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

The absolute worst scenario happened

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 566 posts

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#551

Post by gambiting »

mercer wrote: post #540
derefr wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about who's morally in the wrong here, not whether it's a good idea to do this.

The person you're responding to doesn't seem to place moral considerations high on his list, in general.

I don't know why you'd make such an assumption about me, please expand.

I think in general all of my comments on this thread have been horribly misunderstood - I was just trying to say that if the company was scummy, instead of paying him the 250k fee, they probably could have sued him instead. I'm not saying that should have done, I'm not saying it would have been the right thing to do, that he deserved it.....literally nothing of the sort. Just pointing out that the company could have made an argument against him in court. As many other people pointed out to me, it would have almost certainly failed. But I don't understand how you can deduct where moral considerations are on my priority list from this?

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#552

Post by johnchristopher »

orestarod wrote: post #550
johnchristopher wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They found the most economical solution that met their needs was to pay $250,000 to have the work done on time. I'd be inclined to believe that if there were some other providers but as it is told working with OP was the only solution. And OP's first offer was 125 000. Two screams later it's 250 000 ? It has nothing to do with economical theory or free market interpretation.

First, he owed no-one anything. He could set the price to 1 billion for all he cared. His former employees could take it or leave it. Second, you speak as if his claims were irrational. The way I see it, however, you would set for 125k (probably much less judging from what you write) while he, the sentimental fool, scooped up double the money. Therefore, your decisions, which you personally claim are rational, would…

> Second, you speak as if his claims were irrational. The way I see it, however, you would set for 125k (probably much less judging from what you write) while he, the sentimental fool, scooped up double the money. Therefore, your decisions, which you personally claim are rational,

The way I see it you are putting words in my mouth and I am definitely not interested in having a discussion like that.

I never insinuated OP was a sentimental fool or wrong to raise the price. I am calling bullshit on the free market and econ 101 as an explanation of why the price got doubled and call it like it is: it's payback from OP because they were dicks to him first, everything else is pedantry and useless justifications.

edit: if anything, OP could be considered a fool since he obviously gave an under the market quote as his first proposal. Had he started with 250K from the beginning he would have gotten more since there likely would have been screams anyway and he would have risen the price all the same.

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#553

Post by johnchristopher »

nate_meurer wrote: post #547
johnchristopher wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, maybe not. I find this explanation (from top comment) more in line with how the world spins: > If they left under bad terms because the business was a bunch of dicks, expect to pay 10x market rate. If this is truly "fix this or the business is out of business" - then it shouldn't be a tough decision to make. So, “being a dick” has more to do with price raising than any free market justification (which I am oka…

This is such a silly and mundane bit of pedantry you're harping on here. Of course there are emotional factors in price discovery-- it happens all the time , and is a completely natural and rational part of the free market. Any small or independent contractor in any business will eventually have a blacklist, or a list of troublesome customers who get charged extra. Most of my contractors charge me less because they l…

> Honestly, this isn't mysterious or profound.

Yes.

> It's economics 101.

Not even that. It's payback, that's all it is. There's no need to call for a more elaborate explanation for what was at play here. Not that I disagree with it. It's humane nature.

> My HVAC contractor charges a particular customer double just because the customer is a rich entitled asshole;

Like you say. No need to even know about market dynamics to (wisely) choose that option. Because the other guy is an asshole.

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#554

Post by lenkite »

kstrauser wrote: post #371
throwthescene wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwaway purely so that I can comment. I've had this happen before. Years ago I left a rather awful company - I left on great terms with my boss, though I hated the company. I was the last person who knew how to release X product. While I documented everything, after I left, the wiki lost its mind, backups apparently weren't a thing, and the director of IT moved to Bermuda. Fast forward 6 months.. a contractual obli…

Hell. Yes. That's absolutely beautiful, and ethically completely correct. I have bosses at previous companies that I'd help for free today because they were good to me and we parted on friendly terms. One boss helped me move my house once, and I'm not about to charge him to fix some random issue. I have other bosses whom I'd require a cleared wire transfer of money before I'd lift a pinky to help them, because they w…

This is actually not a very rare situation. Unfortunately many of us don't really have the smarts or courage (overcoming guilt) to negotiate a price like the OP did.

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#556

Post by phkahler »

zebnyc wrote: post #281
phkahler wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was at a hotel with crappy service and asked about the problems with house keeping. The manager told me everyone in town (Traverse City MI) was trying to bring in foreigners to do housekeeping because they couldn't get local labor. They said the standard is 30 minutes per room per day. I figure at a very generous $50 per hour (100k / year) it should run $25 to have my room taken care of. Now that doesnt cover the s…

The service industry might be labor intensive but is hardly the only cost for the owner(s). What about mortgage payments, marketing, integrating with third parties (expedia), gas & electricity, general maintenance / accounting / security etc. I am sure there are hundreds of other costs that I have no visibility into

That was exactly my point. Probably loan payments are the reason they cant afford to pay people to clean rooms.

