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

The Economics of Christmas Trees

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#131

Post by beerandt »

14u2c wrote: post #129
beerandt wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soft is pretty (and beats the hell out of pointy and prickly and sticky), but soft can't hold heavy ornaments- which is a deal breaker to most people. It's one of the downsides of Lelands and other fast growing breeds, meaning ~3 years to mature instead of 5-6. Timber has similar issues- fast growth is softer and weaker than old growth. That said, there are some amazing and beautiful types of xmas trees being bred th…

Who is hanging ornaments on the needles?

For most of these types of trees, soft needles usually goes with soft/weak branches. Not sure how universal that is, but seemed to hold for most marketed types.

I remember one type that solved that "problem" and others, but the trade off was it absolutely stunk. But only to some people.

There always seemed to be a major compromise in traits.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#132

Post by beerandt »

nradov wrote: post #130
beerandt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One type of theft at choose and cut is often just cutting the top out of a much larger tree, and attempting to only pay for the size of what they cut. People with 7-8' ceilings cut the top 6' out of a 12' tree bc they didn't like any of the younger trees.

The farm where I buy my Christmas trees charges the same flat price regardless of size.

There are pros and cons to the different business models, but in this case, if you think of it as a matching/sorting type of problem, it's inefficient and wasteful, in a logistical/Nash equilibrium sort of way.

Which doesn't always mean it's the wrong way, from a business perspective. But if you're charging by height, it's leaving money on the table.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#133

Post by throwaway201103 »

Retric wrote: post #87
brentm wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll never beat the real thing without the smell but if you spend decent money you can buy a convincing looking fake.

Faking the smell is straightforward, but the vaguely creepy feeling of a dying tree in your living room is another story.

Also a fairly real fire hazard, as well as leaving needles everywhere that you'll find until Easter.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#134

Post by throwaway201103 »

Aeolun wrote: post #61
sheeeep86 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We got our 1,7m large Christmas tree in Germany for 13 Euros, I simply don't understand how it could have been worth to let it grow for many years at this price.

To be fair, agricultural land is relatively cheap. And you basically just leave the tree there for 10 years, so maybe it works out?

TFA mentions regular trimming/shaping, and fertilizing.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#135

Post by outworlder »

robocat wrote: post #117
cptskippy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they explored the ACTA claims that artificial Christmas trees are more environmentally friendly than real trees. Artificial trees are made from PVC and the by products of PVC manufacturing are highly toxic and historically highly polluting. In order for that claim to be true under China's lax regulatory environment, either they have some revolutionary new method of producing PVC or farming Christmas trees is h…

But trees or rotting trees can produce methane. Depends on tree variety, location, transport, and disposal. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170330190304.h... As a heuristic, the amount you spend is approximately the damage, unless you know a lot about where the money is going. E.g. if there is a retailer involved then 50% of environmental damage is invariant.

They will decompose, at least. PVC is nasty.

Also, there's the transportation costs. From farm to retailer to home, vs from the other side of the planet.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#136

Post by kelnos »

Aeolun wrote: post #60
kurthr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price from a grower (with 20-30% margin) is $30-35 or about the same. It's the fact that retailers (like always) have a 100% markup (50% margin) so if you go to a random convenience store it'll cost double and they'll make the money. No different from most consumer items. Fake trees last forever... until you throw them away, and then they still last forever.

> Fake trees last forever... until you throw them away, and then they still last forever. Unfortunately they look like a fake tree forever too. It’s better than no tree at all, but not very inspiring.

Growing up, my parents were allergic to most types of the trees sold as christmas trees, so they gave up and bought a fake tree. They spent a decent amount on it (definitely stretched our christmas budget), and it was actually a really great tree that we enjoyed for over a decade. "Not very inspiring" is a bit of a grinchy, scroogey way to think about it... really lacks imagination.

Now I get a real tree, and honestly sometimes I miss the fake one. Keeping the real tree watered and dealing with it shedding needles all the time is a pain. And you'll rarely find the "perfect" tree that doesn't have some odd misshapen-ness or branches missing in key areas. Sure, you can say that's what gives them their charm, but I guess I just got used to having a fairly symmetrical tree.

I also feel a bit bad about feeding an industry that grows a tree only to cut it down so I can stick it in my house for a 6 weeks and then throw it away. This year I learned about companies that will deliver a potted tree and then take it back and keep it alive during the off season. Might give that a try next year.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#137

Post by DoreenMichele »

Tokkemon wrote: post #123
DoreenMichele wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Christmas because Christmas decorations get stored around 10 or 11 months out of the year and I used to end up on antibiotics every year at Christmas. Storing stuff like that tends to leave it covered in mildew. I spoke once to someone who was allergic to Christmas trees and she was sympathetic. Everyone else typically hates on me for mentioning it. I'm a party pooper for not wanting to be deathly ill. It also…

You must be fun at parties.

I'm sure I would be about as much fun as Adult Wednesday Addams* at parties -- if I ever went to one.

* https://youtu.be/BVpC2VbX940 (Trigger warning: Jokes about suicide, among other things.)

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#138

Post by ec109685 »

kelnos wrote: post #136
Aeolun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fake trees last forever... until you throw them away, and then they still last forever. Unfortunately they look like a fake tree forever too. It’s better than no tree at all, but not very inspiring.

Growing up, my parents were allergic to most types of the trees sold as christmas trees, so they gave up and bought a fake tree. They spent a decent amount on it (definitely stretched our christmas budget), and it was actually a really great tree that we enjoyed for over a decade. "Not very inspiring" is a bit of a grinchy, scroogey way to think about it... really lacks imagination. Now I get a real tree, and honestl…

Is it better for the environment to cart a tree back and forth to your house versus starting the process again with a sapling a tree farm?

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#139

Post by vl »

abootstrapper wrote: post #17
Negitivefrags wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t feel guilty about harvesting trees. This is literally a carbon capture business. They are not cutting them down from the wilderness.

Honest question. How would you have to dispose of the tree to capture the carbon? Burry it? Wouldn’t composting release the carbon?

Same way you dispose regular garbage, which has same challenges.

I went to the tour of recycling plant, and as part of the tour they told us what happens with Seattle garbage: they excavate a pit, line it up with plastic, put garbage in, cover it with plastic, put soil on top. Without supply of oxygen it basically stays there almost forever. They cut a carrot with was in such pit for 10 years. It was black on the outside, but still orange inside!

Anyway, put trees in such pits, and you have carbon capture!

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#140

Post by sneak »

etothepii wrote: post #97

A Christmas tree here in Bermuda will cost North if $200 and come with an 8 hour queue so sadly this year we've passed. I would have paid $300 though to avoid the queue.

Why not go for an artificial one, then?! They look just the same, and will last many years, without annual waste and cost, and are less of a fire hazard.
Post reply on HN