"Australia Tax" is real: Infrastructure and Communications report(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
"Australia Tax" is real: Infrastructure and Communications report
http://www.zdnet.com/the-australia-tax-is-real-geo-blocking-to-stop-7000018644/
10 comments
A while back, the Australian dollar was about US 60c. I would suggest this was the basis for which software was pegged against. When the exchange rate changed, the priced stayed fixed because it maintained status quo for the locals. Over time, it became the norm for others to follow suit.
It's actually quite simple: if you think it's too expensive or loaded pricing, don't buy it.
I live at university accommodation in Australia which houses a large proportion of international exchange students. Every one of them, from France, the UK, Canada, Sweden, the US etc. has been shocked by the prices here. Some of them have even said that if they had known how expensive it was, they wouldn't have come.
(This is in general, not just software.)
(This is in general, not just software.)
I'm in Australia from the UK and yes, the prices can be ridiculously high. I have my own version of the McDonald's index, the bread index. In supermarkets in the UK quality organic whole meal fresh bake is £1.10 which is about $1.80 AU. A loaf of white junk bread in Australia costs over $4.00. And so it is with lots of things.
So many rent seekers.
So many rent seekers.
This is demonstrably false.
I agree that cost of living in Australia is high, but you can buy a loaf of "baked in store" white or wholemeal bread for AUD $2. Sure its not organic but it is fresh.
I agree that cost of living in Australia is high, but you can buy a loaf of "baked in store" white or wholemeal bread for AUD $2. Sure its not organic but it is fresh.
In the American south where cost of living is known to be low, I can get store brand white bread for $0.99 (~$1.06 AUD). I can get fancy pants processed bread that is brown with lots of labels like "NATURAL" for $3.00. Store-fresh bread is $2 - $4 at grocery stores.
I can't imagine junk white costing $4. That's outrageous, but then again, maybe it's like that in some American regions with a crazy cost of living.
I can't imagine junk white costing $4. That's outrageous, but then again, maybe it's like that in some American regions with a crazy cost of living.
My sister migrated to regional Australia and it's hella expensive.
Bananas in Arizona are $0.57/lb and they were $12/k when I lived there. Apparently there was a banana shortage at the time but the usual price was still 4-5x what I would normally pay.
Clothing is also very expensive. Every time my sister comes back to the states she brings two gigantic duffel bags and stocks up on clothing.
The prices on anything else you want/need to buy like electronics, computers, cars, or bicycles are insane compared to the USA. Or even Japan, which isn't a country known for bargain prices.
I do think there is a bit of frontier pricing happening. Everything seemed cheaper in Melbourne than her town.
That said, she gets paid $95K for a part time job with full benefits. She had a similar job in the states that was full time and it paid $34,000 with minimal benefits.
Bananas in Arizona are $0.57/lb and they were $12/k when I lived there. Apparently there was a banana shortage at the time but the usual price was still 4-5x what I would normally pay.
Clothing is also very expensive. Every time my sister comes back to the states she brings two gigantic duffel bags and stocks up on clothing.
The prices on anything else you want/need to buy like electronics, computers, cars, or bicycles are insane compared to the USA. Or even Japan, which isn't a country known for bargain prices.
I do think there is a bit of frontier pricing happening. Everything seemed cheaper in Melbourne than her town.
That said, she gets paid $95K for a part time job with full benefits. She had a similar job in the states that was full time and it paid $34,000 with minimal benefits.
It actually depends, I used to live in the melbourne suburb as a grad student, I used to pay 800$/mo for 1 bedroom apartment. Now I am living in the US (in northern VA, DC area) I pay 1200$/mo for the same standard of accommodation. In fact, the melbourne accommodation was better, w.r.t. the condition of the apartment and the degree of accessibility to the public amenities. The suburb where I am living now (in the NVA/DC) is literally a ghost town, where the melbourne suburb was very alive.
"That said, she gets paid $95K for a part time job with full benefits. She had a similar job in the states that was full time and it paid $34,000 with minimal benefits."
And there you have it.
If you want to live in a society with high pay, good benefits, free Medicare, compulsory pension contributed to by your employer, etc -- then be prepared to pay.
Also, there is nothing stopping you from importing cheap clothing, goods, books, whatever from overseas.
And there you have it.
If you want to live in a society with high pay, good benefits, free Medicare, compulsory pension contributed to by your employer, etc -- then be prepared to pay.
Also, there is nothing stopping you from importing cheap clothing, goods, books, whatever from overseas.
