect immediately, superseding the state’s “junk fee ban” that outlaws undisclosed fees from rental car dealers and ticket sellers — and until Saturday, restaurant service fees — and goes into effect Monday, July 1. The new bill keeps restaurant fees legal so long as they present additional fees “clearly and conspicuously.”
...
While many in the hospitality industry are likely relieved, customers are mostly not pleased with the carve-out granted to restaurants, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. Of 1,000 respondents to a recent Chronicle survey, the paper reports that more than 81 percent think restaurant surcharges should be illegal. Eater LA also reports that service fees have become a huge point of discussion between diners and restaurant owners, with Reddit users listing Los Angeles and Chicago restaurants that charge these fees. Meanwhile, two San Francisco residents started a petition to ban “drip-pricing,” the Chronicle further reports, potentially leading to an upcoming ballot measure.
I hate to be litigious, but part of me wants to go around and hunt restaurants that charge hidden fees. I've been hit with too many hidden fees and too many "oh, those were our old prices but...
I hate to be litigious, but part of me wants to go around and hunt restaurants that charge hidden fees.
I've been hit with too many hidden fees and too many "oh, those were our old prices but we're not motivated to print a new menu because the old ones tricks people to order more". These restaurants deserve some ruin for their deception.
There should also be a way to punish restaurants that have a credit card surcharge (especially when it is only listed when you go to pay) considering that those violate their agreements with the...
There should also be a way to punish restaurants that have a credit card surcharge (especially when it is only listed when you go to pay) considering that those violate their agreements with the credit card companies.
You should just get a bounty for reporting them to your credit card provider, like how they give you bonuses for referring new customers. I'd gladly take photos and pass them on at every opportunity.
You should just get a bounty for reporting them to your credit card provider, like how they give you bonuses for referring new customers. I'd gladly take photos and pass them on at every opportunity.
Having needed to engage in cash management for a business, paying 3% to merchant services is a trade worth taking every time. But there's a reason why businesses often don't take American Express....
Having needed to engage in cash management for a business, paying 3% to merchant services is a trade worth taking every time. But there's a reason why businesses often don't take American Express. They want more than the 3% common for Visa and Mastercard.
That's not the California way. Make an app that allows eaters to report fees that aren't conspicuously displayed in exchange for a percent of the fee in successful cases. Then see how much VC...
That's not the California way. Make an app that allows eaters to report fees that aren't conspicuously displayed in exchange for a percent of the fee in successful cases. Then see how much VC capital you can light on fire.
I dunno. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can't help but feel like the pool of people who might try to get away with an undocumented charge is, if not infinite, at least large enough to keep a few...
I dunno. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can't help but feel like the pool of people who might try to get away with an undocumented charge is, if not infinite, at least large enough to keep a few people busy for a long time. California has seen more than 150,000 new businesses founded each year (PDF warning) since 2005, and restaurants make up 5% of businesses in the state. (Download link for .xlsx with data) Anecdotally, restaurants fail at higher rates than other small businesses, but even taking it as a flat percentage of new businesses, that means 7,500 new restaurants opening each year. A single person eating 3 meals a day at restaurants without any repeats could only go to 1,095 restaurants, or less than 15% of all new restaurants in the state.
Which is a far too extensively cited and analyzed way of saying that the pool is functionally infinite for a given person. Not every restaurant will pull something like this, and many more will correct their behavior within the 30 day window of time provided by law for them to remedy it. But if even 10% of the restaurants this theoretical dedicated eater tested got fined, they'd clear $109k.
I moved to California a few months ago and was surprised by the prices and the fees for food. Unfortunately now I remove any adjusted tax and extra fees from the tip. Tipping and asking for money...
I moved to California a few months ago and was surprised by the prices and the fees for food. Unfortunately now I remove any adjusted tax and extra fees from the tip. Tipping and asking for money in general has gotten out of hand. I can't perform any transaction now without getting asked for more money.
If it makes you feel better, California does not a separate tipped and non-tipped minimum wage - both are $16. So can’t be guilt tripped by that at least (and if the tips aren’t split, it’s kinda...
If it makes you feel better, California does not a separate tipped and non-tipped minimum wage - both are $16. So can’t be guilt tripped by that at least (and if the tips aren’t split, it’s kinda odd for the servers to be paid a lot more than the kitchen?)
As someone who regularly eats out since I travel for work, it's pretty universal but especially bad for CA. The rest of the world, especially Japan, can pull off affordable food and exceptional...
As someone who regularly eats out since I travel for work, it's pretty universal but especially bad for CA. The rest of the world, especially Japan, can pull off affordable food and exceptional service without these car dealer style tactics.
I mean, it's important to note that it's built off of insanely cheap labor, at least by western standards. The AVERAGE restaurant employee in Japan makes 1,327 yen an hour - that's $8. Note: not...
especially Japan, can pull off affordable food
I mean, it's important to note that it's built off of insanely cheap labor, at least by western standards. The AVERAGE restaurant employee in Japan makes 1,327 yen an hour - that's $8. Note: not the lowest paid workers, not the minimum wage, the AVERAGE wage.
