Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AvatarForm wrote:At first I was of the belief that you lacked basic economic understanding, but now I am to believe that you have a personal issue with Aussies living and working in a more fair IR environment?

is this correct or are you simply trolling the thread with obtuse responses?

No. My mother is from Australia.
Also reported for "obtuse responses". It is simple math to see that prices and wages might correlate with each other.

I actually concur with you ph34r, I have posted a similar hypothesis in other threads here.

Shame for the Aussies (didn't check Kiwi $), but it seems parity across the world is to be artificially enforced from now on.

It makes me lol that there are people trying to convince the Aussies that what just happened to them is fair and reasonable. Not a happy lol. A cynical lol. It's even more laughable when people try to convince them that somehow they are getting a better deal than the rest of the world. Then the lols go away when it becomes worryingly apparent how far some people will go to be apologists.

While appreciate logic is the oil to the calm waters of the internet I hardly see how analysing the respective economic factors is being an apologist.

Clearly you like going off half cocked, others do not.

It is simple math to see that prices and wages might correlate with each other

Sure they correlate.

Unfortunately that doesnt make it any more or less of an exploitation.

Correlating price to aveage income is a great thing to do if you dont have income disparity, if you have 1 person earn 99000 and 100 people earn 10 dollars, your average income is going to be 909 dollars.

Setting your price based on this average isnt going to work.

H.B.M.C. wrote:How much does the average house or apartment cost in the US?

The median purchase price for a home in the U.S. from this past March was $232,900 in the North East, $126,100 in the Midwest, $138,200 in the South, and $192,100 in the West. Which comes to $172,325 for a national average. I received that info from the National Association of Realtors.

Also, it is important to keep in mind that there is a ton of disparity with housing costs even within regions. For example, I live in MA and housing costs here are some of the highest in the nation. If I lived 50 miles north in VT things would be a lot more equitable.

notprop wrote:While appreciate logic is the oil to the calm waters of the internet I hardly see how analysing the respective economic factors is being an apologist.

Clearly you like going off half cocked, others do not.

Seems unlikely that almost every Antipodean who buys figures would be so very unhappy if they were actually getting the amazing deal some people in this thread are claiming they are getting. And there is a difference between analyzing the respective economic factors and trying to convince people who just got boned that they were actually getting a better deal all along, and that they should accept this new boning as only fair...especially when they clearly were not getting a fair deal.

adamantium|wang wrote:Cross-posting this, it seems to be more relevant to the discussion in this thread.

adamantium|wang wrote:Incomechat.

There was a bit of manufactured furore here recently when the Government decided to restrict the growth of welfare payments to people earning over $150,000/year. The Opposition took up the cry of "class warfare!" which was duly repeated via the usual shock jocks and news sources. It lasted for all of 3 days after people realised they don't make anywhere near that much. In fact, only 1.5% of taxpayers earn this amount or higher.

I bring this up because it has led to a nice piece of analysis of just how much people in this country actually earn.

We have a very obvious two-speed economy in Australia right now. Up the top end is the mining industry, who (while they do have a considerable rate of turnover these days) are busy digging up as much as they can and shovelling it into the insatiable furnace that is China. We are in the midst of a resources boom that has helped prop up the national economy and contributed hugely to growth. Also in the top end are tradesmen, who are working through a 10 year long housing bubble and a huge skills shortage, and the usual line up of CEOs.

Towards the bottom end is everyone else. The rest of the economy was slugged hard by the GFC and while Federal stimulus spending and lending guarantees staved off the worst, it's not all pretty. Retail in particular has had a hard time, even with stimulus handouts, and a spate of natural disasters has piled on even more bad news.

Because of this skewed economy using the average wage is a poor indicator of what people are actually earning. The top end of town artificially inflates the number as more and more people see their wages slump into lower, already accounted for brackets.

The blog that I linked shows the average weekly ordinary time earnings for full time adults to be just north of $66,000/year, but this mean figure is skewed by our two tier economy. Looking at tax statistics from 2010, he concludes that the median figure for full time workers is just under $55,000/year. This however excludes part time workers and the ever growing number of casual and underemployed workers. Once these people are included, the figure drops to just over $44,000/year. This means half of the Australian workforce earns under $44,000/year, which at current exchange rates is just under 29,000 pounds a year. A far cry from the $66,000 average.

Just something to think on.