Not everyone in Australia has the ability to earn $95K. There are the rare exceptions where you can get an unskilled mining job in a remote area, but that's every bogan's dream. Actually landing such a job is another matter.
That said, the minimum wage at $16.37/hr is much hire than other countries. In Melbourne at least, you'd probably gobble that up pretty quickly on living expenses.
That said, the minimum wage at $16.37/hr is much hire than other countries. In Melbourne at least, you'd probably gobble that up pretty quickly on living expenses.
The US is a little special, as it's got a strong agricultural industry (like Australia), and subsidises food like crazy (like the EU). While Australia has some of the most efficient food production in the world, it has very low subsidies. The US has both efficient food production, and crazy subsidies, so food is dirt cheap. Plus, Australia has fairly high minimum wages, so eating out is quite expensive.
Conversely, I've heard from people who lived in America that the food is terrible. Bread that last a week or two before going stale, etc.
Junk white isn't $4. Mass-produced 'artisan' bread is.
It may suit your political narrative to claim that junk white bread costs over $4 a loaf but the facts are markedly different. http://www.news.com.au/business/first-it-was-milk-now-grocer...
Please don't shoot from the hip when you are so ill informed.
Please don't shoot from the hip when you are so ill informed.
Actually I'm staying in a Victorian country town called Castlemaine where there are two supermarkets under the IGA franchise. There are no Coles or other supermarket competitors here that provide the venue for a 'supermarket war' as its described. I can assure you that the prices I quote are accurate. I'm also fairly confident that the shelf price for ordinary refined flour white bread would drop significantly if there were competitors.
Cheaper options are available in a regional city called Bendigo some 35km away, and I've no doubt that there are even greater discounts available in larger cities.
And there's the rub. Lack of meaningful competition in many sectors in Australia leads to a kind of price rorting, as I believe it's called by the Australian consumer and competition agency.
I have no political axe to grind. I'm merely on the one hand pointing out a price differential observable to any visiting european, and on the other indicating what seems to be an effect of limited competition.
Australian prices generally have increased greatly relative to the English pound in my experience. The reasons for that aren't that difficult to understand, and ordinary supply demand leads to large regional variations I'm sure.
Australian politics are not my politics, though I presume they're yours. I hope I haven't stumbled into some local political schism.
Cheaper options are available in a regional city called Bendigo some 35km away, and I've no doubt that there are even greater discounts available in larger cities.
And there's the rub. Lack of meaningful competition in many sectors in Australia leads to a kind of price rorting, as I believe it's called by the Australian consumer and competition agency.
I have no political axe to grind. I'm merely on the one hand pointing out a price differential observable to any visiting european, and on the other indicating what seems to be an effect of limited competition.
Australian prices generally have increased greatly relative to the English pound in my experience. The reasons for that aren't that difficult to understand, and ordinary supply demand leads to large regional variations I'm sure.
Australian politics are not my politics, though I presume they're yours. I hope I haven't stumbled into some local political schism.
It would have been relevant to mention in your original post that you are living in the country, unlike >70% of Australians who live in a major city.
Only for the grocer's own brand (e.g. Woolies' Homebrand). All others are $4+.
http://www2.woolworthsonline.com.au/Shop/Department/1%3Fname...
http://www2.woolworthsonline.com.au/Shop/Department/1%3Fname...
Sorry, I can't follow suite. Could you explain the thing with the political narrative again? Who has which political views?
To be fair you can get the cheap supermarket brand for about $1.10.
I would agree though that you can be looking at around $4 for something decent.
I would agree though that you can be looking at around $4 for something decent.
It's my unfamiliarity with city prices I've discovered. I apologise for my lack of knowledge there. Still, the regional price I see in the large country town I'm in is in a way the exception that demonstrates this observation. I cannot but surmise that a rent is being charged.
Here here. I'm from Ireland (with our own Paddy Tax) , and was surprised at the high price of things in Australia. I think Switzerland and Norway are more expensive but that could be all.
I suppose the local salaries tend to compensate that (as, for example, in Norway) ? How much a SW developer makes, on average ?
Not even that. Even games on Steam are routinely priced at retail and left there for years. Civ V, for example, was still $70 last time I checked.
And no, I didn't buy it :)
Update: Just checked - Released 24 Sep 2010, $69.99
And no, I didn't buy it :)
Update: Just checked - Released 24 Sep 2010, $69.99
http://www.steamprices.com/ is a good place to see what's what and find the most outrageous examples.
Anno2070 DLC has a 700% markup in Australia.
Anno2070 DLC has a 700% markup in Australia.