For a chef, the average wage is 3.42 million JPY, or about $30k, and you better believe they work a lot more than 40 hours a week.
From what I know in Japan a lot of owners make much longer hours and have much more trouble getting by just because they want to keep prices so low. Which is also not a healthy situation. One...
especially Japan
From what I know in Japan a lot of owners make much longer hours and have much more trouble getting by just because they want to keep prices so low. Which is also not a healthy situation.
One interesting thing here is that both the US and Japan I believe rank very high on "restaurants/dining establishments per capita" metric. This means competition is much higher than in a lot of countries which includes the (perceived) pricing of items.
Whenever I hear people from the US talk about their food prices or see the pricing of food in Japan (even before the yen was as low as it is) it always struck me as ridiculously cheap. Certainly, when you compare it to the amount of labor and other costs involved. Which in the US results in this weird tipping culture and these services fees and in Japan in so many restaurants owners struggling to get by without practically living in their restaurants.
I’m not sure if the original law was intended to regulate restaurants, or whether that was an unintended consequence. Maybe someone will fund getting a proposition on the ballot?
I’m not sure if the original law was intended to regulate restaurants, or whether that was an unintended consequence.
Maybe someone will fund getting a proposition on the ballot?
Hopefully it gains traction. I've gotten really sick of placing orders online or over the phone only to show up and see a piece of paper taped to the counter saying "menu prices reflect 3% cash...
Meanwhile, two San Francisco residents started a petition to ban “drip-pricing,” the Chronicle further reports, potentially leading to an upcoming ballot measure.
Hopefully it gains traction. I've gotten really sick of placing orders online or over the phone only to show up and see a piece of paper taped to the counter saying "menu prices reflect 3% cash discount". That's not a discount; that's your processing fee. Just be strsight about it. Pizza Hut also has a special "California fee" that they tack on, which is a whole other layer of frustrating and hilarious. The whole thing is becoming absurd.
Should put up a Proposition to ban tipping altogether while at it. It will never happen otherwise; it needs to be an industry-wide change or else the first restaurants to try will be priced out.
Saw another thread of StubHub getting sued for alleging deceptive pricing. Isn't this same too? https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/31/dc-attorney-general-sues-stubhub-alleging-deceptive-pricing.html
Saw another thread of StubHub getting sued for alleging deceptive pricing. Isn't this same too?
I just don't understand when it became strange for the advertised pricing of the item sold to reflect... the price of the item.
It makes me feel crazy to see all the restaurants coming forward saying that SB 478 will force them to put the full price of items on the menu, as if that on its own was clearly a bad thing that required no elaboration. The restaurants that did elaborate straight up said that business would suffer because people wouldn't buy things if they knew how much it would cost up front, as if that wasn't an extremely explicit and unethical consumer manipulation.
One bit further, outside of this bill in CA, I've heard restaurants use a sort of "race to the bottom" logic. It goes something like, "I have to use these hidden fees because the place down the road does it, and people will go eat there instead if they see the menu price is cheaper". But here in CA restaurants would have gotten a free "out" from that, because all competitors would have to stop the practice at the same time.
Sales tax. It started when you all just swallowed unmarked sales tax, as though it weren't a horrifically regressive mode of taxation. Once that seal was broken, it was only a matter of time until hidden costs became normalized.
Sales taxes do serve as a useful way of discouraging consumption and adding social costs to goods. Carbon taxes are just a sliding scale sales tax after all. In tourist destinations, they insure the tourists pay for some of the services they use which would disproportionately impact locals.
The problem is that they're way too low for many goods, and the funds incorrectly allocated. Sales taxes should be much higher on luxury goods and nonexistent on essentials like clothing and unprocessed food (many states do this already).
All of that said, they absolutely should not be the fundamental basis of state funding. Their collection should be used to offset the social ill for the good (IE waste and environmental damage for goods, rehab for drugs), and offset their regressive nature somewhat by lowering other tax burdens for lower incomes.
An example of a useful tax would be a restaurant sales tax being used to fund food security programs.
Clothing should absolutely be taxed. The fashion industry is one of our most wasteful and ecologically damaging industries. The secondhand market shouldn’t be taxed, but I would argue that there should be higher taxes on new clothes to reduce demand.
I agree with the rest, though.
Middle grounds I suppose. Basic clothing should definitely be affordable, especially for kids. I think minimum-quality regulations on clothing (via warranties or something) for grownups would help far more for reducing waste than taxes though. It'll also insure the clothes survive to the secondhand market instead of falling apart after a few months.
This can get pretty far into the weeds. For example, some grocery stores sell prepared food, ready to eat, and they might even have some seating, so they’re pretty close to restaurants, and that means some things in grocery stores get taxed and other things don’t.