While I in now way deny the truth of what is above and it certainly should be considered, it is a phenomenon that exists in all nations. The distribution of wealth in the world today is far removed from any sense of fairness, and on that note data from the Human Development Report shows a lower ratio of economic inequality between the richest and the poorest in Australia, as opposed to the U.K. and especially the U.S.A. Australia also scores much better than those two nations on the Gini Index, with the U.S.A. once again taking the unfortunate lead on. Basically, while I do agree with you, the economic situation of Australia is far better off than the U.K and U.S.A. Which should be no surprise, even to a casual observer, as there is a reason your money is actually valuable and this issue of internationally outsourcing for product even exists.

Seriphis wrote:

It is simple math to see that prices and wages might correlate with each other

Sure they correlate.

Unfortunately that doesnt make it any more or less of an exploitation.

Correlating price to aveage income is a great thing to do if you dont have income disparity, if you have 1 person earn 99000 and 100 people earn 10 dollars, your average income is going to be 909 dollars.

Setting your price based on this average isnt going to work.

But it is done that way.

When introducing a product to a new market, you know you sell it in the UK for £30, so 300% of the average earning say.

You then introduce the product at 300% of the local average wage to the new market as a starting point. This is an over simplistic way of looking at how it would be done but it will roughly follow this method. There is no way in hell that GW would spend money on product placement etc so the will just do like almost all businesses across the world - if it works here it must work there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

notprop wrote:While appreciate logic is the oil to the calm waters of the internet I hardly see how analysing the respective economic factors is being an apologist.

Clearly you like going off half cocked, others do not.

Seems unlikely that almost every Antipodean who buys figures would be so very unhappy if they were actually getting the amazing deal some people in this thread are claiming they are getting. And there is a difference between analyzing the respective economic factors and trying to convince people who just got boned that they were actually getting a better deal all along, and that they should accept this new boning as only fair...especially when they clearly were not getting a fair deal.

No one is trying to convince anyone of anything.

I have just had a cursory look at some figures that indicates rough parity across the globe based upon what I would expect a companies approach to be. I find trying to inform myself before deciding on jumping on the band wagon a rather more productive use of my time.

Anyway I would suggest that allot of this is unimportant as I suspect most Antipodean GW customers do not buy from the UK anyway (though I'm sure allot of Aussie Dakkanauts do).

TBD wrote:So, how many Big Macs can one buy locally for the local price of a box of Space Marines in:

1 - Australia
2 - the US
3 - GB

The Big Mac Index is flawed and has been disproven as a means to weigh economies.

If you have heard of this economic "tool" than you can come to your own conclusions as to why without the need for it to be repeated here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:At first I was of the belief that you lacked basic economic understanding, but now I am to believe that you have a personal issue with Aussies living and working in a more fair IR environment?

is this correct or are you simply trolling the thread with obtuse responses?

No. My mother is from Australia.
Also reported for "obtuse responses". It is simple math to see that prices and wages might correlate with each other.

Oh noes, you reported me for responding to your trolling... *gasp*

By the way, if your mother being from Australia is deemed as qualification to comment with a valid opinion upon global economics, then it must be said that both my mother AND father are from Australia. This must mean that I am doubly qualified to respond and debunk your opinions.

On Topic: If anyone cares to notice, the GW apologists do not seem to be from the areas affected by this price fix strategy.

The Big Mac Index is flawed and has been disproven as a means to weigh economies.

Its flawed for the same reason as the assumption of parity accross the world.

When introducing a product to a new market, you know you sell it in the UK for £30, so 300% of the average earning say.

While i understand you're over simplifying, but if a company were to introduce a product for 300% of the average wage of a new market and there was any competition the product would have to be sold at a price around the competitor's or less to take the market, this kind of behaviour only exists in markets where monopolies or oligopolies exist.

The problem with your own example is if you work on that assumption that 300% above average wage will result in sales. Heres where it comes to the argument that everyone else is making.

GW wants to increase profits, they have recognised they are losing sales over time, to offset this loss in profits they've increased prices while decreasing production and employment costs. Rational consumers when they see increased prices will not purchase the product more, consumers on the edge of the ability to purchase to start off with will be forced not to purchase, and people looking to get into that market will be discouraged because of the high entrance price.

Say GW does the opposite and lowers prices, they've addmited a number of times that their production costs are always decreasing, with recessions, they'd be able to employ more staff for less relatively. By lowering prices, rational consumers will likely choose the product over other luxury goods, people on the edge will be able to purchase more of the product or at least less likely to cut it out of their budget, and people wanting to get into it can do so cause the cost of entrance is lower.

Not to mention if GW lowers their prices, they're less likely to have competitors cause there will be less demand for alternatives to their good. With GW increasing the prices, it gives competitors more room to undercut them...

As others have said, GW's move has given reason for consumers to seek alternatives... for some of their product range there is that alternative, but not for all of it or necessarily the same quality.