This is probably a result of owners forgetting to update prices in 2nd class regions (= everything that's not US or UK).
The solution to it is price tiering as opposed to being able to price whatever in whatever country.
The solution to it is price tiering as opposed to being able to price whatever in whatever country.
Except that Steam forces Australians to buy software in US dollars. We can't buy through the US Store. We go into an 'australian steam store' where they rip us off, and we have to pay in USD.
And suddenly, the whole "don't pirate, feed the poor hardworking people" story doesn't seem so believable, is it?
Not all developers/publishers charge higher prices. You can see here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/149928
what if you have a need, and that need can only be filled by a product with a loaded price... you don't really have the option to "not buy it"...
Or continue to import it for half the price. Yay, status quo.
Finally! There is widespread anger amongst Australians about geo blocking and market segmentation practices. It's also why content and software is widely pirated.
There's a culture of piracy here that's pretty interesting; people bring entire TB hard drives and small NAS devices into work to share entire collections among each other. (This has abated somewhat now that internet prices aren't so extortionate.)
That culture is down to several factors:
* price
* availability
* quality of our TV Networks
* price
* availability
* quality of our TV Networks
The third point effects the second point. Our TV networks are absolutely crap. They only ever develop reality TV shows, the bottom of the barrel being "Celebrity Splash" (z-grade celebrities dived into a pool); they never show series in order, they interrupt series with something irrelevant, and they show a LOT of ads. Their news is even more atrocious.
Its a badly kept secret that their overall audiences have been shrinking, which is why they only ever give ratings in terms of percentages. A large percentage of a shrinking market is ok, until of course the market gets below a certain size.
Note this does not include the ABC, which is government funded. That network takes risks, always shows series in order, and even has a great streaming service.
Its a badly kept secret that their overall audiences have been shrinking, which is why they only ever give ratings in terms of percentages. A large percentage of a shrinking market is ok, until of course the market gets below a certain size.
Note this does not include the ABC, which is government funded. That network takes risks, always shows series in order, and even has a great streaming service.
The ABC and SBS are great channels. Very high quality content (I don't bother anything else on Aussie TV)
I think another major one is the cost and quality of our broadband networks. It's expensive here to download movies, or even to have a connection that's good enough to stream.
This is not something worth being angry about.
What are some of the things worth being angry about?
In Australia? The neo-racist obsession with excluding asylum seekers would be a great start, although it's just one part of the toxic state of public discourse. Another might be the horrific waste of public money that is the long-dead-but-still-artificially-twitching car manufacturing industry. And don't get me started on transport policy.
> The neo-racist obsession with excluding asylum seekers would be a great start
In case you haven't realised, it's a wedge issue.
If you really care about refugees, wouldn't you want them to avoid endangering their lives by getting to Indonesia (probably a dangerous journey in itself), raising thousands of dollars (how do you make $5,000 in Indonesia? I'm guessing they have to do a few things which they really would rather not do), and then putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers (probably not for the first time).
They aren't coming directly. There are easier ways to get to a UN refugee camp.
It's a complex issue, if you care about refugees, and both sides have merits. On the other hand, if you don't care about refugees, the answer is pretty simple. So it's a wedge issue.
The left is split between the people who want to accept asylum seekers, and the people who think it's better to encourage them to go through the offshore process.
And you should note, Australia permanently resettles about 6 refugees per 100,000. Only Canada and NZ does better. The US resettles about 4. There's a few other countries which aren't totally shit, but most of the world is really really terrible about resettling refugees. Australia is one of the few countries which actually pulls its weight here.
In case you haven't realised, it's a wedge issue.
If you really care about refugees, wouldn't you want them to avoid endangering their lives by getting to Indonesia (probably a dangerous journey in itself), raising thousands of dollars (how do you make $5,000 in Indonesia? I'm guessing they have to do a few things which they really would rather not do), and then putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers (probably not for the first time).
They aren't coming directly. There are easier ways to get to a UN refugee camp.
It's a complex issue, if you care about refugees, and both sides have merits. On the other hand, if you don't care about refugees, the answer is pretty simple. So it's a wedge issue.
The left is split between the people who want to accept asylum seekers, and the people who think it's better to encourage them to go through the offshore process.
And you should note, Australia permanently resettles about 6 refugees per 100,000. Only Canada and NZ does better. The US resettles about 4. There's a few other countries which aren't totally shit, but most of the world is really really terrible about resettling refugees. Australia is one of the few countries which actually pulls its weight here.
edit: 6 refugees per $billion GDP.
