Originally Posted by rollin
Ski equipment and participating in the sport is expensive as we all know. The cost on a family who skis is no joke. Sure there are plenty of people who are doing well financially but most are just trying to find ways to support their expensive recreation of choice on a budget. Finding deals for skis on-line (for the greater good or not ) is a way for one to do that.
It would be great imo if everyone could afford to buy whatever they needed from their local retailer but its not reality and they cant. I cant buy most things of significant value in my local shop because they are expensive and I cant afford to be the hero in doing so. especially for something (skiing) which is a luxury and by no means a necessity. I really wish I could just walk in their and buy whatever I wanted. It would be really wonderful to have that financial luxury and also support that local shop.
Like you, I'm all too aware of the costs to a family (two kids race). But I question your basic premise: IME, local shops are only trivially higher (<10%) for most gear, and may actually be willing to match prices with online stores. We've had numerous threads, moreover, where folks have bragged about how much they saved on boots online, only to discover most of that is illusionary (the store is only 10-15% higher initially) and the rest is gobbled up by having to pay upfront for a shop to adjust them several times, when the store offers the same services free to its customers. Eg, your time and their expertise are worth something. So I don't agree it's a luxury to support a local merchant.
With the exception of older "new" skis. Yes, I can achieve deep savings on skis that are a couple of seasons old and being offered new on one of the online warehouses. Although keep in mind that Epic B&M merchants usually have sales for members that are as good as anything you'll find at Level Nine etc, and for desirable equipment, not the skis no one else wanted to buy.
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD
Martin "Gecko", CEO of Jarden, skis quite well and really likes the BC, which is reflected in their product lines. He's also a really nice guy.
Might want find another villain, that one hucks to flat.
I'll keep that in mind. Although if you actually read my post, you'll see I don't villainize him one bit; just mention that various ski companies are held by Jarden (which means, incidentally that skis are not Jarden's "product line," they have no product lines, they own controlling interest in companies), and that ski sales represent a small part of their total profits. So they can afford to hold a few ski companies that don't make much profit. I'm actually glad ski companies, or their holding companies, tend to make money on stuff other than skis; if they didn't they'd all be DOA.
Originally Posted by Just Rip It
Well said and true all .... but the last line says it all:
" I really wish I could just walk in their and buy whatever I wanted. It would be really wonderful to have that financial luxury and also support that local shop."
I certainly agree- I have a great local shop but... The days of serious extra $ are a 2008 and before memory- Have to do the online get 'em for less thing just to preserve ski trip cash
The "economic recovery" really isn't.... The "good old days" really where the good old days!
As above, IME shops are not necessarily that much more expensive than online, if we're talking about this season's gear.
Originally Posted by ohioskier
Self interest isn't becoming a moral sense it is the only sense in business. If you cannot lookout for yourself who will? Your liberal mindset makes me think...
I made that comment because the lack of a moral sense in capitalism makes it compatible with any number of "look out for yourself" stances that will end up destroying the commons and costing us a lot more in the long run. For instance, there are real downstream costs of environmental pollution and global climate change; they have a lot of solid economists worried. Read up on what entire countries like Bangladesh or Sudan or Indonesia are facing right now, not centuries from now. Some of the costs are real but difficult to quantify; risks of political turmoil and radicalization, refugee crises like Europe's facing now, and the attendant social costs to western governments. Or calculate the projected dollar costs of defending big coastal cities in America and Europe from rising sea levels and storm surges.
Alternatively, believe that the climate's just fine, and instead look at what happens to the purchasing power of all those workers downsized while their CEO's are making 8 figures. Or the downward mobility of retail employees after big online giants like Amazon have finished off their companies. Henry Ford was a looong ways from a liberal, but he had it right about the need to sustain middle class workers to which he could sell his cars. Today, we rationalize self-centered CEO's with the new trickle-down fatalism: "It is what it is." (And anyway, sooner or later those rich guys will create all these great new jobs. I'm sure of it. I just can't wait for those great jobs, cuz slinging this hamburger sucks.)
So if I can't hold my job because I can't sell my widgets for what they can in China, and I end up selling clothes for $12/hr with no benefits, it impacts my subsequent ability to buy new skis, pay for my house, go to see doctors to stave off some more catastrophic health mess in a few years, all that other stuff that the economic commons includes. Is it so "liberal" to worry about how my life will be affected when the folks who might pay for my services can no longer afford to? Or what will happen when my company decides the invisible hand wants to outsource my division to India? Or when my property taxes and insurance doubles to reflect real costs of battling hurricanes?
This stuff is unsettling, complex, has no simple answers. It may be cognitively easier to just say, "I've gotta think about myself and my family, anything else is a luxury." But at the end of the day, Hardin argued, worrying about the commons ends up paying you and your family.
Originally Posted by rollin
If they sell a lower model for 300 and progressively charge higher as the ability goes up reaching lets say 900. Does it really cost them more than 3 times the price to produce that higher level ski? therefore warranting the retail price to be more than 3 times that of its lower level sibling? Does the markup of profit have to be the same percentage even if the ski does indeed cost 3 times the amount to produce? I understand cheaper and more expensive materials and also paying for R&D that goes into higher skis. But does the retail price increments from its lowest level ski through its highest level ski still allow for far more profit than we think? Lets say it cost 50 to make each pair of its lowest level ski they sell for 300. Even if it costs 200 to make its highest level ski they are selling them for 900. Of course I am throwing numbers out there just for a point. But to my point- perhaps the profit is high enough for these manufacturers to take hits and still be profitable. I guess it would have to be or they wouldn't be in business.
I wonder about the numbers, actually, that sustain your point. Haven't seen 2015-2016 skis for $300 anywhere unless you like 100 cm juniors. Virtually everywhere I look I see price differentials more on the order of 35-40%, not 300%. If you pull out two ski makers, Kastle and Stockli, the differences cluster at more like 15%. And I notice that you keep casting this as all about ski makers, but using retail numbers. So where is the actual profit? As I understand it, the lower the retail cost of the ski, the closer it is to wholesale, and the lower the profit margin for the merchant. Sorry, but I just don't see anyone getting rich here.