Seems to me that the cost of paying for shipping would be more than the cost of Prime if you ordered more than once or twice a month.
I have a biweekly standing order for cat litter and for a certain kind of instant ramen that I like to eat for lunch at work and which I can’t find locally. I also get refills for my cat pheromone diffuser and filters for the cat’s water fountain from them, as well as the specific type of work shoes that I like. It would take me all day junketing around town on the bus to find those things and that’s not really how I want to spend my days off.
In general, all you need for free shipping without Prime is to order at least $35 worth of stuff. I have the same objection to Prime that I do to Costco; in both cases you’re paying to shop at that retailer. (Although I do have a Costco card, in that I carry the second one from my mother’s account. But at least I’m not paying for it.)
You also get ‘special pricing’ on some items, early access to ‘Prime Days’ and other sales, and of course access to the video streaming service which has had a few decent original productions in addition to a lot of recent and classic content (which is frankly better that you get from Netflix, IMHO), although they’ve recently started injecting ads in the crappiest possible way. But, of course, all of this is in service of keeping customers within their ‘walled garden’ by making it more convenient and ultimately undercutting all other vendors, online and physical storefront, in a pretty anti-competitive way.
It also encourages people to just order stuff from Amazon, rather than shopping around and perhaps finding that the supermarket/Target/Walmart/whoever has it cheaper. In part this is a psychological thing, where you feel you need to get your money’s worth by using the service enough.
I can, sure. I’d be paying shipping and handling, of course, and Amazon would still be making a profit off of my purchase, but I could do without Prime. In fact, if that’s all I needed from Amazon, I wouldn’t even have Prime. As I said, though, I also have no car. I walk anywhere I can get to within 5 miles, as long as there are sidewalks en route. However, that still leaves issues. There are places I can’t get to, such as big box stores. I don’t like to go to the only hardware store within that distance because that chain advertises on Fox News and besides, they’re pricey.
I can and do take buses, but riding two to three buses for an hour and a half each way for a shopping trip makes it a giant pain. I also have to limit what I buy because I have to schlepp it to and onto the bus. Before I became legally blind, WalMart was a 20-minute round trip. Now it’s 3 hours, not including shopping. (After 7 years of that, I’m thrilled to have my eyesight back, but I can’t afford a car now that they’ve become so expensive.)
Ugh. I sound whiny, and I hate that. I’ve found, though, that often people who have cars and are used to being able to zip over to a store can’t really understand how complicated it gets when you no longer have that option.
Bezo’s stake in Amazon is about 180 billion. His net worth is about 215 billion. Please elaborate on your reasoning why you think Jeff Bezos will not notice a change in the stock that comprises 83% of his entire net worth, while people who only have 1% exposure will feel it more.
My reply of Which wont happen due to prime cancellations. was in response to-
That is impossible. Now, Bezos might notice a huge reduction in Prime memberships, sure, but Amazon stock wont significantly decreases in value. he will not be financially hurt by any of this. Even a nigh impossible reduction of 10% of his wealth wouldnt hit him hard, he is worth $210+ billion.
But individual employees could well be laid off. And that could cost them their home.
Please read for comprehension before replying.
Because he is worth $215 Billion, and this wont cost him even 10%, probably not even 1%- but an employee who loses his job- that will hurt. And if some retired person has their entire investment Amazon stock, and it does go down 10%- that could hurt. Anyone whose worth is $200 Billion could lose half of that and still be so freaken rich it doesnt matter. Hell, anyone whose worth is 200 MILLION could lose half and still be filthy stinking rich.
Exactly. But if your retirement portfolio is a mere $100K, losing 10% can hurt.
Bezons might notice this, but it wont hurt him- except if the WaPo goes belly up, that will hurt his ego.
For the ultra-wealthy, it isn’t about having “more money than [they] could every reasonably spend” but having more money than the next guy on the list.
Jeff Bezos also needs to bankroll Blue Origin because he is desperate to by a space oligarch. Amazon.com is just a means to that end.
OK, I accept your proposal to shift your goalposts from:
Bezos will not notice the change of stock price because he’s not the owner of Amazon.
to:
Bezos owns so much of Amazon that he would not care about losing 21.5 billion dollars, because I imagine he shares my personal feelings about what it means to be rich.
I’ve boycotted Amazon for years, long before prime was a glint in Bezos eye. And I’ve been a catalog shopper then internet shopper for decades.Oh wait,in the the last five years I ordered twice, there was the knock off brand stove knobs and the French hairpins I bought with a visa gift card aka burner cc.
Bezos company should be called slime cause it oozes everywhere.
Read again- * Bezos will not notice the change of stock price because he’s not the owner of Amazon. " Yes, Bezos is not the owner of Amazon. But he wont notice any change as he is so wealthy that it will mean little. See- that sentence has TWO clauses.
As noted before, he owns more Amazon than anyone, and this stake makes up most of his personal wealth. You can split the hair of “he’s not sole owner” if you want, it’s irrelevant.
This is you guessing how Bezos feels. It’s impossible to dispute a personal guess, which is why you’re clinging to it, but I will again note that if Amazon goes down 1%, he loses more money than any human being alive. Of course he won’t be missing any meals because of it, but if you think men like this aren’t driven by the vanity of having their money pile be bigger than everyone else’s, you haven’t been paying much attention to headlines.
As predicted, there’s the third goalpost movement toward “you can’t make the stock go down anyway”.
That’s not the point. The interesting and debatable question is, if I want to take a stand just on principle, then which of the poor choices is the best? The position of “you can’t touch him, he’s too rich” was already boringly obvious to everyone before the thread started, which is why you’re setting up camp there.
Not really adding to the discussion, but I somehow coaxed this out of an AI using "Largest cruise ship docks, front page of Washington Post, story labeled “Bezo’s Ego”.