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

Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 425 posts

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#181

Post by JenrHywy »

aetherspawn wrote: post #72

In Australia it is simpler. The staff all get paid an award wage that is set by the government, and it is plenty, around $24/hr or more depending on age. This makes our food somewhat expensive: at least $20 for a sit-in meal, around $4.50 for a coffee. But what you see on the menu is what you pay and includes tax: tipping is not in our culture, and I have never seen drip charging here except on public holidays (“publ…

IME, once you take tax, tips and the exchange rate into account, Australia in generally on par, or cheaper, than the US (California, at least).

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#182

Post by jghn »

davemp wrote: post #153
lxgr wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely sounds bad, but at least in custom services, I can imagine scenarios where it's not possible to give an accurate estimate before starting the actual work (and already incurring cost in the process). There is just no justification at all for goods and services with a uniform sticker price, such as a meal in a restaurant. If you can program it into a POS, you can print it on the price tag.

In my state roof contractors are required to give the per board price for replacing roof decking in the estimate

When I had my roof replaced not only was this the case but their estimate included a certain amount of decking to be replaced for exactly the reason GP cites. I wound up not needing that much, and they only charged what I used.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#184

Post by mixmastamyk »

dcdc123 wrote: post #94
voakbasda wrote: post #20

Boost Mobile did this recently when my wife and I switched cell carriers. They advertised a $30/month/line plan (after a 3-month introductory period at an even lower price), but we are now paying closer to $45. This has pissed me off enough that I want to look for another carrier, but this seems to be SOP for this industry. Telcos behave like nothing less than a criminal cartel, so I was hardly surprised by this play…

T-Mobile plan prices are inclusive of all fees and taxes.

Multiple data breaches thrown in as well!

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#185

Post by dpkirchner »

jghn wrote: post #160
giraffe_lady wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and generally considered to be on the higher end in the US. Maybe in 1998 but it's pretty much standard now.

In more cosmopolitan areas, 25% is the new 20%

Before this thread goes much further I'd just like to point out that literally every argument for or against or indifferent regarding tipping has already been made on HN, including in this most recent thread starting yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34496438

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#186

Post by pedalpete »

Psychlist wrote: post #79
aetherspawn wrote: post #72

In Australia it is simpler. The staff all get paid an award wage that is set by the government, and it is plenty, around $24/hr or more depending on age. This makes our food somewhat expensive: at least $20 for a sit-in meal, around $4.50 for a coffee. But what you see on the menu is what you pay and includes tax: tipping is not in our culture, and I have never seen drip charging here except on public holidays (“publ…

Not just that, it's a legal requirement that the price advertised is the price you pay. The ACCC will enforce this. It's why, for example, the supermarket ogliopoly have a "if it's mispriced it's free" policy, they got fined for inaccurate pricing and tried to turn it into a PR win. Airlines and ticketmaster are currently fighting to change it but now we have a less right-wing federal government again hopefully the A…

I didn't know about the "if it's mischarged it's free" policy. My local supermarket (not Coles or Woolies) always rings things in at the till wrong and I feel like I'm watching them like a hawk.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#187

Post by pixelatedindex »

adrianmonk wrote: post #158

I support restaurants breaking out health insurance as a separate charge so that it's very conspicuous. In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits. (It shouldn't be that way, but right now, in the US, it is.) If a restaurant is going to try to treat their employees better, it's crucial for customers understand why they're paying more. Otherwise, they'll just think it's a bad d…

> In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits.

Not just the restaurant industry. It’s any place where you work less than 40 hours. And I’ve worked at many, and most of them will try to give you 39 hours so they don’t have to offer this to you. I think the number of hours have changed (it’s 30 hours now?) but the problem persists.

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#189

Post by HelixEndeavor »

Waffle House is an interesting example for me - it's one of the few establishments that outright declares on its menu that all food prices already include sales tax. Yet you still have to tip your server, of course.

But then, if you order take out, that's either called in or ordered in person, a pre-detetmined "tip" is applied to your total, in essence a fee for takeout that is evenly distributed among the staff.

But *then,* if you order takeout online, not only are you subject to the takeout fee, but sales tax is applied to the prices that supposedly already include sales tax! What the heck?

Re: Companies use drip pricing to overcharge consumers

#190

Post by pixelatedindex »

adrianmonk wrote: post #168
SoftTalker wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be that way? Why should health insurance be the responsibility of an employer at all? It is in the US, for historical reasons as an unintended consequence of WWII-era price and wage controls, but I don't understand why we continue to think that makes any sense at all.

I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance. Within the framework of the laws that exist today (which, like you, I think should be changed), there are tax advantages for employers that provide it, so that's the most practical approach right now.

> I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance.

Then who provides this insurance? Are you saying they should buy their own via Obamacare?

Post reply on HN