|
prezbuluskey posted:It will be very bad with money once people start realizing their insurance doesnt cover it and are on the hook for unreasonable high cost of vehicle repairs and liability payments.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
TLG James posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/Sneakers/comments/598c9o/got_scammed_1700_by_a_consignment_store/ 1700 dollars for butt ugly counterfeit shoes, at that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:I imagine insurance products will be developed to cover this. I almost guarantee they exist now but with apps like Turo the world is figuring out ways to hurt cars and people faster then ways to insure them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Known Lecher posted:1700 dollars for butt ugly counterfeit shoes, at that. Hahaha! They look like they were cobbled together by a homeless person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
That's bad with money right there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
In general I believe that we shouldn't judge people for their stupid hobbies and what they do with their disposable income. Like if you want to jizz money onto a horse or a boat, and you can afford it, go for it. But $1700 for those loving ugly sneakers (even if they were "genuine") is just doing my head in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
yeah but really anyone who's spent more than $1700 on a wedding is still more bwm than that idiot
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
I don't mean that earnestly, just joshin the people who think expensive things are objectively bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
If you're going to ball out, get a nice watch or something. Their price may also be way inflated, but at least it's something people might accept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
what if he just likes lovely shoes? I'd say throwing away money on something you like is better than throwing away money just to impress/keep up with others but eh
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Guys be fair he probably bought the ugly shoes as an investment. (yes people do this)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
I just don't understand how you can be happy with $1700 shoes if they're real but then suddenly not if they're believable counterfeits that you had to consult other shoe-experts on first. You aren't paying $1700 for performance or anything other than looks, and you got those looks and decided for yourself that they are on par with what you want in $1700 worth of shoes. Unless it's only the principle of being lied to, I can see that I suppose, but "I paid $1700 for shoes, so I expect $1700 worth of shoes" is still very  to me.edit: maybe people like me are the reason the knock-off market exists in the first place
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
It's because with stupidly overpriced fashion you're primarily paying for the name, and when you find out it's counterfeit you end up not even having that. ... also the knowledge that if you wanted counterfeits you could have just gone and gotten a $50 pair off Alibaba or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:I just don't understand how you can be happy with $1700 shoes if they're real but then suddenly not if they're believable counterfeits that you had to consult other shoe-experts on first. You aren't paying $1700 for performance or anything other than looks, and you got those looks and decided for yourself that they are on par with what you want in $1700 worth of shoes. Unless it's only the principle of being lied to, I can see that I suppose, but "I paid $1700 for shoes, so I expect $1700 worth of shoes" is still very A buddy of mine makes some The sneaker market is a strange one. Like tickets, he will get them at retail value and sell them to the $1,700 sneaker guy. He actually has to go wait in line for them and risk getting jumped, because they sell out online in literally seconds. He's an unemployed high school student, so he's got the time to wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:I just don't understand how you can be happy with $1700 shoes if they're real but then suddenly not if they're believable counterfeits that you had to consult other shoe-experts on first. You aren't paying $1700 for performance or anything other than looks, and you got those looks and decided for yourself that they are on par with what you want in $1700 worth of shoes. Unless it's only the principle of being lied to, I can see that I suppose, but "I paid $1700 for shoes, so I expect $1700 worth of shoes" is still very You really can't understand why someone would be upset about paying market price for a scarce luxury item and finding out it was counterfeit? Like what if you bought a diamond ring and had to consult a diamond expert to determine that it was fake?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:You really can't understand why someone would be upset about paying market price for a scarce luxury item and finding out it was counterfeit? Like what if you bought a diamond ring and had to consult a diamond expert to determine that it was fake? Okay so it was a bit of a hyperbole but at its basic, basic roots, yeah. It's just a foreign mindset to me to pay for a brand name over looks (since he held the things in his actual hands and decided "yep, these looks are the looks and quality that I want to pay top dollar for"). Unless the upsetting part was being lied to and someone making off with more money than "fair", yes that is absolutely frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
$1700 is the starting point for sneakers. Barely even nice ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
There's more to the brand than the name. I'm sure there are nice counterfeits but they're never (or at least exceedingly rarely) as good as the actual product. Obviously not to the tune of $1700 but the retail price is $200. Don't be scraping those beat up square toe Kenneth Coles on the way down from your high horse goons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Designer horse shoes coming up! I'll let you know when I make my first million.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Come on guys, those $1700 sneakers employed factory workers, warehouse employees, salesclerks, and a myriad of other people. The remaining $1675 paid for some pretty drat good marketing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
I know a guy who owns a pest control company. 10 years ago when the Hornets were playing in Oklahoma City post-hurricane, their company got a contract to treat NBA star Chris Paul's house. Guy's a big basketball fan, so he took the day off from boss-stuff to go spray the place himself and maybe meet Chris Paul. He walked him around the house the whole time he was there spraying, and the guy told me Chris Paul had an enormous room-sized closet filled floor to ceiling with sneakers in boxes. He told him "yeah, I collect shoes". He also had literal piles of cash laying around the house, like whoops there's $10k of walkin' around money that I took out of my pocket the other day and just left on the couch when I got home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
those shoes are so unbelievably bad looking adults spending hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on sneakers are basically children that never grew up