I’m also not sure that the durability of clothing makes up for higher prices. Even good clothing can get damaged so it needs to be replaced. People who would rather have cheaper clothing may know what they’re doing. It may be a fair tradeoff for them.
For something like a carbon tax where it’s not really about revenue, the regressive aspect coukd be fixed by giving the money back in a UBI scheme.
Our local groceries already do this. It's even more complex than that:
Hot prepared foods don't qualify for food stamps. Cold prepared foods do. So a hoagie that's not toasted can be bought with food stamps, but one that was run through the toaster cannot.
Any remotely competent PoS and inventory system already itemizes what things are taxed and which are not, as well as if they're qualified for benefits usage.
WRT clothing: The point is to make super-cheap clothing nonviable. Sure, expensive clothing breaks, but forcing manufacturers to repair/replace broken clothing say within 3 years means that you've cut off the bottom tier of $5 tshirts that wear out after 3 months.
The point is that the cheapness of goods shouldn't come at the expense of quality of goods. If we lived in a magical world where it didn't take a toll on the planet every time something is extracted and discarded maybe it wouldn't matter. But every thing that is made and then ends up in a landfill is virtually unrecoverable. Sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes it doesn't. There's 0 reason for making clothing so cheap that it can't last for 20 years with minor repairs. So much industrialized clothing manufacture has cheapened clothes so much that they're impossible to repair, when with minor trivial changes that increase cost marginally it becomes possible to easily repair and modify clothes. But of course, that destroys an entire customer base.
If the jeans cost $200, people would still buy them, but they would also probably re-learn how to repair them if they break.
When industrial manufacture of cheap jeans means they cost $20, the effort to repair becomes greater than the effort to replace and you end up with tons of waste and the lack of a market for a craftsman to repair what is made. You can't justify paying $40 to repair a $20 pair of jeans, but you could certainly justify paying $50 to repair a $200 pair of jeans. Extend that to shoes, where repair is actually quite easy if they're not being made to garbage-tier standards, and you've massively decreased global demand for materials once everyone has a baseline.
Am I the only person out here wearing my $40 (on sale with coupons) jeans for 7+ years because I can't afford to buy more or replace them? Because I am. And I can't justify $200 jeans or $50 to repair them either. And 2nd hand stores rarely stock my size well. (Because we all wear our jeans forever until they die.) I have too many clothes from my preferred downsizing my belongings standard because I won't get rid of them, because I can't replace them easily.
I would not, and do not, buy $200 jeans. It makes no sense to price people out of buying clothing. There has to be a medium between $5 clothes and hundreds of dollars.
No, you are not. That's one of the reasons why I am so upset about needing to replace so many pairs of jeans; they were often difficult for me to put into the budget at the time.. Though I will admit that I could afford them, in that I could move my money around to buy them, it was usually at the expense of something I would use for relaxation or stress relief. But the thing that kills me is that during that time I spent far more than $200 on jeans.
The idea of $200 jeans is not that clothes need to be expensive, it's more to curb frivolous purchases. You are paying more up front, but you are also meant to pay less over time because you're not buying clothes that are meant to fall apart.
But if I can only buy one pair of jeans, it's probably a) still going to wear out because it's my only pair b) likely not fit me well despite being cashy because I'm plus sized (in fact my clothes already cost more) and c) I just won't buy them because I can't truly afford to spend that much on one thing.
I'm all for automation and not spending money on fast fashion and what have you. My jeans haven't died yet.
If you can tell me how I'd pay less over time buying $200 jeans than owning 3 pairs of $40 dollar jeans (with a second hand pair or two in there somewhere) for over five years, I'd be thrilled to hear it. $200 would discourage all purchases, not just frivolous ones.
Thats why I proposed mandatory minimum warantees. It lets manufacturers decide where to sit on the spectrum while insuring that its unprofitable to sell garbage.
Eddie Bauer used to have reasonably priced clothing and would return/replace indefinitely for most anything not unreasonably damaged by the consumer. Like $40 pants.
Rinse/repeat for Craftsman and tools.
Right but I spend $120 on 3 pairs of jeans 5+ years ago. What you're proposing does not help me and would price me out of jeans.
Then you buy used jeans until you can afford a new pair? Or return the worn out pair for a new pair at no extra cost to you.
If you can't find clothes in your size used, you learn to modify clothes or find a friend who can.
Demand a living wage from your employer if you can't afford basic goods? Just because wages are too low does not mean we shouldn't demand quality goods, we should demand adequate wages.
Target at peak had 450,000 employees. In 2023 had net profit of $4.5 billion. They could pay every employee $5,000 more a year and still have $2.25 billion leftover for shareholders without increasing their profit margin.
Not sure how many used jeans there will be at that cost, tbh, but I doubt I can afford them either. Will the warranty be 25 years if my $40 ones last 5 years? There's not a lot of value added here.
This is already a problem at the current prices for anyone outside of standard sizes. Add in that women's clothing tends to have elastic in it and it's a whole other level of the thing.
