NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose that every comerical product you buy, DVDs, CDs, clothes, computer software, shoes etc (essentially everything that is aplicable for VAT and sales tax so not food and infant clothing) were to be forced to, by law, have a cost/profit break down on it. IE When you bought a CD somewhere on the CD it would say

Costs:
CD - 60p
Burning process - 12p
CD case - £1.32
CD inlay - £1.54
Distribtuion cost - £4.12
Profit made - £5.29
(Of course I just chose those numbers completely at random)

Thus a consumer would be able to compare just which company is getting more of their money from what they buy, so for example, buying X&Y from Virgin megastores they may reep 30% of the total price as profit, but HMV may reep only 24%. Thus you know those people are actually making it more cheeply to you, giving consumers power beyond merely selecting the cheepest, but knowing which actually is the cheepest

Of course for this to work it would have to be done across the EU, US and most of SEAN for competitiveness sake.

What do you think of the idea?

Suppose that every comerical product you buy, DVDs, CDs, clothes, computer software, shoes etc (essentially everything that is aplicable for VAT and sales tax so not food and infant clothing) were to be forced to, by law, have a cost/profit break down on it. IE When you bought a CD somewhere on the CD it would say

Costs:
CD - 60p
Burning process - 12p
CD case - £1.32
CD inlay - £1.54
Distribtuion cost - £4.12
Profit made - £5.29
(Of course I just chose those numbers completely at random)

Thus a consumer would be able to compare just which company is getting more of their money from what they buy, so for example, buying X&Y from Virgin megastores they may reep 30% of the total price as profit, but HMV may reep only 24%. Thus you know those people are actually making it more cheeply to you, giving consumers power beyond merely selecting the cheepest, but knowing which actually is the cheepest

Of course for this to work it would have to be done across the EU, US and most of SEAN for competitiveness sake.

What do you think of the idea?
Interesting ... I know it probably has been but I have never seen it proposed before

Interesting ... I know it probably has been but I have never seen it proposed before

When UT is interested you know this is going somewhere...:)

I'm all for greater access to information. I've got no qualms with your suggestion if firms were to do it voluntarily.

i though more customer power was the right to strangle the waiter,bag boy idiot at the register

I'm all for greater access to information. I've got no qualms with your suggestion if firms were to do it voluntarily.

Whats the problem with the government forcing them to display it on their products?

I'd just have the profit made on it, personally.

unrealistic for a few reasons.

The big one being, you aren't buying from a product company. When you go to the supermarket and buy a can of coke, you're not buying it from the coca cola company.

In fact the coca cola company has already sold that can and made their profit.

It's the supermarket that gets your money. The supermarket buys the can wholesale (this is true for probably 90% of consumer transactions, you very, very rarely buy your products direct from the company) and then the supermarket sells it back to you.

Therefore you can't simply calculate sale cost - production cost = profit. It doesn't work that way.

It's wholesale cost - production coast = profit for production company

and retail cost - wholesale cost = profit for retailer

And retailers, based on past relationships, contracts, and other agreements, may pay different wholesale costs from the producer.

Hell, there's probably a wholesaler distributer in the middle there too. Plus you're absolutly forgetting to factor cost of advertising. Coca cola pays almost NOTHING to make a can of soda, practically nothing at all. But they pay a ton in advertising to get you to buy it. How do you factor that in in a product by product basis?

Simply putting "this product cost us X to make" is inefficient and if anything would HURT consumers. It doesn't factor in wholesale price, distribution price, advertising budget anything like that, and would outrage customers to know that they're paying 75 cents for a can of soda that "cost" 5 cents to make, not knowing all the other factors that went in, and all the middle men, each one who made their profit.

Let's not forget the fact that retailers charge different prices too. What are you gonna do about vending machines and quickie marts that have a "convenience" cost added to their prices?

I think it's a fine idea. And the US gvernment already requires food companies to put all that nutritional information on their packages, so there's a precedent. Of course, there will be an amazing amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in corporate boardrooms, and the politicians who get it enacted will have an uphill fight.

unrealistic for a few reasons.

The big one being, you aren't buying from a product company. When you go to the supermarket and buy a can of coke, you're not buying it from the coca cola company.

In fact the coca cola company has already sold that can and made their profit.