I'm very angry about all those things. That doesn't mean I can't get steamed about being ripped off.
And when fuel prices spike up and there is no manufacturing knowledge at the institutional (I mean business here not education) level will Australians have to put up with importing all vehicles at extortionist prices? What will happen when the luxury car import duties apply to all vehicles? Think of the public investment as a hedge against the Australian dollar losing value (which it will do if China tanks) and/or a steep rise in the cost of fuel (i.e. it becomes very expensive to import vehicles manufactured elsewhere).
Can't that argument be applied to most produces that are now produced in places like China? We aren't saying that Australia shouldn't have engineering and development skills in these areas. Manufacturing and assembly absolutely makes economic sense not to be done here, unless you are in favor of lowering the minimum wage.
That's not my argument, it costs money to transport goods to the market; in this case cars and trucks from Japan, Korea, and to a lesser extent US and Europe, to Australia. These goods have a mark up above and beyond the cost of manufacture (i.e. the profit), typically at a percentage. So the cost of shipping mined bauxite and iron ore to Japan, Korea, China, then manufacture, then shipping it back with the concomitant margins for all the players in between. Why not go back to manufacturing steel, aluminium, the parts then cars? In the end the cost of rebuilding that institutional knowledge will be so high that Australia is forever locked out of manufacturing; even if capital costs aside it would be profitable to do so.
Because despite the freighting costs a country like China can still make cheaper cars for our market. Even if the whole chain is here it is likely going to still be more expensive. If this wasn't the case then it wouldn't have been slowly dismantled over time.
My whole point is that this advantage that China has might be illusory, what if in 5 years time the balance of wages in China and the cost of fuel goes up? China moves to robots? Why not have robots in Australian factories with Australian know-how?
Let's just call it "Australian politics and White Culture" and call it a day. And I agree with you, fyi.
that's an empty set. it'll happen anyway, though.
I've just returned to the UK after living in Western Australia for 3 years. I'm a runner and was absolutely shocked at the markup on running shoes.
Many high street shops selling shoes for $200 + dollars when you could get them for $80 dollars delivered to Australia from the UK, by buying online.
I have no idea why people would shop these high street stores.
Many high street shops selling shoes for $200 + dollars when you could get them for $80 dollars delivered to Australia from the UK, by buying online.
I have no idea why people would shop these high street stores.
Indeed, I went shopping at a "Going out of business" sale for a high end children's toy store this weekend. They said, "We're going online to compete with Amazon, can't afford retail space any more."
Their so called clearance price for a toy car was the same every day price at Duane Reade.
Their so called clearance price for a toy car was the same every day price at Duane Reade.
I have no idea why people would shop these high street stores.
Warranty.
Warranty.
Well, in EU&UK the online stores have all the same warranty requirements as high street and some extra; so that shouldn't be the reason.
You'll have to forgive Australians who don't feel like calling international telephone rates for customer service, or who don't wish to ship their goods around the world to have them repaired. Or to battle a retailer in a different country if they don't want to cover their warranty.
In the EU you have better rights if you buy online than in a shop. If you buy online, you can get a refund within 7 days, even if you just changed your mind.
a) Australians have very high incomes and "CUBs" continue to happily pay for their over priced gizmos. For all his whining about unfair competition Gery Hervey isn't exactly suffering.
b) ALP and Liberal govs have happily voted for measures that entrenched regional distribution monopolies (FTA, draconian copyright regimes, criminalisation of DRM circumvention)
note: in the early days of the Howard government parallel importing of media was legalised, this had a dramatically positive impact on pricing for consumers.
b) ALP and Liberal govs have happily voted for measures that entrenched regional distribution monopolies (FTA, draconian copyright regimes, criminalisation of DRM circumvention)
note: in the early days of the Howard government parallel importing of media was legalised, this had a dramatically positive impact on pricing for consumers.
> draconian copyright regimes
What are you refering to?
What are you refering to?
DRM aside... not an expert by any measure but the tight restrictions on "format-shifting" and limitations of "fair dealing" (as apposed to the broader rights granted under "fair use") come to mind.
interestingly (according to wiki) the act specifically allows "circumvention of region coding." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip#Legality but modchips are still pretty much illegal... thanks FTA... (just fou d this article which lays out a pretty interesting history http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/02/mods-vs-lockers-region-cod...).
interestingly (according to wiki) the act specifically allows "circumvention of region coding." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip#Legality but modchips are still pretty much illegal... thanks FTA... (just fou d this article which lays out a pretty interesting history http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/02/mods-vs-lockers-region-cod...).