And I work for a public university, I make decent money though no one makes enough. I can afford basic goods. If I had to buy jeans more often I'd have to give that money up from work clothes or something else. But I prioritize what I can. I cannot afford a 500% increase in the cost of all of those basic goods.
An extra 5k a year, for example, if all basic goods get that much more expensive will be eaten up immediately. So no that's not realistic.
I'm asking you to understand that there is probably a middle ground here. Because I think your argument is coming from a lack of understanding.
I'm already not buying disposable clothes. I'm already being as frugal as I can, repairing clothes as needed/able and wearing them for a long time. Your ideal outcome of well made products made by people making fair wages is good. But I'm not unique. I grew up this way, getting new clothes at discount stores and being expected to make them last. What you're proposing is not manageable for many people.
Here, I'm gonna hone in on this example, because I think this highlights the issue well. Here's Darn Tough socks. $25 for 1 pair of socks. But barring fire or pet damage, unconditional lifetime gareuntee.
Sure, they're 10x more expensive than most other socks. But you'll only need to buy 10ish pairs for your entire adult life. So I would expect jeans that cost $200 to last at least 20 years. If not directly, they should be repairable for < $50. So you might be priced out of buying new jeans every 5 years, but you could replace (or resell) your $200 for $100 in 3 years if you changed sizes. Or it would be worthwhile finding a tailor to make a $20 adjustment so that they fit better, or patch a rip or redo a seam.
And I never said "all jeans must cost $200. What I am saying is that clothes should probably have a minimum warranteed period of ~10 years minimum. It lets manufacturers choose how they want to approach the problem.
Expensive first-tier goods means used goods retain their prices longer. I was able to resell a used pack and play for the same price I paid for it...if all clothing was more expensive it'd be more reasonable to pay $40 for lightly-used clothes.
It seems so foriegn when we've been raised in a disposable consumer mindset, but there was a time when appliances had 20 year guarantees. Not advertising a 10 year, but is really a 1/3/10 for all/3 parts/1 part as my new washer/dryer combo is. Sure, your dishwasher might cost 20% more, but it's now 90% less likely to break. It'll be harder to "get started" in life, but your savings will pay dividends over time as you're not awash in crap that needs replaced every 3-10 years.
Presuming they're still in business and presuming I dont just lose my socks which absolutely happens. (Also if there are exceptions for animals or fire that just means loopholes in every warranty) But yes, I understand the concept.
I think I'm trying to to make clear that I'm priced out of buying jeans at all. Especially because changing sizes means buying new ones as often as it means getting them taken in.
I understand buying durable goods. There is a reason I own clothes that are 5-10 years old, and if something becomes damaged I try to repair it or repurpose it. But I think poor folks, of whom I genuinely do not count myself, should not be priced out of clothing. And I think that being told to just learn how to fix your own clothes is probably ignoring how difficult that is, especially for denim.
Fundamentally I'm just finding it all quite dismissive, especially telling me to ask for a raise.
I like this idea. Pretty much every pair of jeans I had purchased during the 2010s had blown apart at the seam because the manufacturers all switched their fabrics to lighter weight denim blends. The actual stitching held up but the actual fabric tore apart within an inch of the seam. I probably had to replace 8-12 pairs because of this. A number of them were Levi’s, so it wasn’t necessarily because I was buying cheap.
I don’t necessarily think that they have to be so expensive, but there should be more controls put into place that prevents clothing from being disposable.
Idk, I feel like people get sticker shock. For what denim I do buy, I buy high quality denim from Japan that is made in Japan. A pair of good quality Japanese selvedge jeans is usually between $300-$500. That’s what it costs for high quality clothing made by workers in a developed country.
The thing about clothes that bugs me is that it's extremely difficult to evaluate the actual quality. For one it might not be obvious that the material is a blended fiber fabric; they have labels on them that will tell you what it is, but that's not necessarily very clear. But then how does a consumer know how to evaluate the quality of a fabric? The average person would not be able to describe the difference between a twill and a tulle, and even if they did they would need to have a scale and a frame of reference to tell the full quality of the fabric. And that's before it comes to stitching and construction! People get sticker shock because they can buy a $10 shirt that lasts for a decade and a $50 shirt that looks almost the same but falls apart in a few months time, so they err towards lower prices. This is one of the reasons why I like @vord's warranty idea; with any luck, it will mean that clothes will be made to a standard of durability and prevent the need to repair them in the first place.
Labor issues are another can of worms entirely. Something worth talking about, but also not something I'd like to get into right now.
That's a key point.
Every single manufacturer, every service provider, everyone, will tell you with a straight face "our (service/product/whatever) is of the highest quality." Reflexively. Without hesitation. Their whatever it is has been crafted with care and precision and using only the best and most durable materials.
Which is total bullshit. Obviously. Clearly. They're all lying. But they're allowed to lie, and basically all of them do. There might be a few Johnny-come-latelys who actually are using quality and durability as their standards, but they're lost amid a sea of liars.