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#557

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

orestarod wrote: post #549
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, HN at it's finest I suppose. He's like you, he says what you want to hear, therefore you believe him. No need to consider the possibility that maybe there might actually be another point-of-view.

The point of view of managers and business owners is well known. Work is not a new concept. You get what you pay for. Nothing is owed to you. Work? Tough luck, you have to pay for it too. On a free market, no less. I don't understand why business owners think the rules are different for them than the rest.

Straw man what I'm saying, sure, very HN of you.

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#558

Post by jodrellblank »

johnchristopher wrote: post #494
DubiousPusher wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market answer to that is, the seller underpriced their services to begin with, regardless of the personal motivation for increasing the price. To clarify, the market would likely not allow this specific work to be sold at this price normally. But the buyer wasn't just buying specific work they were buying specific work to be completed by a specific date. The work in isolation does not have this value but the work…

Bullshit. The way the story is told the price doubled after and because of the CEO screaming. The market has nothing to do with that except the good old "The fair price is the one that god paid, uh.” I suppose.

"The market" has nothing to do with that because one single trade isn't a market; if you and I exchange 1g of gold for $1000 that doesn't say "gold is fairly priced at $1000/gram". If many people exchange gold for money, each with different information and desires, over time the gold will go to the people who pay more, sellers will generally trend their sale price down because higher prices won't get buyers, buyers will trend their buying price up because lower offers won't get accepted, and a range of "price gold is being traded at" values emerge, the spread of those values highest to lowest narrows and hones in on, and tracks a dynamic "price of gold" where it's "fairly traded" - not fair in some Deity decreed way, but fair in that if you trade at close to that price, you aren't buying unusually high or selling unusually low, you're getting no better or worse deal than anyone else, so it's not unfair in your favour or unfair against you, so if it's not unfair then it must be fair - you couldn't get a significantly better trade with anyone else.

Anything distorting those conditions - e.g. there's only one seller, only one buyer, a time constraint, a skill constraint, an information disadvantage, will distort the pricing as well. One trade isn't enough information for a market to exist or to settle on a fair price. I agree there that the market has nothing to do with it.

But I disagree with your implication of "the fair price is the one paid" is somehow unfair in an ethical sense. (I also think OP is in no way obliged to be "fair" in any ethical sense to the company, but that's another matter). The company got a $10M contract for $250k, versus losing the contract, is that unfair? If that really was the pivotal factor between losing the contract and not, the company ought to benefit by spending right up to the point where the contract becomes a money loser, to not lose it. Would it be unfair for the company to get an $8M contract by paying $2M? Or a $2M contract by paying $8M? Is OP obliged to help the company make as much profit on the contract as they can, by charging them less for his services?

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#559

Post by jbroson »

reaperducer wrote: post #402
jbroson wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My somewhat educated guess is that these farmers in the PNW don't share the same politics as farmers in the rural south or midwest. That and Republicans have grown way more hostile to immigration since 2010, so it's an interesting anecdote but not sure how well it translates across the US, where polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not.

My somewhat educated guess is that these farmers in the PNW don't share the same politics as farmers in the rural south or midwest When you say it's an "educated" guess, educated how? It only seems to reflect the usual bigotry that comes out of the coasts. polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not If you're going to make a statement that sweeping, you real…

"When you say it's an "educated" guess, educated how? It only seems to reflect the usual bigotry that comes out of the coasts."

I lived first 28 years of my life in the rural south and now live in the midwest.

My entire family and most of my friends growing up are the people you claim I'm bigoted against...

"If you're going to make a statement that sweeping, you really should back it up with credible sources."

The fact that farmers are generally far more conservative and republican than the median voter or average American isn't exactly some shocking new insight.

You seem to have never spent much time around these folks or have done much research on them if this comes as a surprise to you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/03/why-y...

Are these just bigoted facts "out of the coasts" too:?

Re: The absolute worst scenario happened

#560

Post by jbroson »

enriquec wrote: post #392
jbroson wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My somewhat educated guess is that these farmers in the PNW don't share the same politics as farmers in the rural south or midwest. That and Republicans have grown way more hostile to immigration since 2010, so it's an interesting anecdote but not sure how well it translates across the US, where polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not.

"where polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not." source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/03/why-y...
Post reply on HN