Copyright schemes (region coding of DVDs for example) exist for the purpose of imposing regional pricing, among other reasons.
It's not really a tax - it's Econ 101 price discrimination. which works as long as it can't be easily debased by arbitrage.
Australians have very high standards of living and the prices reflect that. This is just supply and demand and I don't see a problem with that.
Australians have very high standards of living and the prices reflect that. This is just supply and demand and I don't see a problem with that.
The phrase 'Australia Tax' is in quote marks because we all know it is not a tax. It is an economic phenomena caused by all the factors listed in the article.
Those factors have combined to make it very noticeable that there is a non free market operating.
It's very Australian to refer to something by a nickname and that is what's happening here.
Those factors have combined to make it very noticeable that there is a non free market operating.
It's very Australian to refer to something by a nickname and that is what's happening here.
But there is a free market happening. Free markets are defined by the absence of regulation and government intervention.
Adobe are using their market power in a free market to do price segmentation across national boundaries. If you try to regulate that (which you can't in practice anyway) the price of Photoshop will go up everywhere.
Adobe are using their market power in a free market to do price segmentation across national boundaries. If you try to regulate that (which you can't in practice anyway) the price of Photoshop will go up everywhere.
But it is a double standard. The RRP is up to %50 higher, but at the same time there are restriction on parallel importation that price cuts the RRP.
Calling it a 'tax' is indeed inaccurate and misleading. The purpose of the inquiry was to look at regional price discrimination against Australian consumers.
"The Treasury’s submission to the inquiry defined international price discrimination in these terms: Geographic price discrimination occurs when a business charges different prices for the same product in two or more different locations. International price discrimination is when geographic price discrimination occurs across country borders. To maximise profit, many businesses do not sell based simply on a mark-up of what the product cost to produce, but rather price according to what they consider the market can bear, that is, according to the consumers’ marginal willingness to pay."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hous...
To my mind it's just smart business for software makers to price their products at what the market will bare. However I think it crosses a line when sellers of "digital goods" build in technical geoblocking (e.g. regional website redirects, region-specific app stores) and licensing agreements which enforce consumers purchase in a specific reason.
The parliamentary committee was the result of certain sections of the market saying their not willing to bare this pricing tactic and looking to raise awareness amongst those who aren't aware that it is happening.
Also interesting and was this earlier article from mid-way through the inquiry with a focus on Adobe:
"At the parliamentary hearing, he said that customers can buy Adobe boxed products overseas, but that those products would not be covered by the company's local warranty policies." - Adobe managing director for Australia and New Zealand Paul Robson
http://www.zdnet.com/au/adobe-to-australia-higher-pricing-is...
"The Treasury’s submission to the inquiry defined international price discrimination in these terms: Geographic price discrimination occurs when a business charges different prices for the same product in two or more different locations. International price discrimination is when geographic price discrimination occurs across country borders. To maximise profit, many businesses do not sell based simply on a mark-up of what the product cost to produce, but rather price according to what they consider the market can bear, that is, according to the consumers’ marginal willingness to pay."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hous...
To my mind it's just smart business for software makers to price their products at what the market will bare. However I think it crosses a line when sellers of "digital goods" build in technical geoblocking (e.g. regional website redirects, region-specific app stores) and licensing agreements which enforce consumers purchase in a specific reason.
The parliamentary committee was the result of certain sections of the market saying their not willing to bare this pricing tactic and looking to raise awareness amongst those who aren't aware that it is happening.
Also interesting and was this earlier article from mid-way through the inquiry with a focus on Adobe:
"At the parliamentary hearing, he said that customers can buy Adobe boxed products overseas, but that those products would not be covered by the company's local warranty policies." - Adobe managing director for Australia and New Zealand Paul Robson
http://www.zdnet.com/au/adobe-to-australia-higher-pricing-is...
"Calling it a 'tax' is indeed inaccurate and misleading. The purpose of the inquiry was to look at regional price discrimination against Australian consumers."
I think the name, in quotation marks, is spot on.
It's just like saying "the Apple tax", a substantial upmark in the final price of a product compared to similar ones, due to reasons that have nothing to to with taxes, but having basically the same effect.
I think the name, in quotation marks, is spot on.
It's just like saying "the Apple tax", a substantial upmark in the final price of a product compared to similar ones, due to reasons that have nothing to to with taxes, but having basically the same effect.
And if the Australians don't like the price discrimination, they can facilitate arbitrage - which is exactly what is proposed. In a free market, nobody should have the right to an artificial protection from arbitrage.