And soon enough one of the bigger liar companies will buy that Johnny out specifically to ride that untarnished brand name down into the mud. Eking out a few more years of easy money before consumers catch on that "oh, this (brand) that used to be great is now shit ... damnit!"
So what do you do? Risk throwing money away on something that's only high priced (not quality and priced accordingly, just priced high to fleece suckers), or buy the cheapest crap available since you can't trust it isn't cheap crap?
That pricing is key. You can't count on a high price meaning it's worth it. Lots of products will be positioned at high price points to rake in unearned cash based off marketing and cache, but again it's very tough for a consumer to figure it out. Especially since most of us, with most things we need and use in our lives, aren't experts in those things.
How do you know what's a quality lawnmower versus a crappy POS that's gonna rust out and stop running next year? Who can tell a good shirt from a shit one? Is this brand of canned soup really worth the extra 75% they want to charge over the "cheap" store brand? Hand tools, computer parts, home furnishings, clothes, food, anything.
Most first world people utilize thousands of products over the course of a year, and we basically guess every single time as to which are quality and which are just inflated shite pumped up by marketing and lies.
For a while the Information Age allowed online adopters to use the new channels, the new ways of exchanging information with one another, to have an edge over the companies trying to push crap. But corporations have figured that out, and now they pay (or otherwise manipulate) online channels such as search engines and review sites and forums to push the crap and downplay the Johnnies.
It's not a race to the bottom. We're there. Hello bottom. Now they're just pod racing the canyons on the bottom. Or, rather, forcing all of us to carve those canyons.
Most of us have experienced the annoyance (or worse) of smacking head first into one of the walls when we tried to make an informed purchase and only after the fact found out we'd chosen poorly and bought the lie. What can you do though? Become an expert in everything?
Most people just buy crap and expect it to be crap. It's a consumer defense mechanism.
Back in the heyday of /r/malefashionadvice around 10 years ago, everyone seemed to be getting nice selvedge jeans, but there also seemed to be a new jeans crotch blowout post every day as well. I personally noticed heavy wear in that area on my one expensive pair of selvedge jeans, and I stopped wearing them after it started to look bad. Maybe it's because heavy denim was in style and all the jean makers switched fabrics without somehow adjusting their patterns for the difference in material.
I know the previous poster was talking about cheap fabric, but have you noticed that some of the vaunted high quality denim jeans don't actually end up lasting longer as well?
Honestly I’m not exactly sure what some people are doing in their pants - like are they doing squats at the gym or something?
I haven’t noticed any particularly self destructing. But a) I don’t get hyper slim clothes anymore, which malefashionadvice is still stuck on, and is probably not great for the structural integrity of your jean crotches b) I don’t generally destroy my clothes through wear to begin with.
I think the tightness has a lot to do with it. I saw on that sub a lot of Americans squeezing themselves into Japanese sized skinny jeans three sizes too small and that’s going to cause wear just because the clothes no longer match the anatomy.
Maybe it's because 10 years ago was also the heyday of /r/fitness and everyone was also squatting 3x a week, drinking a gallon of milk a day, and getting massive thighs.
But how long will those jeans last as compared to some mixed-fiber fast fashion pair? 5 years? 10? And if the base material quality is good, they can be patched or mended when needed, carrying them even further onward. It's the boots problem in a nutshell. People buy cheap stuff because its more accessible now, but far more expensive in the long term, both for the consumer and the environment.
Vimes' boot theory in action.
But the point is they can't afford the expensive boots so it's not worth buying them.
Most consumers don't think about the long term costs. That's why it's somewhat essential to regulate manufacturers from bottoming out the quality floor. Poor consumers will almost always reach for the bottom.
See also: This is how Walmart ate America and paved the way for Amazon.
Sure, and that’s part of why I fork over $400 for pants. But a common reaction is “why would you pay $400 for pants!?”
I’m not sure people would be okay in a world where all jeans cost >$300 but are exquisitely crafted. Having the whole range of market prices is for the best, in the end.
That's where the used market thrives.
It already works that way for cars and computers. It makes sense in a world where quality for most goods is at an acceptably high minimum threshold a used/refurb market would expand to cover the low end.
For the best for whom, though? Are we actually better off for having larger wardrobes of cheaper clothes?
For people to decide on their own based on their needs and use cases? For the latter, I think the cheaper end of clothing is getting a bit exaggerated. For the average white collar worker who does crazy things like: drive in cars, sit at desks, eat at restaurants, your fast fashion should not be imploding within a year.
I have uniqlo shirts and pants that I've worn regularly for >6 years now with no signs of wear.
Certainly if you do physical labor in them that changes the equations, but that's what I mean with "need". They're as much a tool as a hammer or screwdriver, in that case.
Yes, but it does make prices and payment more complicated to understand, even though computers can deal with it. We are talking about predictability for consumers doing math in their heads.
