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

271–280 of 317 posts

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

#271

Post by barry-cotter »

DesiLurker wrote: post #252
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?

At one point I made a list of biggest expenses a person faces in their lives and was shocked to realize that pretty much everywhere there is either a company or consortium that has captured the market and manages 'access' to it. This is not surprising. in fact I would imagine that as more and more automation takes hold & marginal cost to produce real goods falls to near zero you'll see only the players left standing…

> At one point I made a list of biggest expenses a person faces in their lives and was shocked to realize that pretty much everywhere there is either a company or consortium that has captured the market and manages 'access' to it.

None of healthcare, education or housing have even as high a concentration as online retail unless you’re going to count government provision of primary and secondary education. I struggle to imagine what other spending categories you could be referring to, certainly not food or clothing.

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

#272

Post by barry-cotter »

guelo wrote: post #122
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?

Rent seeking is a large part of the pharmaceutical industry, which is 4% of the economy. And also a good chunk of the rest of the health care industry, which is 18% of the economy.

It doesn’t show up in their profit margins. If they’re rent seekers Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are really bad at it.

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

#273

Post by toast0 »

atombender wrote: post #266
52-6F-62 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering as well! The suburbs are filled with 4-5 bedroom McMansions— smaller 2-3 bedroom homes are hardly being built at all (except in the form of a townhouse, maybe). So one can't even just "move to the 'burbs" to save money instead of living right in town. It's all the same price.

I'm so confused about why America is so reactionary when it comes to architecture, and to design in general. I've been browsing Zillow and Redfin lately, trying to plan a few years into the future, and the architectural landscape is just horrific. My ideal is a modern, minimalist, fairly flat-roofed 1- or 2-story (think Rummer [1], Gropius, Eichler, the Eames case study house, Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth house, et…

Most people buying a home plan to sell it at some point. A non-conformist home is going to be harder to sell later, so it's harder to sell now.

You're unlikely to get something how you want it, unless it's built for you (and even then). You're probably going to need to find something with the outside you want, and budget to put the inside you want too.

But more specifically, an Eichler simply isn't going to have insulation and continue to be an Eichler. They're designed for a climate which doesn't need insulation, and as such, there is no room for insulation (at least for the ceiling). Try to find one with a big tree on the south side, shading the house (but make sure the tree is in good shape).

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

#274

Post by walterbell »

1996 wrote: post #247
caymanjim wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life-changing. I should have gotten them decades ago. I had no idea how much I was straining my eyes trying to use distance glasses for the computer, until I finally got them. I sat at my desk and measured the exact distance to the monitor, then asked my optometrist to give me glasses with a focal length of that +/- about eight inches. For me, it's roughly arms' length, about three feet. Many optometrists try to sell…

Exactly this!! I have an extra wide computer screen for work, it is a gamers screen. So when they tried to sell me progressive, I refused. I want 2 good solutions, not 1 half assed one. Next time I see an optometrist, I will have to ask them with my precise focal length. They have the details of my correction, so they should be able to figure it out. Can I bother you more? What is your take on undercorrection? I am w…

It works if combined with "active focus". There are references aplenty in the Endmyopia web forum, FB group and YT videos.

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

#275

Post by leguminous »

sampo wrote: post #259
leguminous wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you build up, the construction costs (and ongoing maintenance costs) per square foot of livable space can increase significantly, though. You need more engineering, more expensive materials, fancy cranes, extra safety procedures, etc. Plus more of the potentially livable floor space is instead taken up by elevator shafts and machinery.

Here's one almost 30 stories high apartment building in a place where the location and land don't have too much value as such (Atlantic City). 1,000 sq.ft. 2br condos seem to be priced from $160,000 to $250,000. https://www.zillow.com/b/bella-atlantic-city-nj-5Xjxz9/

That's a 30-year old building in Atlantic City, though. The building itself will have depreciated since then, and Atlantic City isn't a very desirable area any more. The current prices won't necessarily reflect the original construction costs.

There are some actual numbers in this Fannie Mae commentary:

http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/research/emma/pdf/MF...

The average costs to build 1-3 and 4-7 story apartment buildings was $192.0/ft^2 in 2017, compared to $233/ft^2 for 8-24 story buildings. I assume the square footage includes common spaces. I don't know if they attempted to control for sample biases (e.g. if taller buildings tend to be build in areas with higher labor costs).

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

#276

Post by femto »

Animats wrote: post #41
abruzzi wrote: post #22

I've always followed the normal route--I have employer provided vision insurance, I would get myself tested every two years by a optometrist that my insurance covered, and I would buy glass using the prescription from the optometrist or a glasses store supported by my insurance. I don't have anything special in my glasses--single focal, no tinting or light sensitivity, and my glasses weren't remotely stylish, and I'd…

Here's a useful program someone in the HN/YC universe could write - something that uses your computer or phone camera to measure your interpupillary distance. This is a bit tricky to do yourself with a ruler and a mirror. Just have the user take a selfie while holding some object of known dimensions on their forehead. Like a dollar bill. Find the eyes and pupils (OpenCV can do that), find the reference object, calcul…

The other useful program would be one that can process a photo of a person wearing glasses and suggest which adjustments they should make to get the frames seated properly. Bonus points if the program can also spit out the script details based on the observed distortion of one's face through the lenses.

I was very happy with my online order (Zenni), but it took a bit of mucking about to get them adjusted properly and sitting comfortably on my face.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

sampo wrote: post #113
driverdan wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The land, on the other hand, costs more than that alone in major cities. You can build apartment buildings 5, 10, 20 or even 80 floors high. The cost of land per apartment can be made quite small by building higher.

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by kamaal »

chillacy wrote: post #263
seem_2211 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a few interesting wrinkles with regards to rent seeking in the current economy and how that works out for the middle class. • As a few people have pointed out, people often buy sunglasses for fashion and social signaling rather than on price. Wearing Tom Ford glasses means you're getting very good quality glasses, but mostly you are paying to wear Tom Ford glasses, in the same way that a Rolls Royce…

I like this way of looking at it. The $15k Rolex is expensive because you’re paying them to tell other people how cool you are through branding. So when you wear the watch other people already recognize the brand and you get to flex on them.

I guess that works very similar to any purchase you could make in life. You don't get infinite utility for infinite money, point being its not possible you can derive more utility by spending more money forever.

So after a while the utility is things like social status and wealth signaling.

Apply this to things like buying a car, or a home and it makes a whole lot of sense. If you need that expensive carpet just to show off while a cheaper one could keep your feet equally warm, then at that point in time you are spending for status and wealth, not utility.

In case of a watch, can your phone tell time? If so you are all set.

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

#280

Post by kamaal »

megy wrote: post #264
dajohnson89 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a 30-story apartment building will block my view of the river!

You can mock, but if someone bought a house, and paid a lot for it so they can view the river, then this is a reasonable concern.

In that case and if you truly own something like a view. I'd suggest something like that should be taxed too. And since the person owning it puts a premium value to it. Something in the ballpark of 40% of the net price of the home extra apart from the property taxes is perfectly justifiable.
Post reply on HN