AvatarForm wrote:Oh noes, you reported me for responding to your trolling... *gasp*

You calling my posting is not only insulting, but is incorrect, and speaks to your ignorance for assuming that those that provide logical reasoning that contradicts with your world view can be dismissed as simply trying to rile you up.

It's sad, really.

ph34r wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Oh noes, you reported me for responding to your trolling... *gasp*

You calling my posting is not only insulting, but is incorrect, and speaks to your ignorance for assuming that those that provide logical reasoning that contradicts with your world view can be dismissed as simply trying to rile you up.

It's sad, really.

Speaking of logic, you have yet to respond to my points.

Infact the only reasoning you have presented so far is that because Australians are generaly wealthier than Americans, they should pay more for GW products to make it "fair". I fail to see the logic behind this reasoning.

Seriphis wrote:

The Big Mac Index is flawed and has been disproven as a means to weigh economies.

GW wants to increase profits, they have recognised they are losing sales over time, to offset this loss in profits they've increased prices while decreasing production and employment costs. Rational consumers when they see increased prices will not purchase the product more, consumers on the edge of the ability to purchase to start off with will be forced not to purchase, and people looking to get into that market will be discouraged because of the high entrance price.

If we agree to a 50% price hike since 2005, then by their own numbers, they are at something like 20% down in sales since that year. This is not the same profit, thou any business man with 2 functioning neurons would be jumping up and down trying to push their product, then again this is GW we are talking about.

Solourus wrote:

ph34r wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Oh noes, you reported me for responding to your trolling... *gasp*

You calling my posting is not only insulting, but is incorrect, and speaks to your ignorance for assuming that those that provide logical reasoning that contradicts with your world view can be dismissed as simply trying to rile you up.

It's sad, really.

Speaking of logic, you have yet to respond to my points.

Infact the only reasoning you have presented so far is that because Australians are generaly wealthier than Americans, they should pay more for GW products to make it "fair". I fail to see the logic behind this reasoning.

I would like to know too , i asked on page 20 but no one answered.

Aussies pay more for *everything* imported than is strictly fair. Clothes, books, cars, models. Why? The retailers are capitalising on customer ignorance and laziness.

People here are used to paying $XX for goods Y. Y is imported, but not many people know that. They've been paying $XX for years, and they feel its pretty reasonable. They have no real reason to search around for cheaper alternatives, because $XX is reasonable. Suddenly currency shifts. Does $XX suddenly become less reasonable? You're earning the same, and $XX is still the same relative proportion of your budget.
If you felt you were getting value, there is no need to shop around. Only if you know that Y is imported, AND that currency has shifted significantly, AND you felt it wasn't worth $XX in the first place, do you start feeling ripped off. Then, if you do look for alternatives, does the discount of Z% offset $W in shipping costs, AND is it worth waiting the 3 weeks it takes to get to you?

GW was expensive as a hobby to start with. Many people were already on the brink of not purchasing. Most players who have read more than one White Dwarf know it is an imported product. Furthermore, there is a company offering free (or heavily discounted) worldwide shipping. All of those things stack up against GW. If Maelstrom didn't offer free shipping, and we had to buy from GW UK, it probably wouldnt be worth it. If the comparative discount was only 20% rather than 60%, it wouldn't be worth it.

The only thing I have noticed decreasing significantly in price is electronics, beyond the normal trends of such things. These one-off purchases are typically made by wealthy-er, informed customers. Most of these cannot be bought from overseas (or at least it is significantly more difficult) due to high shipping costs, and warranties being invalid overseas.

Aussies may earn more AUD then Brits earn GBP. But we pay the same rough % of wage on GW products. Yes, we are lucky that exchange rates favour us for importing. But for those in the know, it is now blatantly obvious that GW has both acknowledged the currency shift and is attempting to profit from it. They blame the 'nasty internet free-riders' 'taking advantage' of shipping very low profit items to customers overseas (I'm surprised wayland and maelstrom make a profit out of AUS) but in the end, Wayland is doing nothing wrong: its GW who is not adjusting to the currency shift.

I just love the fact that GW can colour Maelstrom with the 'internet freeloaders' brush when they are far, far more than an online shopping kart.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I just love the fact that GW can colour Maelstrom with the 'internet freeloaders' brush when they are far, far more than an online shopping kart.

But at the core of the problem is this: they're "far, far more than an online shopping cart"...for the United Kingdom. They do nothing that 'supports the gaming community' outside of the region they are based in.

It's the same thing with The Warstore, Wayland, or any other storefront which also has an online retail branch. They're funneling a ton of money into the community that they're based in--but most of that money is coming from outside of it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does cause a bit of cries of "Unfair! Unfair! Unfair!" from the other local retailers.