It gets tricky when some software companies include licensing terms that effectively force the consumer to buy from within Australia at elevated prices in order to access their warranty/support.
I guess in the purest sense this is still something the buyer can factor into their decision. Market forces will dictate an overall adjustment, etc.
Still seems fairly shady to me and like others have said I'm glad it's being brought to the public's attention.
I guess in the purest sense this is still something the buyer can factor into their decision. Market forces will dictate an overall adjustment, etc.
Still seems fairly shady to me and like others have said I'm glad it's being brought to the public's attention.
Not every Australian. Perhaps it's time for a little less free market and a little more government intervention. Nobody likes being taken advantage of.
Internet shopping from overseas is massive here now. The days of price discrimination are fast coming to an end if business wants to stay competitive.
Back in the day I used to buy games imported from australia to the UK (n64, gameboy) because they had PAL tvs yet were on the japanese release schedule. Me and my brother had completed pokemon several times over before any of our friends in school had even heard of it. Obviously this all changed at some point...
There s a nuclear option that Australia (or other countries) could use. Declare copyrighted goods that are too expensive lose copyright. That film that you won't sell for the same price as the USA? it's now public domain, a local market of people pressing DVDs will spring up.
You have to mod your console to play burned games. In the case of the xbox, they change their checking techniques every year and you would have to upgrade accordingly.
Then make pirating the XBox legal. Make the term "XBox" be not a trademark.
I know it's a nuclear option and will never be done.
I know it's a nuclear option and will never be done.
The inquiry recommends bypassing geo-blocks, which is quite telling.
Unless your an american with their head up the 'free markets' arse
Haha, arse. Spoken like a true Aussie.
For some people the 'don't buy' is one thing, but if you need Photoshop, there is no competition. There is no other choice.
For some people the 'don't buy' is one thing, but if you need Photoshop, there is no competition. There is no other choice.
What is wrong about market segmentation? Every product finds it price at the crossing of supply and demand. With incremental costs of delivering digital content approaching zero, supply is almost out of the equation. So naturally on a market with higher purchasing power and higher overall price level (and Australia is a costly place to be), prices will be higher, what's wrong about it?
Companies operate within a global marketplace, buying resources and employing workers from wherever they want, in the most cost effective way possible for them.
Then they try to deny us the same opportunity. It's hypocritical.
Your argument is basically like saying it would be fine to charge people different amounts for your product based on what's in their bank account. Maybe you could do this, but people would be just as annoyed about it.
Then they try to deny us the same opportunity. It's hypocritical.
Your argument is basically like saying it would be fine to charge people different amounts for your product based on what's in their bank account. Maybe you could do this, but people would be just as annoyed about it.
There are many ways people are charged based on what's on the people's bank account. Look at the airlines for instance, they mastered this skill since 1978. I see nothing wrong here. There are high-price markets and low-price ones, to circumvent it, there are smugglers to run the line - you can buy digital content using a proxy in USA or UK and using a one-off (digital) UK credit card which is easy to buy.
Same thing goes about say, smartphones in Russia. It is an accepted practice to buy iPhones from smugglers where they are 60-70% of the price in a retail store due to Apple price policy for Russia, i am fine with that. There are different prices for different places based on a lot of factors, trying to fight it will only increase price levels EVERYWHERE because the volume will go down.
An ideal-perfect pricing system is where the product is sold to the maximum number of people who want it and can afford to pay at least an equivalent of incremental cost of production and delivery (which is, for digital goods, near zero), yet everyone pays a maximum amount he can afford. One of the criterias for price setting is the country (there must be many others of course, again look at the airlines and learn from them).
Same thing goes about say, smartphones in Russia. It is an accepted practice to buy iPhones from smugglers where they are 60-70% of the price in a retail store due to Apple price policy for Russia, i am fine with that. There are different prices for different places based on a lot of factors, trying to fight it will only increase price levels EVERYWHERE because the volume will go down.
An ideal-perfect pricing system is where the product is sold to the maximum number of people who want it and can afford to pay at least an equivalent of incremental cost of production and delivery (which is, for digital goods, near zero), yet everyone pays a maximum amount he can afford. One of the criterias for price setting is the country (there must be many others of course, again look at the airlines and learn from them).
>There are different prices for different places based on a lot of factors, trying to fight it will only increase price levels EVERYWHERE because the volume will go down.
Do you have any proof that this will happen exactly as you say?
Do you have any proof that this will happen exactly as you say?
