←back to thread

689 points taubek | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.44s | source
Show context
hx8 ◴[] No.43633780[source]
> But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses.

I don't understand this paragraph. If Footlocker was okay with $50 profit/shoe, why do they need to claim $75 profit/shoe in their costs per shoe go up? The costs of handling the shoes, retail space, advertising, and labor are all fixed.

replies(18): >>43633824 #>>43634076 #>>43634140 #>>43634174 #>>43634187 #>>43634256 #>>43634280 #>>43634377 #>>43634446 #>>43634484 #>>43634560 #>>43634764 #>>43635127 #>>43635686 #>>43637131 #>>43640232 #>>43642701 #>>43644645 #
treis ◴[] No.43634187[source]
Because it's mostly wrong. Luxury goods like Nike's, iPhones, et.al. are priced to maximize revenue. If those started growing on trees for free it wouldn't appreciably change the price. They'd just bank the extra as profit.
replies(4): >>43634270 #>>43634328 #>>43634891 #>>43643532 #
1. kstrauser ◴[] No.43634270[source]
An aside: the actual functional Nikes aren't luxury items, just really good shoes. My wife’s a foot surgeon and she won’t run in anything else because they fit her perfectly.

I've never found Nikes that work for me, but Brooks seem custom made for me personally, so that's what I get. They're about the same price as my wife’s Nikes.

replies(1): >>43634404 #
2. hx8 ◴[] No.43634404[source]
I agree fully. Having comfortable shoes with reasonable lifespans isn't a luxury.

If you spend more money and get a proportional increase in quality, that's not luxury. A luxury good occurs when the marginal increase in quality cannot be justified by the increase in price. For example, you could buy a quartz Casio for $25 that's more accurate than a $10,000 mechanical Rolex. Both tell you the same time.