And that's why the taxes should always be baked into the cost shown on the shelf. Not hidden behind the final receipt at the register.
Mildly tangential that others touched on, I'd like to see a ban on psychological tricks like $9.99 instead of $10 as well, because I feel it's an artificial distortion of market demand. If a psychological trick of $0.01 is the difference between somebody buying and not-buying a good, it should err on the side of not buying a good.
I don't think @Promonk is arguing against sales tax in general, just specifically unmarked sales tax. As in the price is displayed as $19.99 but you end up paying $21.69 because the 8.5% sales tax wasn't included on the sticker. That's the very definition of a hidden fee, even if the extra line item on the receipt isn't going to the retailer as revenue.
In other countries that have sales tax, it's included in the sticker price. So you're still paying it, but it's labeled up front so you know what to expect at checkout. In those places, hidden fees haven't been normalized in the same way they were in the US, so presumably they would also be more resistant to these newer "service fees" and the like.
This is specifically what I was addressing. I agree that all advertised prices of goods should reflect the entire cost of the good, taxes and fees inclusive (potentially with some leeway for online purchasing where local sales taxes and shipping might not be known until checkout).
Fair enough.
It is worth pointing out however that the only people concerned about curbing consumption are the ones who can afford to consume.
My experience of sales tax in other states (we don't have it here, which is why I said "you all") is that entirely the wrong things are taxed, the rate makes no sense, and the burden is disproportionately on the people making a working wage. A billionaire won't give a shit about a 5% tax on diapers or whatever, but that same rate is going to be appreciable to a lower income family.
I'm not a religious person, but I do agree with what the Man said in Luke 12:48: "...For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Mostly that's what I meant, but I am opposed to sales tax for many things. I think it burdens the working class disproportionately.
I'm from a state that's been stubbornly refusing to implement one for decades though. Maybe I've got a wonky view.
I think it is to soften the psychological blow. Why things are $9.99 instead of just $10.00.
Instead of a $20 burger, it is $10 burger. Add a $5 gratuity for the wait staff, $3 for the cooks, $2 maintenance fee for the restaurant premises.
They're also competing against non-restaurant alternatives, like buying a sandwich or other prepared food in a grocery store or packing a lunch. So, the whole restaurant industry could lose business and that's bad for them.
I still think it's the right thing to do, but it's a tough industry and it's understandable that they're not going to go along with it on their own.
Why did the state legislature pass the new law so quickly, though?
The last time I went to a restaurant with a service fee was at a fricking El Torito, where there was a tiny little sign less than 1" tall that told of it. That sign was on the podium for the maitre'd, who was not standing there but was instead at the front of it and ushered us to a table before we had a chance to see it. It was not in lieu of a tip, and in fact there was a disclaimer on the receipt - the place where I first found out about the fee - that said that it was not a tip and that I should still tip the waitstaff. That service fee went entirely to the house. The waitstaff were all pretty good, and it wasn't fair to not tip them well, so I paid that as well, but overall my meal was something like 35% higher than what they listed on the menu. That's insane.
I avoid restaurants in general these days, and when I do go it's generally not to places that have those fees in place. They're immoral and should be illegal as well. Tipping is arguably immoral as well, having become a custom because here in the US it was used as an excuse to not pay minorities a full wage.
The price that is advertised should be the price that you pay. Period. There is no acceptable excuse for this behavior. It all boils down to "we want more money and will use any trick that helps us achieve that goal".
I live in New Zealand, and this is insane to me. When I see something costs $20 here, that's exactly what it costs.
The way Americans have a price, before tax, before tip, how the hell do you even know what you're likely going to end up paying when purchasing anything?
Most people have an idea what sales tax is in the area they live in. Like where I'm at, it's roughly 10%. That's including city/county sales tax, state sales tax, and maybe some other special tax like for a transportation district or "community improvement" district. And these don't change that often. They certainly never go down...Anyway, that rough 10% is applicable across the whole metro, though it could be slightly less in some parts, and slightly higher in some parts, as counties/cities can set their own rates. And I know this applies to sales here, not services. There's no tax on a haircut or bringing something in for repair because those are services, not the selling/buying of an item.
As someone who was born in the US and has lived in the US for 37+ yrs, sales taxes have tripped me up exactly once. As a kid, when I tried to buy something from the store, didn't have enough money, then my parents had to step in with a few more bucks. It never surprised me again.
I bought a $1899 Macbook Pro earlier this year. I didn't walk in with $1899 in cash. I mean, I didn't use any cash -- I just used a 0% interest for 24mo credit card. But even if I did pay with cash/debit card, I would know that I need an additional ~$190 for sales taxes. Maybe even a little more, just in case I was wrong with my tax assumptions. Maybe 13% instead of 10%.
