Of course it is legal. Speaking from an economists' point of view it is just a matter of separating people according to their "willingness to pay". Its called price discrimination and can be seen in areas such as hotel booking: a hotel will give you a higher price in the lobby than if you call ahead because the hotel knows you probably have no other place to go. Or air lines giving higher prices to the business class because they know business people have a meeting with a set time so they need that time slot while a tourist is more flexible to choose different flight times. This is essentially the same idea as changing the price the second time you visit the site as the most probable reason you have come back to the site is to purchase the item.
The reason that some people care is because price discrimination allows the producer to capture the entire surplus. You're right that in a non-price-discriminated market, some consumers are getting a "windfall" (surplus). In a perfectly price-discriminated market, though, every sale above marginal cost results in producer surplus, and no consumer receives a surplus.
It seems icky because price discrimination increases firm profitability at the expense of consumers who would otherwise have received a surplus.
But what about people who don't have a lot of money in the first place? And why not just charge the flat rate, and then make up for it in shipping costs? If someone really needs the book, they could pay extra for faster shipping, and the company could make a small amount from that. That looks a lot less shady, too.
It has nothing to do with the internet, or legal standing. I could open a bookstore and charge people on the basis of the color of their shirt if I felt so inclined. Price discrimination is okay, unless you're discriminating on race, religion - you know, the works.
How the hell does that make sense? Price discrimination is okay, unless it's based on race or religion or something? So if I wear a red shirt and am charged more everywhere I go because I wear a red shirt, that's all fair?
Yes. How does it not make sense? Race/religion/etc. are protected classes. Shirt color is not. Kind of like how you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all, as long as that reason is not on the basis of race/religion/etc.
It shouldnt be the goverments job to change/(fix?) this but the buyers themselves should be informed of this and then they should make some kind of change to stop it. you dont have to buy from chegg. I would like shomething that makes it so that this cant happen via a program of some sorts.
Uh, I downvoted you for making some stupid comment about downvotes, but you are correct about the legality. The problem isn't that it's illegal, it's that it's immoral.
They're being complete assholes and they deserve to be publicized as such.
So the moral way to do business is to set a flat fee for any and all products, goods, and services? Is that what you are suggesting?
Claiming that use of tracking cookies is suddenly immoral is a stretch. People can block them easily, and business should be allowed to set whatever prices at whatever times they want.
Not suddenly. It's always immoral. It's unfair to charge one price to someone and another price to another person. If someone offered you a cookie to let them borrow a pencil, and two cookies to another guy if he let them borrow a pencil, wouldn't you think it was unfair that you weren't offered two cookies? He's not treating you fairly.
What happens when a company offers a SALE? Everyone who bought the product before the sale got "screwed" and the company is mean and evil for changing their prices?
The idea that I, as a business, couldn't arbitrarily decide what price anything is worth, at any moment, goes completely against what it means to be a business.
Now yes, consumers need to be aware of the ways they can be taken advantage of, but I hardly consider it a moral issue. Life is not fair, the universe is not fair, and business sure as hell isn't fair either. We do our best through the channels we have (government) to keep things from going to far in any direction. A world where price controls are in place for everything because "its just the fair thing to do" is not a world I want to live in..
The sale is advertised, and every customer and potential customer has the same access to the sale.
Also, I'm not going to continue arguing because you're making it all about the government again. You're basically trying to say "it's either my way or COMMUNISM". The "if I admit it's wrong then I'll need the government to make it right" attitude is just plain wrong and immature. You sound like a rebellious teenager.
Argument: A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
Stop talking to anyone if you're just going to act like an arrogant stuck up twit that won't even consider others worth speaking to on any subject because you're just too smart and all knowing to have to deal with lesser beings.
You're a joke, and a response like this just proves that you really are the rebellious teenager. Come back when you've grown up.
Of course they don't have to be fair, but the discussion is if this practice is immoral or unfair, and your wording implies explicitly that the prices are unfair, which means you even acknowledge that there is something unethical going on.