Your assumption is askance. It is perfectly fine to charge people different amounts for a product based on their wealth.
Free market also allows arbitrage, allowing people to buy your goods cheaply somewhere else and reselling in Australia. Even if you don't like it as you want to charge a higher price in Australia - a free market proponent can't really argue that they deserve government intervention to forbid others to import&sell the same goods cheaper than you.
It is perfectly fine to charge wealthier segments more, but others don't have a duty to protect or facilitate your desired way of segmentation; it is also perfectly fine for a community to facilitate a marketplace that is less favourable to you and more favourable to their citizens.
It is perfectly fine to charge wealthier segments more, but others don't have a duty to protect or facilitate your desired way of segmentation; it is also perfectly fine for a community to facilitate a marketplace that is less favourable to you and more favourable to their citizens.
Then free trade is out and protectionism is in. There is no cause for treating multinationals better than they treat human beings.
It has nothing to do with multinationals. Same thing happens inside, on national markets. Clients are segmented by providers of goods/services based on what seems to them realistic assumptions of their wealth and/or will to buy their products. Those who are thought to have more cash on hand, or more in need of the product 'here and now', are charged more. It can have variable success because estimates may be way off, but that is the goal.
Going onto international markets, country is a very good criteria, because GDP per capita is a well known hard figure. It would be stupid not to use it as a segmentation criteria.
Going onto international markets, country is a very good criteria, because GDP per capita is a well known hard figure. It would be stupid not to use it as a segmentation criteria.
> Same thing happens inside, on national markets.
This shows you have absolutely no idea what this discussion is actually about. Arbitrage, a key component of a free market, keeps major price discrimination in check within national markets.
This is about corporations using the force of law to prevent arbitrage working across international boundaries.
This shows you have absolutely no idea what this discussion is actually about. Arbitrage, a key component of a free market, keeps major price discrimination in check within national markets.
This is about corporations using the force of law to prevent arbitrage working across international boundaries.
On the contrary, it's an easy argument by contradiction. If prices should be the same everywhere, then I should pay the same for rice as a rural villager in a developing nation.
But I don't, and I don't expect to, because I am relatively far more wealthy. Therefore differential price levels are acceptable in general: because otherwise our villager could not afford to eat.
And that is for an essential item. To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting.
But I don't, and I don't expect to, because I am relatively far more wealthy. Therefore differential price levels are acceptable in general: because otherwise our villager could not afford to eat.
And that is for an essential item. To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting.
If prices should be the same everywhere, then I should pay the same for rice as a rural villager in a developing nation
You forgot about transit prices. Getting rice from that village to that village is much cheaper than getting it to you. This is not the same with digital downloads, where there is zero cost difference to the vendor once the network traffic leaves their LAN.
To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting.
Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior. I mean, how dare anyone complain if they're not starving? How dare fat, comfortable people A complain that they're being charged more than fat, comfortable people B?
After all, it is a strawman you're making, suggesting that Australians are bitching about paying more for software than people in developing nations. They're not, they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level.
You forgot about transit prices. Getting rice from that village to that village is much cheaper than getting it to you. This is not the same with digital downloads, where there is zero cost difference to the vendor once the network traffic leaves their LAN.
To hear fat, comfortable westerners complaining about the price of Photoshop is just revolting.
Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior. I mean, how dare anyone complain if they're not starving? How dare fat, comfortable people A complain that they're being charged more than fat, comfortable people B?
After all, it is a strawman you're making, suggesting that Australians are bitching about paying more for software than people in developing nations. They're not, they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level.
...they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level
But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA.
So the local pricing seems about right given the local distribution of wealth (the US has a much higher Gini coefficient of income/wealth disparity), which makes the price elasticity of demand much lower.
there is zero cost difference to the vendor
No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA.
So the local pricing seems about right given the local distribution of wealth (the US has a much higher Gini coefficient of income/wealth disparity), which makes the price elasticity of demand much lower.
there is zero cost difference to the vendor
No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA.
In terms of standards of living, not price!
No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
Yeah, they often do. Medicine, food and essentials should be kept to a reasonable cost. And I suppose you've never heard of price gouging?
In terms of standards of living, not price!
No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
Yeah, they often do. Medicine, food and essentials should be kept to a reasonable cost. And I suppose you've never heard of price gouging?
Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA.
Which was traditionally hand-waved away because goods had a much longer shipping route to get here, plus the minimum wage was higher (meaning higher staff costs). Neither of these things have any meaning to digital downloads.
