Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 317 posts

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#91

Post by [deleted] »

bdamm wrote: post #39
jerf wrote: post #27

It's articles like this that make me wonder how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. I honestly don't know. I'm not trying to imply any particular thing. I honestly wonder. These sorts of things can stack up through the layers of companies that make things. And where does this money go? What does it end up doing?

Right, it's almost a collective statement on our health and priorities that allows parasites like this to thrive. What I mean is that obviously, in general, we can afford $800 glasses even though we may hate it. But it isn't, for most people, coming at the expense of food, cars, rent, etc. It is not good free market operating, though, and should be forcibly interrupted.

[deleted]

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#92

Post by noonespecial »

eberkund wrote: post #33
jerf wrote: post #27

It's articles like this that make me wonder how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. I honestly don't know. I'm not trying to imply any particular thing. I honestly wonder. These sorts of things can stack up through the layers of companies that make things. And where does this money go? What does it end up doing?

> And where does this money go? What does it end up doing? Some of it goes to providing jobs to those same middle class people.

I think what it probably looks like from a mile high is that we all have a little less eyewear than we could so that a lucky few can have a lot more of everything than they probably should.

We perceive this to be unfair and wonder if we should risk reorganizing society a bit to remedy this.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#93

Post by titzer »

sampo wrote: post #56
jerf wrote: post #27

It's articles like this that make me wonder how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. I honestly don't know. I'm not trying to imply any particular thing. I honestly wonder. These sorts of things can stack up through the layers of companies that make things. And where does this money go? What does it end up doing?

> how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. If you include the unwillingness to respond to demand by building enough new homes in the popular urban areas, probably a lot. A 1000 sq.ft. home (house or condo) should not cost more than $200,000 to build. Anything above that, someone is making profit.

In the midwest, the cost of construction can easily be less than $50k, even $25k.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#94

Post by vibrio »

Someone1234 wrote: post #38
eberkund wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And where does this money go? What does it end up doing? Some of it goes to providing jobs to those same middle class people.

Considering their profits, I don't believe that is where it is going: http://www.luxottica.com/en/record-2017-net-profits-and-free... Using a monopolistic position to overcharge doesn't generate more jobs, just profits.

Are 10-15% margins crazy large in this or comparable sectors?

I'm genuinely asking as I'm to busy/lazy to look it.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#95

Post by aj7 »

mhb wrote: post #55
wbracken wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employing people at each step in the eyewear industry. Plus, employing people at companies who support the eyewear industry. Plus, employing people at companies that support the companies that support the eyewear industry...etc. etc.

If you're suggesting that all these jobs are good, for their own sake, then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Only if there’s no learning. The Apollo 1 fire, countless air disasters etc. led to much greater safety.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#96

Post by peteey »

abakker wrote: post #86
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even seem like anyone has interest in building $200,000 houses anymore, but they will sell you a poorly made condo for $400,000 and $600/mo HOA fees. I am a single person trying to find a house that is not four or five bedrooms (I only need one or two) and doesn't cost 1/2 mil minimum and it's difficult. This used to be called "the starter house" but it doesn't seem to exist anymore with new construction.

Regulatory burden - building code, permitting, etc make it relatively better and less risky to build bigger, nice homes. It gives you padding if it takes a while to sell, has extra change order, or gets stuck in permit/planning and zoning limbo for a year. If the margins are paper thin, the risk is too large, so the only way to mitigate that risk is to make more expensive homes so that even if things go terribly wron…

and impact fees

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#97

Post by ams6110 »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #74
sampo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. If you include the unwillingness to respond to demand by building enough new homes in the popular urban areas, probably a lot. A 1000 sq.ft. home (house or condo) should not cost more than $200,000 to build. Anything above that, someone is making profit.

It doesn't even seem like anyone has interest in building $200,000 houses anymore, but they will sell you a poorly made condo for $400,000 and $600/mo HOA fees. I am a single person trying to find a house that is not four or five bedrooms (I only need one or two) and doesn't cost 1/2 mil minimum and it's difficult. This used to be called "the starter house" but it doesn't seem to exist anymore with new construction.

So many reasons for this, but it boils down to the marginal cost on building a 4-5 BR vs. a 2 BR house is small compared to the profit upside.

If you want a 2 BR, you need to look in old neighborhoods or buy a condo.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#98

Post by driverdan »

sampo wrote: post #56
jerf wrote: post #27

It's articles like this that make me wonder how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. I honestly don't know. I'm not trying to imply any particular thing. I honestly wonder. These sorts of things can stack up through the layers of companies that make things. And where does this money go? What does it end up doing?

> how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. If you include the unwillingness to respond to demand by building enough new homes in the popular urban areas, probably a lot. A 1000 sq.ft. home (house or condo) should not cost more than $200,000 to build. Anything above that, someone is making profit.

A 1000 sq ft home costs nowhere near $200,000 to build. The land, on the other hand, costs more than that alone in major cities.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#100

Post by brandonmenc »

I've been purchasing back-up glasses for nearly 20 years at places like Lens Crafters and have never spent over $50 for such a pair - granted, they're dorky safety frames and no fancy lens coatings, but still.

Cheap glasses have always been available, if you don't want fashionable frames.

Also, please don't skip an actual yearly eye exam, for your health.

Post reply on HN