The one area where I'll admit it gets tricky is tourism taxes, particularly on hotels. Like I know there's tax, I just don't know how much it is. This is probably true in lots of places across the world: locals love legally fleecing tourists. Obviously I'm not a tourist in my own city so I don't know the taxes for hotel stays; very rarely stay in hotels in my own city. And I certainly don't know tourism taxes in other cities. And that can hurt sometimes. Some hotels websites include prices with tax, while others don't. I was recently in Seattle and had to extend my stay by a night due to a flight cancellation. Front desk said it'd be $341 for that night. That's high, but it is what it is. However, it was really $402 and some change after taxes. That's about an 18% tourism tax rate. Oof.
But again, it's not like I came on this trip with only $341 in extra cash in my pocket for extra expenses. I'm not budgeting down to the penny. If anything, I just have a few less drinks at the bar or something.
Is it weird? Yeah probably compared to the rest of the world. But it's not as crazy as foreigners make it out to be.
Thing is, that's a lot of utterly unnecessary knowledge one has to carry around.
Have to know the tax rate.
Have to know what it does and doesn't apply to.
Have to know what certain things have extra taxes/fees allowed.
All resolved by just having a very simple and universal piece of legislation that says all stated, displayed, and/or advertised prices must be the full amount for the item/service including all taxes and fees.
Requiring anyone (especially small businesses) who want to physically display prices, to have to-the-cent accurate prices, when tax varies (slightly) by postal code, is really an unfair ask.
If the move then, is to make taxes more uniform across larger areas, and then add the requirement, then great. But I don’t know how likely that is to ever happen.
We’re talking the US here… so…
Being that the small business physically displaying the price either would be at a set location where the tax rate wouldn't change or, if mobile, already has to pay separate taxes to each area they operate in, it's not a huge deal.
There'd also be no reason to adjust prices unless the small business is trying to maintain their margins down to the penny. A $5 all-in taco isn't going to magically no longer be profitable if the food truck is in a 7% tax zip today and an 8% tax zip tomorrow. It's going to be priced at a round number that covers all applicable cases, not $4.87 today and have to change the board to be $4.93 tomorrow.
But businesses already know their taxes. They just apply it at the register. How is it any different for them to change their stickers to reflect their post tax price? Grocery stores and big box stores adjust their prices all the time, it's just a part of their pricing model to maintain their margins.
I guess you get weird non-round prices that customers wouldn't like? That's fine, just round it a few cents up or down to a number customers feel fine with.
The only difference is when the calculation happens (before the register or at the register). It's also very common for a majority cash business to build their tax into their prices so they can sell merchandise at whole numbers. They price it with their tax liability in mind and then calculate the amount of sales tax owed come tax time.
But this issue isn't really about the burden on businesses from calculating their prices before the register no matter how I turn this over. This is absolutely about customer marketing.
I've done signage at a couple of stores in the past; the idea that it takes any more effort than collecting the tax at the POS is ridiculous.
Here's how it works:
The POS already has to know the tax rate for the store and which items are exempt or subject to additional fees (e.g. environmental taxes, bottle deposits, etc). If you're a large company operating in many markets, it's a solved problem. If you're a marginal business hand-making signs, you're in one location and can do trivial arithmetic.
Taxes can also vary by city in other countries too, and nobody has any issue complying. It's just more tautological American exceptionalism nonsense. Nothing can ever be improved because nothing can ever be improved.
Small businesses typically have a single location. That’s much simpler than being Amazon or Walmart.
Or, what’s to prevent them from maintaining the sticker price but changing how much goes to the company vs. government after a tax update if changing price tags is too much work?
Well said. Taxes are generally pretty easy to mentally calculate and plan for. After a lifetime of doing it you just intuitively add the taxes into your mental calculations without really thinking about it. But two things really annoy me:
Additional fees, like when purchasing tickets to something, or even things like your phone bill where there'll be convenience fees and blablabla fees and such-and-such fees on top of the taxes you've already mentally prepared for. That shit is deceptive and I avoid it as much as possible. So something won't just be $99.99 plus taxes, it'll be $99.99 plus taxes plus a $4 convenience fee plus another $3.27 we-lost-our-last-class-action-lawsuit-and-had-to-pay-out-millions-so-we're-passing-that-cost-onto-you fee.
Inconsistent fees/taxes. You might have one subscription that is $19.99 per month and you get charged $19.99 per month. Then you have another subscription that is $19.99 per month but you get charged $19.99 plus taxes on it. Not a huge deal but it irks me.
You get an intuition for it eventually.
This is from a month ago, but I missed it. From the article:
...
There is a chain restaurant near me in SF that has a 4% service fee. There is no fee listed on either the handheld or wall mounted menus.
That sounds like an easy $1000 for you.
I hate to be litigious, but part of me wants to go around and hunt restaurants that charge hidden fees.
I've been hit with too many hidden fees and too many "oh, those were our old prices but we're not motivated to print a new menu because the old ones tricks people to order more". These restaurants deserve some ruin for their deception.
There should also be a way to punish restaurants that have a credit card surcharge (especially when it is only listed when you go to pay) considering that those violate their agreements with the credit card companies.