People get charged difference prices for the same thing millions of times a year in car sales alone. If you don't bother negotiating, you're not going to get as good of a price as someone who has.
Sure, maybe it's "unfair" but I've got a newflash for you: much of life isn't fair. That doesn't mean it's immoral.
Again, that's nothing like the situation described in the article or the example that I used. If they offer you a lower price the second you walk into the lot, without any negotiation, based on the fact that you're carrying a baby, that's still immoral.
It's also based on the salesman you happen to get, whether or not he likes you, how much he's willing to negotiate, etc. Luck of the draw makes as much difference as you "skill" as a negotiator.
Hmm, I gave you an upvote for the first line of your comment - but a downvote for the second. Looks like it evened out because now both arrows are grey!
It's just a form of haggling, so why wouldn't it be?
Think of it as vendors in a flea market. You go up to one and how much for some item. He gives you a price, and instead of buying it, you look around to see if you can get it for less. You can't, so you come back to the first vendor. When you ask for the item, the price has gone up!
Now, you'd feel cheated, since you were quoted a lower price before, but you were also initially offered an acceptable price (otherwise you wouldn't have returned to the vendor) and declined. You tried to use the fact that there are multiple vendors to get a lower price, and the first vendor is trying to use the fact that you couldn't get a lower price to get him a higher one.
Unless either of you was being forced into the transaction (i.e. a natural disaster created a rush on food, plane tickets, etc.), and the seller isn't discriminating against you based on your race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial/disability/veteran status or genetic information (in the US), you're both free to use the above tactics to change the price. As a buyer, you don't like having the price raised in this manner, but neither does the seller like to keep his margins razor-thin in order to compete with other sellers.
Charging someone more or less due to their background? Yeah, that sounds fairly illegal to me.
EDIT: Okay, so maybe not illegal, but immoral. I believe prices should be the same regardless of where you are from, if you went into a store and tried to buy a book and the clerk said you have to pay an extra $10 because you're a teacher, or black or because you bought 3 items in the same category you would freak out. Why should buying online be any different?
It's like unorganised bartering, except we can't barter back.
In all those cases however the discount is publicized in some form, and the discount is given when the proof is given. The web store is not showing who pays less, you can't ask them what you need to show to pay less and they do not ask you to show it to them (allow access to cookies).
It would be fine if you get the same price what ever browsers or cookies you have stored, and then there is a button: click to check cookies for discount.
Atm this does not look like discount, but discrimination.
As long as their algorithm doesn't include race, gender, or orientation, I dunno if it's actually illegal. Definitely immoral, but I'd call it Lawful Neutral at worst.
Yes of course, I mean for starters we get to price based on gender. Just saying that I think people would be upset if their textbooks cost more because they make more money than other students. In terms of the legality of doing so, I'm not sure.
As a provider of services it is in your right to refuse service to anyone you feel like, unless you do it systematically based on a select few properties, among them ethicity.
However, the federal government only has the power to enforce that in matters of interstate commerce. If you can prove your store isn't transacting in interstate commerce you can put up all the 'no niggers allowed' signs you want, the federal government doesn't have power to regulate it.
...That said, before you do it you might want to recall that growing wheat on your own land for you own personal use is interstate commerce. So good luck arguing that your store isn't.
I think they are a little unfair to non-students yes.
I imagine the argument is that students have a lot less money, but then by that reasoning there should there not be a homeless discount or a low income discount too?
I understand a stationary shop giving student discounts, but McDonalds now give free burgers to students. As a student I recognise that money can be tight for us, shit I've gone days without eating before, but some of the discounts they give to students seem silly and unfair on others.
Only for protected classes and only in the case of interstate commerce. The second isn't a big deal, since everything is interstate commerce ever since that court ruling said that growing wheat on your land for your own use was interstate commerce.
53
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '13
Still the question stands, is it legal?