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

101–110 of 317 posts

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

#101

Post by commandlinefan »

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?

Well, my first thought was - if eyewear can be produced for less, why doesn't somebody take advantage of the opportunity and do so? Capitalism at its finest and all that. But the answer immediately struck me: if somebody was offering a product at half the cost everybody else was, I wouldn't trust it - and I suspect most other people wouldn't, either. Considering the size of the initial investment, this upstart wouldn't be able to get enough traction to stay afloat.

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

#102

Post by umvi »

ericmcer wrote: post #78

Can anyone speak to why you need an up to date prescription to buy glasses or contacts? It has never made an ounce of sense to me, yet I have been blocked from doing it in the past, gone through the rigamarole to find out my prescription is unchanged, and then bought them.

The party line is: "to check your eyes for disease"

If you reply: "People that don't need glasses don't get their eyes checked every 2 years for disease"

The party line will be: "People that don't need glasses are at lower risk for eye disease"

I just got a physical copy of my prescription and uploaded it to my google drive. It's 5 years expired, but I still see 20/20 and use it to purchase new frames online.

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

#103

Post by supermw »

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.

God forbid anyone make a profit?

I’m not sure what your point is, prices are set by what the market is willing to pay. Anything else is not sustainable.

You are not entitled to buy houses wherever you want for whatever price you think is good. Certainly not in the Bay Area.

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

#104

Post by ukyrgf »

mindslight wrote: post #54
jasode wrote: post #8

I was able to slash my eyeglasses expenditures in both the exams and the frames: eye exams: I used to pay the optometrist $153 ($117 refraction + $36 dilation). I later found out that Costco often has an optometrist on site in a tiny office and will charge just $59 (and add +$20 for dilation). That's less than half the cost of most other optometrists. frames: switched to Zenni online to avoid the LensCrafters/Pearle/…

Zenni requires you to do a bit of your own research, like every other new-economy self-service approach. But it's worth it. Switching to Zenni has allowed me to move to cheap CR-39 lenses rather than expensive high index material. CR-39 is soft, and if I'm paying a lot for frames then the lenses getting scratched is a Big Deal. Then pile on further costs for coatings etc. But if the frames and lenses are both inexpen…

My first order with Zenni I got probably 5 different frames, using a coupon code, and that helped me figure out what kinds of frames I liked and what didn't work. With that, I was able to dial in on what frames fit me best, and over the years I've mostly settled on one very-uncool but so-comfortable-I-forget-I-wear-glasses frame that goes in and out of stock. I order two every time and have extras at work, in my car, at my parents' house, etc.

Years ago I got some huge aviator sunglasses from them, but they aren't in stock anymore. I just have one of my aforementioned extras in my car with the nerdy clip-on.

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

#105

Post by wbracken »

vibrio wrote: post #94
Someone1234 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course not.

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

#106

Post by onychomys »

commandlinefan wrote: post #101
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?

Well, my first thought was - if eyewear can be produced for less, why doesn't somebody take advantage of the opportunity and do so? Capitalism at its finest and all that. But the answer immediately struck me: if somebody was offering a product at half the cost everybody else was, I wouldn't trust it - and I suspect most other people wouldn't, either. Considering the size of the initial investment, this upstart wouldn…

More importantly, when you have a giant company with a monopoly on something, they don't have to compete with you, they can instead just buy you up.

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

#107

Post by ams6110 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #101
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?

Well, my first thought was - if eyewear can be produced for less, why doesn't somebody take advantage of the opportunity and do so? Capitalism at its finest and all that. But the answer immediately struck me: if somebody was offering a product at half the cost everybody else was, I wouldn't trust it - and I suspect most other people wouldn't, either. Considering the size of the initial investment, this upstart wouldn…

That's not how the market works. You may think that way, but most people shop on price above all else.

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

#108

Post by toss1 »

wbracken wrote: post #48
bigdubs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The share of incomes from private businesses (especially luxury businesses) isn't flat and benefits mostly the executives and directors and shareholders.

How can you say that? Luxottica employs 85,000 people. Do those people obtain no benefit from employment?

Obviously they obtain benefit form employment.

If it were multiple competing companies, the same output would probably require MORE employees. One of the ways it is so profitable is to implement economies of scale not possible in a less monolithic industry.

You are failing to see that extractive business models such as monopolies do not add value, they extract value and concentrate it in the hands of the execs/owners. This removes capital from the socio-economic system/society and reduces the capabilities of the whole system to grow (the occasional purchase of a yacht does not rebalance things).

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

#109

Post by munchbunny »

commandlinefan wrote: post #101
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?

Well, my first thought was - if eyewear can be produced for less, why doesn't somebody take advantage of the opportunity and do so? Capitalism at its finest and all that. But the answer immediately struck me: if somebody was offering a product at half the cost everybody else was, I wouldn't trust it - and I suspect most other people wouldn't, either. Considering the size of the initial investment, this upstart wouldn…

Companies can and do, e.g. Costco, for prescription glasses anyway.

I bet what often happens instead is that the higher margin company just buys out the cheaper guy, and... it's back to the higher prices!

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

#110

Post by EpicEng »

supermw wrote: post #103
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.

God forbid anyone make a profit? I’m not sure what your point is, prices are set by what the market is willing to pay. Anything else is not sustainable. You are not entitled to buy houses wherever you want for whatever price you think is good. Certainly not in the Bay Area.

I believe the GP's point is that regulation geared toward limiting supply circumvents natural market forces.
Post reply on HN