I will agree with you though, "internet freeloaders" was completely uncalled for and it was very clearly a kneejerk response coming from Wells.

Kanluwen wrote:... but most of that money is coming from outside of it.

Really? Most of it? You know that for a fact?

Kanluwen wrote:But at the core of the problem is this: they're "far, far more than an online shopping cart"...for the United Kingdom. They do nothing that 'supports the gaming community' outside of the region they are based in.

Depends what you mean by 'supporting'. If more people can afford the products thanks to the service Maelstrom/Wayland provide, then I consider that to be 'supporting'. Maelstrom supports the community plenty with it's massive store and 140-ish tables. I think they're doing their bit quite well. Well's claim is that the 'internet freeloaders' are harming their R&D efforts. I can't see how Maelstrom is doing this at all.

Kanluwen wrote:It's the same thing with The Warstore, Wayland, or any other storefront which also has an online retail branch. They're funneling a ton of money into the community that they're based in--but most of that money is coming from outside of it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does cause a bit of cries of "Unfair! Unfair! Unfair!" from the other local retailers.

And the local retailers wouldn't have need to call unfair if our prices were the same as the UK's. Have a Tactical Squad cost the same across the world, and this issue vanishes.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Have a Tactical Squad cost the same across the world, and this issue vanishes.

/Thread

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:... but most of that money is coming from outside of it.

Really? Most of it? You know that for a fact?

Nope, just like you don't know that it's not the case. That's why I thought I made it pretty clear that it's a hypothetical.

Kanluwen wrote:But at the core of the problem is this: they're "far, far more than an online shopping cart"...for the United Kingdom. They do nothing that 'supports the gaming community' outside of the region they are based in.

Depends what you mean by 'supporting'.

By "supporting" I mean the exact same qualifiers that GW does when it comes to shops.
A space for your customer base to play. Maelstrom cannot qualify for that, no international based retailer that isn't a chain can meet that criteria.

It's maddeningly broad and vague and it suits GW's purposes perfectly for this case.

If more people can afford the products thanks to the service Maelstrom/Wayland provide, then I consider that to be 'supporting'. Maelstrom supports the community plenty with it's massive store and 140-ish tables. I think they're doing their bit quite well.

Again: they support their community. If Maelstrom opened up shop down under, in the US, Europe, and Canada I would say that they're supporting their community there too.

Well's claim is that the 'internet freeloaders' are harming their R&D efforts. I can't see how Maelstrom is doing this at all.

I didn't see anything about R&D. If that was his claim(which I didn't see), then research and development clearly isn't being impacted by Maelstrom.

Unless of course that research is to try to get a better understanding of the Oceanic customer base, in which case then yeah. Maelstrom is 'interfering' with that.

Kanluwen wrote:It's the same thing with The Warstore, Wayland, or any other storefront which also has an online retail branch. They're funneling a ton of money into the community that they're based in--but most of that money is coming from outside of it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does cause a bit of cries of "Unfair! Unfair! Unfair!" from the other local retailers.

And the local retailers wouldn't have need to call unfair if our prices were the same as the UK's. Have a Tactical Squad cost the same across the world, and this issue vanishes.

And the local retailers wouldn't have need to call unfair if your prices were the same as the UK's?

You mean like where someone has said that the "same percentage of your wages goes into buying a GW kit as a UK customer's wage percentage goes to a GW kit"?

Overall: prices need to be refigured.
Period. End of story. It needs to be done, worldwide. Things are getting absurd.

And for that matter, FW needs to have the same done.

The 'average wage' bs is just that - bs. But I won't go into that, I'll leave that to others.

And are you attempting to say, Kan, that Aussies should pay more for FW items?

No, I'm saying everyone should pay less for them.

Phew. Had me really worried for a moment there. I might have asked Lego to change your custom user title to 'White Knight' had you been advocating that...

Are you implying GW's pricing isnt justified? Then what have you been defending all these years kan?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Phew. Had me really worried for a moment there. I might have asked Lego to change your custom user title to 'White Knight' had you been advocating that...

Pft. Just because I don't feel the need to constantly post my displeasure with the company doesn't mean I don't have issues with them.

YES IT DOES IF YOU DON'T WHINE ABOUT GW YOU MUST LOVE THEM AND BE KILLED WITH FIRE

It normally takes a catastrophe for Kanluwen and HBMC to agree on anything. Kinda says something about the current state of GW.

I thought we avoided the apocalypse this weekend?

Yes now all we need is for Kan H. and Aggy to all agree on the same subject then someone should check the weather report in hell.