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

131–140 of 317 posts

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

#131

Post by enjo »

EpicEng wrote: post #110
supermw wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can see it in the data:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST

We're in a market in which housing prices have been soaring for a very long time, but for most of this we've been building less housing than even the 90's (and starts have actually FALLEN recently).

There's something broken in the market. Material costs are part of it, but government regulation is certainly part of it as well.

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

#132

Post by nerdponx »

In 1995, Luxottica purchased LensCrafters’ parent company, U.S. Shoe Corp., for $1.4 billion. The goal wasn’t to get into the shoe business. It was to take control of LensCrafters’ hundreds of stores nationwide.

Dahan said things went downhill for him after that. Luxottica increasingly emphasized its own frames over those of outside suppliers, he said, and Custom Optical’s sales plunged. Dahan was forced to close his business in 2001.

Funny that Microsoft was under the gun for antitrust violations while this was happening apparently unabated.

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

#133

Post by mbell »

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?

I worked at a sunglass hut part time during college. The _vast_ majority of sunglasses I sold were for fashion, not function. People weren't paying $250 for the lens, they are paying $240 for the style and 'real' D&G logo and $10 for the lens. In my time there I would say the only brands you should buy for performance are Maui-Jim (great lens / polarization) or Oakley (impact safety), everything else is junk lens put into fashion frames, including Ray-Ban, though their glass lens were at least passable. EDIT - I mean amongst the brands they carried, I'm sure there are other good lens manufacturers out there.

What I'm mostly saying is that I don't see this as rent seeking, it's just people willing to spend large amounts of money for fashion.

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

#134

Post by city41 »

umvi wrote: post #88

Seems like the majority of optometrists could be replaced by photo booth-esque optometry machines. Simply sit in a booth, look through some eye ports, and the machine will automatically start cycling through lenses and making you choose between 1, 2, or equal. At the end it spits out your prescription for a nominal fee. For an extra fee you could have additional eye imagery taken by the machine sent off to a remote o…

I consider my vision important enough to get a human opinion on it. Even if a machine can do it correctly 99% of the time, having someone experienced there to confirm the choices is worth it.

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

#135

Post by nerdponx »

whizzkid wrote: post #99

I think Luxottica CEO himself explained the whole situation in 1 second 7 years ago, and it is spot on (Not saying it is how it should be). Listen for yourself. https://youtu.be/VxPLGPO2q3E?t=749

Everything is worth what people are ready to pay

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

#136

Post by TomMckenny »

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.

>prices are set by what the market is willing to pay

Land is not a normal good so it does not work that way even in theory. A simple example: Flint MI has falling demand and rising prices.

In addition, land is used both for speculation and retirement savings, further inflating the price beyond just being a place to live.

>Anything else is not sustainable

Correct. An ever growing percentage of wealth will go to land owners and rent seeking rather than productive enterprise. The price of doing business in the Bay Area (and similar cities) will drive out industry until there is nothing but the top most classes and their house cleaners, gardeners, waiters and store clerks. A situation perfectly satisfactory for land vendors.

It has happen countless times in the past but apparently were not going to let facts interfere with economic theory.

>God forbid anyone make a profit?

For producing something profit is great. For an exorbitant toll both in the path of job seekers, it is a net harm.

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

#137

Post by TheLoneAdmin »

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.

The biggest cost in any metro area is land. There are few empty lots left to build on, and those go for a premium. Not going to give any specific listing publicity, but "$350,000 USD for 0.047 acres empty lot" is common in the residential parts of Atlanta. We recently paid $25M for 8 acres with abandoned warehouses on them, to build condos on. We're still looking at $100k land costs per condo.

Go out two counties and a 1.5 hour commute, and land is only $5k/acre. Plenty of $200k starter homes in that area. No one wants to move out there though.

Disclaimer - I work in the residential construction business

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

#138

Post by perfmode »

mbell wrote: post #133
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?

I worked at a sunglass hut part time during college. The _vast_ majority of sunglasses I sold were for fashion, not function. People weren't paying $250 for the lens, they are paying $240 for the style and 'real' D&G logo and $10 for the lens. In my time there I would say the only brands you should buy for performance are Maui-Jim (great lens / polarization) or Oakley (impact safety), everything else is junk lens put…

are prescription lenses not priced along the lines of the fashion lines?

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

#139

Post by dustindiamond »

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?

It pays for leasing storefronts.

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

#140

Post by gcbw2 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #73
beering wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ended up with Warby Parker after decent experiences with Zenni. Warby Parker offers a home try-on service for free, where they ship you a pack of frames for you to try on (without prescription lenses). They also have a few retail stores. They still came out to be cheaper than Luxottica, and for something that I use for years, it ended up being worth it.

> Warby Parker offers a home try-on service for free, where they ship you a pack of frames for you to try on (without prescription lenses). That's a really fantastic idea. Honestly that's a "missing piece" with a lot of online shopping (glasses, clothing, etc) or anything else you wear on your body.

it does have room for some pain if you end up not liking any of the frames in their agreement. i ended up passing because of this.
Post reply on HN