D&D 5E Price Increase on D&D & MtG coming

[Charlaquin]

I mean, I'm open to a gold or silver standard argument, but what I'm talking about is the opposite of being abstract: in concrete terms, PS3 games cost over $80. The abstraction is the number that said "$60." Because a dollar 15 years ago is concretely ~$1.30 now, whether wages stagnate or not.

PS3 games cost over $80 because someone set that as the price and consumers are willing to pay it. That “concrete” $1.30 is entirely self-referential.

 

[Parmandur]

Right, which as I said, I would be more accepting of.

So point to resisting inflation to justify static wages and point to keeping up with inflation to justify increasing prices? How convenient for the capitol-owning class.

It's actually a straightforward relationship: as fiat currency loses value over time due to inflation (which is inevitable to some degree with fiat currency), workers and contract companies (printers, freight, what have you) will want more money just to keep up, and will probably want to pull ahead. Customers understandably don't want to spend more, so there is an incentive to not raise prices if feasible (particularly for luxury good companies: grocery stores just raise the price). Hence the stagnation of wages while prices remain flat.

 

[Charlaquin]

Those are linked: companies resist inflation by not raising wages.

That certainly insulates the company’s owners against the effects of inflation. But it does so by passing those effects onto their employees.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's actually a straightforward relationship: as fiat currency loses value over time due to inflation (which is inevitable to some degree with fiat currency), workers and contract companies (printers, freight, what have you) will want more money just to keep up, and will probably want to pull ahead. Customers understandably don't want to spend more, so there is an incentive to not raise prices if feasible (particularly for luxury good companies: grocery stores just raise the price). Hence the stagnation of wages while prices remain flat.

But prices are not remaining flat. They’re increasing. And wages aren’t.

 

[Parmandur]

PS3 games cost over $80 because someone set that as the price and consumers are willing to pay it. That “concrete” $1.30 is entirely self-referential.

It's concrete in terms of buying power. The "$60" ($80+ translated into current value) was chosen to pay the costs and make a profit. The economy was so bad thst for 15 years companies kept that price stagnant to encourage business while thir costs grew and grew, which does show how much was originally profit. Now Sony stepped in it by taking the plunge first, but Microsoft is eating the cost to screw Sony and Nintendo keeps to reasonable budgets, so thst may have been a bit of a strategic mistake.

 

[Parmandur]

That certainly insulates the company’s owners against the effects of inflation. But it does so by passing those effects onto their employees.

Right, which is bad. Which is why I am not bothered by reasonable price increases thst go with inflation.

 

[Parmandur]

But prices are not remaining flat. They’re increasing. And wages aren’t.

Some aren't: people in certain areas are able to get raises pretty readily right now, it's an employees market.

Prices of necessary goods, like bread and milk, track to inflation closely. The video game industry particularly was unusual for freezing prices for 15 years.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's concrete in terms of buying power.

Yes, but buying power is determined by arbitrarily set prices and if consumers are willing to pay them.

The "$60" ($80+ translated into current value) was chosen to pay the costs and make a profit. The economy was so bad thst for 15 years companies kept that price stagnant to encourage business while thir costs grew and grew, which does show how much was originally profit. Now Sony stepped in it by taking the plunge first, but Microsoft is eating the cost to screw Sony and Nintendo keeps to reasonable budgets, so thst may have been a bit of a strategic mistake.

But, despite “eating the cost,” executive salaries remain astronomical, or even increase, while employee wages remain the same, and mass layoffs are regularly made.

There’s just no validity to the idea that price increases are “needed” when the people at the head of the company have so much surplus money. They could cover those increasing costs. They choose not to because they value executives’ salaries more than laborers’ wages or consumer costs.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, but buying power is determined by arbitrarily set prices and if consumers are willing to pay them.

But, despite “eating the cost,” executive salaries remain astronomical, or even increase, while employee wages remain the same, and mass layoffs are regularly made.

There’s just no validity to the idea that price increases are “needed” when the people at the head of the company have so much surplus money. They could cover those increasing costs. They choose not to because they value executives’ salaries more than laborers’ wages or consumer costs.

Not arguing with any of that, but that doesn't stop inflation from eating away the value of the dollar over time. Sooner or later, that needs to be accounted for.

 

[Maxperson]

This. It’s exactly the same as the discussion about the standard price of AAA video games going up to $70. Defenders can claim “keeping up with inflation” until they’re blue in the face, but the bottom line is that the corporations’ profits are increasing without these price hikes, so no, they aren’t “needed” or “overdue.”

It depends. A privately owned corporation can do whatever it likes, including not passing on these increases to you and making less money. A publicly traded corporation cannot do that. They have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to maximize profits and can be sued by said stockholders if they breach that duty.