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:those shoes are so unbelievably bad looking I know these conversations always degenerate to how extreme we can go to shame people who buy luxuries, but this point needs to be emphasized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Come on guys, those $1700 sneakers employed factory workers, warehouse employees, salesclerks, and a myriad of other people. They are $200 shoes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:Okay so it was a bit of a hyperbole but at its basic, basic roots, yeah. It's just a foreign mindset to me to pay for a brand name over looks (since he held the things in his actual hands and decided "yep, these looks are the looks and quality that I want to pay top dollar for"). Unless the upsetting part was being lied to and someone making off with more money than "fair", yes that is absolutely frustrating. Don't worry, branding works on literally everyone, even you. If you don't realize this that means it's working and the billions of dollars paid to psychologists by marketing teams are paying off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Don't worry, branding works on literally everyone, even you. If you don't realize this that means it's working and the billions of dollars paid to psychologists by marketing teams are paying off. Probably. I started to type something along those lines in my first post but erased it because I felt long-winded already. It's probably stuff like grocery food brands - I grab my usuals without price-comparing anymore and don't notice if they change ingredients or nutrition. Just hopefully somebody stops me when I get to the $1700 spaghetti.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
I love that the artificial scarcity of fashion brands has legitimized "replica" fashion as a viable alternative. https://www.reddit.com/r/Repsneakers/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FashionReps/ I don't wear street fashion, but if I did, replicas are GWM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Don't worry, branding works on literally everyone, even you. Username/post combo of the day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I do some IT work for an urban wear store. They have regular online sales, and they typically do their new shoe releases on weekends. When they first started these sales, the site would get hammered hard from the second the shoes went on sale. We'd have to babysit the webservers until the new products were sold out. The company finally started shelling out more money for hosting services so we could set up automatic scaling during those times, so now it's not so bad. These are shoes from various popular brands that sell for anywhere between $50~$300. People really like shoes! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Barry posted:They are $200 shoes. If somebody will pay $1700 for shoes, they're not $200 shoes. This is like Buick getting hammered for rapid depreciation when GM sells them with 20% off MSRP cash back new. If the asking price on a car new is $24k, don't tell me that it depreciated 26% when it's worth $22k 1 year old just because MSRP says "$30k". That was tough to follow, but MSRP frequently has no relation with what something actually costs. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:If somebody will pay $1700 for shoes, they're not $200 shoes. Except, the stores and manufacturer sell them for 200. Right after they sell out, the collector price skyrockets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:If somebody will pay $1700 for shoes, they're not $200 shoes. It does when you're talking about $1675 of "marketing".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Someone's got to pay for Michael Jordan's
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Don't worry, branding works on literally everyone, even you. If Lowtax bothered to do the market research I'm sure he could convince some of us mere platinum goons to join some Platinum Plus subscription based account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Barry posted:It does when you're talking about $1675 of "marketing". How many more rounds is it going to take for all you financial geniuses to figure out the difference between retail pricing and resale? "30k for a Mickey Mantle rookie card? What was Topps thinking! Kids can't afford that!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
My employer is switching our 457b provider. The new proposed provider has a .08% quarterly maintenance fee and a flat $50 a quarter fee to buy any fund outside of the 8 provided by their asset managers (4 of the 8 are actively managed funds with somewhat bad expense ratios, one is a bond fund, and one is a cash settlement fund) It is not very good. I managed to get our State Treasurer's office to consider additional options, including some with no fees other than the fund ER. Even though I managed to do all this, my coworkers are loving me over and it is making me lose my faith in democracy. It looks like we are going to go with the provider that has only 8 fund options (50% with an ER over 1.3%) and charges a quarterly fee. Why? Because each provider gave a presentation to convince the employees why they were the best. The employees then filled out forms voting for a fund. About 70% of people went with the high fee provider after their presentation. The reasonings: - They have actively managed funds. It's like having my own stock broker working for me. - The fee is less than 1% a quarter and the ER for the Total Stock Market fund is only 1%. That's nothing! - They have a calculator on their website that tells you how much you'll have at retirement if you enter a % saved and an age of retirement. - They have an app that you can use on your phone. My coworkers overwhelmingly voted for the fund that is going to take approximately 2-2.5% more of their money each year FOR THE EXACT SAME investments because it has a calculator that you can get online anywhere for free and an app. The rep sold them on the idea that the stock market is "like a hurricane sometimes" and you need to pay a good captain to guide you through it. I tried to show people how much that will compound and cost them eventually, but the general response was "don't penny pinch over 2%!" and that they wanted to hire someone to do it for them and "beat Wall Street at their own game." So, I just wasted several dozen hours and am going to get forced into this plan because of a phone app and an HTML calculator. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Oct 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:How many more rounds is it going to take for all you financial geniuses to figure out the difference between retail pricing and resale? "30k for a Mickey Mantle rookie card? What was Topps thinking! Kids can't afford that!" Your guess is as good as mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:problemwithdemocracy.txt Not a complete loss. Now you know how financially illiterate they are and can begin to exploit it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Not a complete loss. Now you know how financially illiterate they are and can begin to exploit it. Fast track to Diamond!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:How many more rounds is it going to take for all you financial geniuses to figure out the difference between retail pricing and resale? "30k for a Mickey Mantle rookie card? What was Topps thinking! Kids can't afford that!" Yeah yeah yeah, I didn't catch the part where the shoes retail for $200. It's still not entirely incorrectly. The $200 shoes might use slightly better materials than $60 shoes so there's a lot more to spend on intangibles like marketing. In the case of the $200/$1700 shoes maybe it's more like concert tickets where you deliberately underprice/restrict supply to create scarcity and make it look like your stuff is more popular than it really is. Lady Gaga doesn't get a percentage from scalpers, but she still benefits when tickets go for 2 or 3 times face value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:31
|
|