It's the supermarket that gets your money. The supermarket buys the can wholesale (this is true for probably 90% of consumer transactions, you very, very rarely buy your products direct from the company) and then the supermarket sells it back to you.

Therefore you can't simply calculate sale cost - production cost = profit. It doesn't work that way.

It's wholesale cost - production coast = profit for production company

and retail cost - wholesale cost = profit for retailer

And retailers, based on past relationships, contracts, and other agreements, may pay different wholesale costs from the producer.

Hell, there's probably a wholesaler distributer in the middle there too. Plus you're absolutly forgetting to factor cost of advertising. Coca cola pays almost NOTHING to make a can of soda, practically nothing at all. But they pay a ton in advertising to get you to buy it. How do you factor that in in a product by product basis?

Simply putting "this product cost us X to make" is inefficient and if anything would HURT consumers. It doesn't factor in wholesale price, distribution price, advertising budget anything like that, and would outrage customers to know that they're paying 75 cents for a can of soda that "cost" 5 cents to make, not knowing all the other factors that went in, and all the middle men, each one who made their profit.

Let's not forget the fact that retailers charge different prices too. What are you gonna do about vending machines and quickie marts that have a "convenience" cost added to their prices?

Come on, don't be a wet blanket. :( How about just on certain items, such as clothing and electronics and drugs? It needn't be a detailed reckoning, just an indication of the mark-up in price from the manufacturer to the consumer.

So the retail outlets have to put their own profit margin on this too?

The good thing about it is that it will also reveal which companies are using unethical pracitises (IE sweatshops) and which arnt more clearly. If you see that the labour cost is absurdly low, you can conclude that it was made somewhere where laws are very lax in this regard.

CD - 60p
Burning process - 12p
CD case - £1.32
CD inlay - £1.54
Distribtuion cost - £4.12
Profit made - £5.29

Stupid American not realizing those numbers are in British Pounds: Priceless.

There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

Sorry, I had to do it. And no, I was not referring to myself by stupid American. It's a general statement.

The good thing about it is that it will also reveal which companies are using unethical pracitises (IE sweatshops) and which arnt more clearly. If you see that the labour cost is absurdly low, you can conclude that it was made somewhere where laws are very lax in this regard.

but also not necessarily true.

5.25 an hour is incredibly little in los angeles.

5.25 an hour is incredibly much in Zimbabwe.

Simply a "low labor cost" doesn't mean anything unless you know how many were involved, and what the average standard of living cost there is.

All you're doing is confusing consumers. Let's say my box of mondo chocoblast cereal cells for 2.50 at the crap and shop supermarket, and 2.80 and the 9/11 conveneince store.

I don't need to know what the wholesale cost for either of them is, or their stocking cost, or labor cost, or advertizing budget it. And as a consumer I don't NEED to know.

I know where I go to save 30 cents.

What more, as a consumer, should i need to know?

but also not necessarily true.

5.25 an hour is incredibly little in los angeles.

5.25 an hour is incredibly much in Zimbabwe.

Simply a "low labor cost" doesn't mean anything unless you know how many were involved, and what the average standard of living cost there is.

All you're doing is confusing consumers. Let's say my box of mondo chocoblast cereal cells for 2.50 at the crap and shop supermarket, and 2.80 and the 9/11 conveneince store.

I don't need to know what the wholesale cost for either of them is, or their stocking cost, or labor cost, or advertizing budget it. And as a consumer I don't NEED to know.

I know where I go to save 30 cents.

What more, as a consumer, should i need to know?

*sigh* True, Arthais, but it would so make CEOs cry like little girls.

It would be funny because it would completely wreck the fashion industry.

Whats the problem with the government forcing them to display it on their products?

The fact that the government would be forcing them.

Hmm, interesting idea. How about this too, as long as we're talking about enlisting the help of Big Brother to protect us from Evil Corporations.

On every receipt for any product I buy, the government prints a detailed list of what proportion of the taxes I'm forced by law to pay goes to what.

So you know, for 50 cents of taxes it might say,

3c........ transportation
15c...... killing Iraqi civilians

etc.

The fact that the government would be forcing them.

I have no problem with the government forcing companies to do things in the interests of the consumer (pace to Arthais). I believe seat belts in automobiles were mandated by the government, the car makers kept whining it would be too expensive, boo hoo. And the nutritional listings on food are also good. Companies will always favor profits over both the consumer and the worker, so now and then they must be taken in hand by the government and made to do the right thing.

