• Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Something a lot of people don’t understand (you obviously do) is that pricing is not based on what something costs. It’s based on the absolute maximum a consumer is willing to pay. If they cut costs somehow, they just pocket the difference. If it costs more to make than a consumer will pay they just don’t make it.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        In theory, it would allow them to reduce costs to compete better with rivals and sell more.

        But usually it’s the thing you said. Capitalism fundamentals are pretty broken in most markets.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          In theory, it would allow them to reduce costs to compete better with rivals and sell more.

          Selling more could mean lower profits over all. If you have to build out extra production capacity (new fixed costs) to create more product that you’re receiving a lower price on, then it could have been more profitable to sell fewer units but at a higher cost creating more profit.

          Example: If you’re at 90% capacity on your $1 billion factory selling your product for high price/high profit, and you lower your price which increase sales by 20%, you now have to another $1 billion factory to product the 8% of product not producible at your first factory. You’ve now lost nearly $1 billon from your larger sales.

    • dinckel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’ll take another massive quality scandal, or just a generation of shit products, but sure