I have a habit of only shopping for groceries which are on sale. The receipt I receive brags about how much I saved by taking advantage of coupons (which are automatically processed with my savings club card so I don’t even need to look at the flier) and it’s often upwards of 30% from the normal asking price (i.e. I spent $28 there on Friday, and would have spent $37 if those same items weren’t on sale).
Sure, I may hurt their bottom line this way, but if they didn’t like it, why would they congratulate me? That takes away any guilt I may have.
Besides, all of their REALLY good sale have a cut off limit. I can only buy 4 cartons of those Edy’s $1.99 quarts, and after that it goes back up to $6.99, so they won’t let me break the bank.
Shoulda’ but didn’t’a is one of my most used catchphrases, btw.
For a while the grocery store had a sign up saying customers could donate their change to the food bank. Spend $5, hand over a ten dollar bill, and you could tell the cashier to give the $5 due you to charity instead. That was an excellent idea, they should do that more often.
I’m still unclear exactly who it is I’m screwing over by using a store coupon to save a buck on Cheerios. Should I hand over that dollar saved to the cashier as a ‘tip’? Is that dollar I saved going to make the owner of the grocery chain late paying the mortgage on his summer house in Martha’s Vineyard? Does the fact that I also purchased coffee, milk, and bananas along with the dollar-off cereal count for anything?
Well, technically you’re screwing us all. Consumption is down, so people get laid off, causing consumption to fall. We need to go back to the care free days (I assume the 50s) when people didn’t care how much things cost.
That’s my proposal, but it doesn’t seem very popular. The problem is that I can’t seem to convince anyone to tip me first, so that I have more money to tip others. It’s hard to go first.
No, that’s unlikely. The owner has no risk. If sales slump he just reduces wages and hours. Offshores what ever he can, imports the cheaper stuff from China. Automates as many process as possible (ie self check out). A small grocery store used to require dozens of high paid employees. There was a time people could drop out of highschool and earn a middle class income bagging groceries. Now it’s a couple of high school kids and a few computers that make me bag my own!
So regardless of what you do, the owner will be fine. It’s the employees that get screwed in the end.
Na, coffee and bananas (and chocolate) are imported from countries using near slave labour. Milk is all factory produced from cows pumped full of hormones and fed subsidized corn. Some how you need to buy American stuff not produced by companies or corporations.
I was using coupons even when the economy was good. I was using coupons during the bubble. I’m just cheap. Products are cheaper because they are made cheaper - they may provide just as good a profit margin as more expensive ones. They wouldn’t put the product out there if they were losing money on it, no matter what the price point. In any case, more margin from a product doesn’t go to the workers, so buying the one with least margin just sticks it to the capitalists. On the other hand, it also forces them to be more efficient, which is good for everyone.
Even better, we could go to a single payer system which eliminates the inefficiency we have now so we all pay less for the same or better care.
Ah but you’re assuming a rational actor. That an owner wouldn’t do something that intentionally garnered short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability.
Where were you in 2008?!?! Alan Greenspan believed the same thing, that banks would self regulate, after all, they wouldn’t want to fail.
The owner has nothing to lose. If this shop fails he’s got dozens of others.
I’d like to believe that, but capitalists are in control! They take the same profit regardless of what you buy. Efficiency means wage freezes and lay offs.
We can’t keep firing people if we want the economy to recover. Productivity is up but wages are down. That’s efficiency.
Heresy! 2.5 million Americans (and some Mexicans) are employed in the health insurance industry. That’s almost 2% of the entire work force. What are they supposed to do? Tell me what they are supposed to retrain for!
The coupon is part of their advertising budget. They didn’t lose any money by having you cash it in. Instead, they made a sale that they probably wouldn’t have without the coupon.
I don’t know why people are arguing against emacknight.
He’s right: there are situations in which the best thing for us to do would be to refrain from using the coupons. For example, if the coupons are a desperation move, or an irrational move, more likely to harm the company than do it good, and the company is such that harm to it will result in harm to lots and lots of other people both within and without.
In some such cases, we ought to cooperate and refrain from using the coupons.
Unfortunately, there are cases and there are cases, and it’s not very easy to know what case is the actual case.
The coupon aspect isn’t the point of the thread. So while you’re technically correct that “the coupon” represents a marketing cost, there is a bigger picture at play.
What does it say about us as a society that we’d use a coupon? We all know that real wages are falling, unemployment is high, but productivity is up and so are profits. 5 people have to apply for 1 job!