You should just get a bounty for reporting them to your credit card provider, like how they give you bonuses for referring new customers. I'd gladly take photos and pass them on at every opportunity.
That’s why smart businesses give discounts for cash rather than a fee for a card.
Having needed to engage in cash management for a business, paying 3% to merchant services is a trade worth taking every time. But there's a reason why businesses often don't take American Express. They want more than the 3% common for Visa and Mastercard.
Yep, not accepting credit cards or charging a 3% fee makes me >3% less likely to give them my business in the future.
I'm not looking for ways to help the credit card companies. Fuck them.
At $1k potential profit per meal you could make a living doing it.
That's not the California way. Make an app that allows eaters to report fees that aren't conspicuously displayed in exchange for a percent of the fee in successful cases. Then see how much VC capital you can light on fire.
You could, but the pool is rather finite.
I dunno. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I can't help but feel like the pool of people who might try to get away with an undocumented charge is, if not infinite, at least large enough to keep a few people busy for a long time. California has seen more than 150,000 new businesses founded each year (PDF warning) since 2005, and restaurants make up 5% of businesses in the state. (Download link for .xlsx with data) Anecdotally, restaurants fail at higher rates than other small businesses, but even taking it as a flat percentage of new businesses, that means 7,500 new restaurants opening each year. A single person eating 3 meals a day at restaurants without any repeats could only go to 1,095 restaurants, or less than 15% of all new restaurants in the state.
Which is a far too extensively cited and analyzed way of saying that the pool is functionally infinite for a given person. Not every restaurant will pull something like this, and many more will correct their behavior within the 30 day window of time provided by law for them to remedy it. But if even 10% of the restaurants this theoretical dedicated eater tested got fined, they'd clear $109k.
My understanding is I would have to sue, but my lawyer fees are covered. I guess I should call a couple of consumer protection lawyers.
Update: I went back, took pictures, and now I have a lawyer who says I have a pretty good case given the size of the business.
Hey, that's awesome!
I moved to California a few months ago and was surprised by the prices and the fees for food. Unfortunately now I remove any adjusted tax and extra fees from the tip. Tipping and asking for money in general has gotten out of hand. I can't perform any transaction now without getting asked for more money.
If it makes you feel better, California does not a separate tipped and non-tipped minimum wage - both are $16. So can’t be guilt tripped by that at least (and if the tips aren’t split, it’s kinda odd for the servers to be paid a lot more than the kitchen?)
You would think so, but a friend was chased to a parking lot by a server in SF who didn't think the tip amount was enough.
As someone who regularly eats out since I travel for work, it's pretty universal but especially bad for CA. The rest of the world, especially Japan, can pull off affordable food and exceptional service without these car dealer style tactics.
I mean, it's important to note that it's built off of insanely cheap labor, at least by western standards. The AVERAGE restaurant employee in Japan makes 1,327 yen an hour - that's $8. Note: not the lowest paid workers, not the minimum wage, the AVERAGE wage.
For a chef, the average wage is 3.42 million JPY, or about $30k, and you better believe they work a lot more than 40 hours a week.
Yes, Japan is orderly and has a lot of nice things, but many of the nice things are due to low-priced but good service. And maybe less waste, too?
From what I know in Japan a lot of owners make much longer hours and have much more trouble getting by just because they want to keep prices so low. Which is also not a healthy situation.
One interesting thing here is that both the US and Japan I believe rank very high on "restaurants/dining establishments per capita" metric. This means competition is much higher than in a lot of countries which includes the (perceived) pricing of items.
Whenever I hear people from the US talk about their food prices or see the pricing of food in Japan (even before the yen was as low as it is) it always struck me as ridiculously cheap. Certainly, when you compare it to the amount of labor and other costs involved. Which in the US results in this weird tipping culture and these services fees and in Japan in so many restaurants owners struggling to get by without practically living in their restaurants.
Gotta love a lobby ruining a widely popular bill at the last minute. Really inspires so much confidence in our system of government.
I’m not sure if the original law was intended to regulate restaurants, or whether that was an unintended consequence.
Maybe someone will fund getting a proposition on the ballot?
A fair point, I’m not sure either. I just know anecdotally that everyone I spoke to about this knew about it for that reason.
Hopefully it gains traction. I've gotten really sick of placing orders online or over the phone only to show up and see a piece of paper taped to the counter saying "menu prices reflect 3% cash discount". That's not a discount; that's your processing fee. Just be strsight about it. Pizza Hut also has a special "California fee" that they tack on, which is a whole other layer of frustrating and hilarious. The whole thing is becoming absurd.
Should put up a Proposition to ban tipping altogether while at it. It will never happen otherwise; it needs to be an industry-wide change or else the first restaurants to try will be priced out.
Saw another thread of StubHub getting sued for alleging deceptive pricing. Isn't this same too?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/31/dc-attorney-general-sues-stubhub-alleging-deceptive-pricing.html