Suppose that every comerical product you buy, DVDs, CDs, clothes, computer software, shoes etc (essentially everything that is aplicable for VAT and sales tax so not food and infant clothing) were to be forced to, by law, have a cost/profit break down on it. IE When you bought a CD somewhere on the CD it would say

Costs:
CD - 60p
Burning process - 12p
CD case - £1.32
CD inlay - £1.54
Distribtuion cost - £4.12
Profit made - £5.29
(Of course I just chose those numbers completely at random)

Thus a consumer would be able to compare just which company is getting more of their money from what they buy, so for example, buying X&Y from Virgin megastores they may reep 30% of the total price as profit, but HMV may reep only 24%. Thus you know those people are actually making it more cheeply to you, giving consumers power beyond merely selecting the cheepest, but knowing which actually is the cheepest

Of course for this to work it would have to be done across the EU, US and most of SEAN for competitiveness sake.

What do you think of the idea?they have nutritional labels on foods, who really reads those?

and is there going to be an oversight committee to insure that the money is divided as it is labeled?

and who's paying for that committee...

Companies will always favor profits over both the consumer and the worker, so now and then they must be taken in hand by the government and made to do the right thing.

Ah, of course. Companies are evil, soulless, person-less beasts designed to fuck over the consumer at any and all costs.... but, governments are the highest rank of angels doing God's work.

but also not necessarily true.

5.25 an hour is incredibly little in los angeles.

5.25 an hour is incredibly much in Zimbabwe.

Simply a "low labor cost" doesn't mean anything unless you know how many were involved, and what the average standard of living cost there is.

Then also put where it was manufactured on it, truthfully. Not everything is made in China.


All you're doing is confusing consumers. Let's say my box of mondo chocoblast cereal cells for 2.50 at the crap and shop supermarket, and 2.80 and the 9/11 conveneince store.

I don't need to know what the wholesale cost for either of them is, or their stocking cost, or labor cost, or advertizing budget it. And as a consumer I don't NEED to know

I know where I go to save 30 cents.

What more, as a consumer, should i need to know?

The ethics of the business practises used in making that product

Whether or not the company in question is ripping you off rediculously (IE making masses of profit where as others arnt)

The fact that the government would be forcing them.

And that is wrong because?

Just because its government doesnt make it automatically wrong

Then also put where it was manufactured on it, truthfully. Not everything is made in China.



The ethics of the business practises used in making that product

Whether or not the company in question is ripping you off rediculously (IE making masses of profit where as others arnt)

Because, you know, profit is WRONG and EVIL and must be stopped.

I never really understood the type of mentality which says that it's wrong to make a profit.

Let's take an example of my own life: I sell books online. The vast majority of the books I sell I get from library book sales. This means I pay, on average, $.50 per book. I then turn around and re-sell these books to consumers for anywhere from $5.00 to ... well, I've sold some books for $500+.

Now, when you look at the simple production cost (what it cost me to buy the book) versus the marketing price (what I sell the book for) it appears I've made a huge profit on each individual book. Even when you add in the other expenses (gas, etc.) the profit margin is still absolutely huge.

And yet, I'm able to support myself and not much further on this business. I pay my rent, my utilities, my groceries, etc. out of the evil profit I'm making by selling these books to the poor, defenseless consumer for absolutely absurd prices.

Never mind that the poor, defenseless consumer isn't being held at gunpoint, forced to buy my product. Come to think of it, last time I went into a store to buy a CD, there wasn't a large gorilla threatening me bodily harm if I didn't pick up a few extras to support the recording industry. 99% of what we buy today (even most of the food we buy) is luxury items. If you don't want to pay the markup fee on these items...don't buy them. But stop whining that companies charge you what the market is willing to bear for an item. That's the free market, and a product of capitalism.

It would be funny because it would completely wreck the fashion industry.
Doubtful, at this very moment there is a small army of jewelers practically smashing me over the head with the fact that their product is sold at a mark-up of (at least) 300-500% 11 months out of the year (and that's assuming that they aren't still making a huge profit based on Holiday Sales Prices). Yet, people still fork over the requisite thousands to stick gaudy bits of rock through their faces the rest of the year.

Conclusion: The fashion industry is supported by people who like being ripped off.