I think it’s a product of the real estate business and I despise the term.
So true and, therefore, “'zounds” should be “'zoundths”.
I’ve noticed this recently in tv shows. One character will ask, “do you mind if I” come in, or sit down, or have something to drink". Instead of “welcome”, “have a seat”, or “what would you like?”
The answer is yes, which means they do mind. But then they proceed to let them in, offer a seat, or ask coffee or tea?
“He’s good people” really grates on me.
There is a difference, although it sounds like the people using it in your case don’t know the difference.
The price of something is the actual price of a specific item. The price point for an item is more of the aggregate price across products and retailers.
For example, a six-pack of Budweiser at Wal-Mart may have a price of $8.48. The price point for a six pack of domestic beer might be described as being $8.50. What that means is that in practice, Miller products, Budweiser products and Coors products will all cluster around $8.50 per six pack. They may be a little under or a little over, but still near by.
The idea is that this price point is generally the highest price that the category can be priced at in general without losing customers to alternatives (imports, craft beer, wine, etc…)
So price point is an important concept if you’re trying to figure out things like business strategies, etc… You know generally that your six-pack will sell for about 8.50, so you can work from there. The actual price doesn’t actually matter as long as it’s close to the price point.
“… of all time.”
Makes me want to cry.
So from the manufacturer POV, “price point” is the target they’re aiming for as they design the product and the manufacturing & distribution process to go with it.
And there’s a “price point” to the end customer as well as an upstream “price point” to whatever middleman the manufacturer sells directly to. Whether that’s a beer distributor, a big retail chain, or an industrial supply house.
“Design to cost” is a very real thing in engineering. Which means you need a target.
You would have really loved it when a hillside above the Stillaguamish broke loose, killing about forty people in the process of burying the townlet of Oso.
@eschereal: It could have been worse.
The river could have been named “Oso” and the town “Stillaguamish.” 
“Just so you know. . .” and "so you’re aware. . . " irritates the fuck out of me. And those I hear it from, typically deliver the phrase with that ‘Valley Girl’ nasal inflection. Just tell me what the fuck you want to tell me.
For example:
“Just so you know . . . so you’re aware . . . the TPS reports have a new cover sheet.”
Important shit bolded for clarity.
Tripler
Gawd, it happens more often than you’d like to think.
I just remembered another one: “gut punch,” used to describe something in a movie, TV show, or book (usually a plot twist or other surprise). I’m guessing that most of the people who use this tiresome phrase have never actually been punched in the gut.
Maybe it’s been said…
But the phrase “Anyway, to make a long story short”. Sort of drives me nuts. I’ll leave that as is. To make a long story short.
An old classic. Almost forgot about this one, until I just saw it in a wire service headline. “Officials hone in on aid to …”
I mean, maybe, technically, it is not absolutely wrong. But, to me, it evokes the sound of the ax head being dragged sideways across the stone.
You mean it’s a snowclome.
Missed it by that much! 
To me that one is more like an axe head begin dragged through fingernails being dragged across a blackboard. Unmusical screeching and loud screaming. Plus blood. Lots of blood.
But boy howdy has it become popular. Probably more popular than the correct usage: “home in on”. You can “hone” a solution to perfection. But you can’t “hone in on” a solution to perfection.
I’ve never noticed “hone in on”, but agree it’s incorrect.
One that always has me shaking my head is when people say “all intensive purposes” when they mean “all intents and purposes”.
Like so many things about the (d)evolution of modern English, there are people who read most of what language they’re exposed to and people who almost never read nor write and only hear or speak their English.
If you’ve actually never read those words and have only heard them spoken by people with lazy enunciation, it’s a completely understandable mistake. That almost makes semantic sense if you squint at it and evaluate it figuratively.
In technospeak, their Hamming distance as written is huge; as spoken, it’s tiny.
here ya go, right in the fucking headline, and a wire service, no less
([creaky old man voice]We called it a “wire service” because there used to be those loud teletypes attached to each other by wires, but now it’s all computers and satellites and dishes and waves in the air.[/comv])
Jesus, that’s Reuters; they should know better.
This doesn’t rise to the level of “agrravate the hell out of you,” but there are a couple of terms I wince whenever I see or hear them:
“Step foot.” The phrase is “set foot.” Or just “step.”
“Surrounding” to mean “about” or “relating to.” If it’s not on all sides of you, you’re not surrounded.