Why aren’t we willing to overpay for a product? Why does it take government intervention in the forms of taxes and tariffs to get us to pay people a living wage?
We were okay overpaying for cars and tvs in the 70s, and as a result lots of people had unskilled middle class jobs. We were okay overpaying for steal and softwood lumber. Now all those jobs are in China because we want discounts.
You’re being snarky, but that’s exactly how coupons work (as it was explained in business school).
Somewhat simplified, if a company has something priced at $10 that costs the company $5 (total cost, including payroll, marketing, etc…), they have a $5 profit margin.
Obviously, they want to make that $5 on every item sold.
However, and here’s the kicker: Even if they sell it for $5.01, they STILL MAKE MONEY. So it makes sense for them to sell it at that price, even if it’s about 50% off of list price.
Coupons are basically a way of enticing price-sensitive consumers to buy something, with the expectation of making some money rather than no money. In other words, cheapskates may not buy the item for $10, but will for $7, so it’s in the shop owner’s interest to sell as many as he can for $7- he’s still making $2 per unit, which is better than the $0 per unit he’d make if he didn’t sell them.
Obviously, if you can’t keep up with demand at $10, then you don’t want to discount it, but if you sell some but not all, coupons may be a good strategy.
If you save $10 on your purchase at the hardware store, are you going to burn that $10? Fuck no! You’re going to spend it at the grocery store or on Amazon or for a really cheap hooker. It’s all up to you. Now two people have received money for the goods or services they offer and everybody is better off.
Coupons are a way to price discriminate. Folks who are flush with cash and don’t give a crap don’t look through coupon books or circulars to find the $10 coupon. Folks who are on a tight budget will use a bit of their free time to check these things out and get better value for their dollar, but still drive profits for the retailer.
You may not always hit the target, so you have folks who don’t need the discount, but get it anyway, that’s lost profit and a risk you take when engaging in price discrimination.
That’s fine in business school, but in the real world it plays out a little different. There is a reason the rich keep getting richer: they’ve managed to switch the equation around.
They (the capitalists) already have it in their head that they’re going to make $5 profit. So they take a $2 item, add in $3 for expenses (including wages and benefits), then sell it for $10.
If they can’t sell it for $10, we assume that shrinks the $5 profit, but that’s where the mistake is made. Instead, they start shrinking the $3 worth of expenses first. They slash wages and benefits, squeezing more productivity out of their employees, until that $3 shrinks to $1.
When they can’t sell it for $8 they start eating into the $2 cost, using creative accounting methods to hide what they’re doing, then asking for subsidies and bailouts.
They’ve got the politicians in their pockets, so they can get tax payer money to bring the $2 unit cost down to 50cents. Then they pass off as many benefits as they can to the government.
When it’s all said and done, they get a huge bonus for reducing costs by 80%, get the profits from the few remaining sales, liquidate the company, then parachute to the Bahamas.
And it all starts with our selfish desire to save $10.
That’s absurd. Saving that $10 at the hardware store is what they call a loss-leader, which can be a variant on a classic coupon. In essence, the idea is that you’ll buy a basket of items with a profit greater than $10, and then drop $10 out of it.
The assumption is that you wouldn’t have come in had you not had that $10 coupon, so they make X-10 profit, instead of 0.
I fail to see how coupons are the ruination of the Republic or even selfish. You’re just going way off the deep end here with that talk about bailouts and the Bahamas.
It’s not about the $10 savings, the message is that we need to be overpaying if we’re going to pay people a living wage, with benefits, and no outsourcing/offshoring.
That we hold out until we have a coupon shows how far we’ll go in the exact opposite direction.
Offshoring, lower wages, shitty benefits, unemployment are the result of our desire to have cheaper products. And even when they’re as cheap as they can go, we still want a coupon to drive it even further.
The $50 worth of crap I bought in the OP was all shit from China that has established the economy we have now. On top that of that I was $10 off.
If we’re not even willing to pay retail, what happens after we impose tariffs and increase taxes? Or more likely after our dollar falls further.
Exactly! We need a way to get the people with extra money to pay more, while letting the people without money pay less.
Good point, we need a way for the people with money to have more of it to spend. Right now they’re burdened with taxes, and inflation. If the people with money didn’t pay so much in taxes they’d have more to spend on overpriced consumer goods and we’d get more money into the system.
Anyone who thinks this is a serious thread should just look up some of emacknight’s previous threads. It’ll be interesting to see if any of the posters whose views he is parodying have anything to say about this thread :o