No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
No market participant has a moral obligation not to ask a vendor to justify a higher price, nor to question a vendor's protectionist activities.
I find it really weird that you seem to be so strongly in favour of the free market, yet also like the idea vendors can prevent third-parties reselling things through different channels, or using similar blocks to artificially constrain supply.
Which was traditionally hand-waved away because goods had a much longer shipping route to get here, plus the minimum wage was higher (meaning higher staff costs). Neither of these things have any meaning to digital downloads.
No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.
No market participant has a moral obligation not to ask a vendor to justify a higher price, nor to question a vendor's protectionist activities.
I find it really weird that you seem to be so strongly in favour of the free market, yet also like the idea vendors can prevent third-parties reselling things through different channels, or using similar blocks to artificially constrain supply.
I believe that in a free market buyers and vendors should both be free to set whatever terms they like and negotiate on whatever basis they choose. Government interference in that (e.g. by regulation of who must set what price or what their T&Cs must be) is therefore, by definition, non-free.
Then why aren't you supporting the government's actions here? The government is suggesting fixing the issue by removing protectionist legislation, and enabling the 'buyer' half of your comment a fairer field. Government isn't talking about setting prices, but by recommending a higher degree of free-market competition.
Well, there's no free-market competition at stake, because Adobe cannot be said to compete with themselves. That is, Photoshop is not a commodity with multiple manufacturers competing for your dollar.
And as for supporting this proposal; I have read it, and in fact I do support part of it: the removal of anti-circumvention clauses in copyright law. I just checked and I don't think I ever said the opposite.
But I'm dead against legislating directly against geographical segmentation. It's a ridiculous notion, on the one hand almost laughably unenforceable, and if you could enforce it, it'd have a terrible effect on the pricing in developing nations with a lower price level than ours.
And as for supporting this proposal; I have read it, and in fact I do support part of it: the removal of anti-circumvention clauses in copyright law. I just checked and I don't think I ever said the opposite.
But I'm dead against legislating directly against geographical segmentation. It's a ridiculous notion, on the one hand almost laughably unenforceable, and if you could enforce it, it'd have a terrible effect on the pricing in developing nations with a lower price level than ours.
Given this and your various other fallacious appeals to worse problems, I conclude you are beyond rational discussion. Suffice to say, you are the worst possible kind of hypocrite for arguing with us instead of being out there helping starving children.
No, it's perfectly common, not perfectly fine. Using international law to kill off grey markets is really not fine at all.
Nothing's wrong with it.
Just as there's nothing wrong with the various Parliaments in Australia legislating to modify consumer laws.
If that doesn't suit sellers, they may withdraw their products from sale.
(Given that the marginal gross on software is basically infinity ... they won't).
Just as there's nothing wrong with the various Parliaments in Australia legislating to modify consumer laws.
If that doesn't suit sellers, they may withdraw their products from sale.
(Given that the marginal gross on software is basically infinity ... they won't).
So a thought experiment ...
Is it ok to charge different prices to black people vs white people? For the sake of argument, assume there is a genuine difference in demand between races (I would imagine it is true, but let's not debate that).
If it is not OK, why is it OK to charge Australians differently to other people, beyond the genuine differences in actual costs to deliver software here?
Is it ok to charge different prices to black people vs white people? For the sake of argument, assume there is a genuine difference in demand between races (I would imagine it is true, but let's not debate that).
If it is not OK, why is it OK to charge Australians differently to other people, beyond the genuine differences in actual costs to deliver software here?
That's a very good question - I have just spent half an hour trying to answer it to myself. Here's my answer:
Racial discrimination is a special case because it has a very long history which is rooted in bigotry and prejudice. Due to this history any current policy of racial discrimination - even one based on a rational profit motive - would foster bigotry in some people and deeply-felt resentment and hostility in many other people. Other forms of discrimination don't have this problem, at least to the same degree.
For this reason all race-based discrimination should be illegal, but other types of profit-based discrimination should be legal: (a) Senior citizens pay less than other people for cinema tickets; (b) Women pay less for car insurance than men; (c) Students pay less for drinks at the bar; (d) US citizens pay less than Australians for software licences.
By the way, it sounds like you want to see both race-based and country-based discrimination banned. If so, do you think that (a), (b) and (c) above should also be banned? If not, by what principal are you allowing businesses to segment their customer base?
Racial discrimination is a special case because it has a very long history which is rooted in bigotry and prejudice. Due to this history any current policy of racial discrimination - even one based on a rational profit motive - would foster bigotry in some people and deeply-felt resentment and hostility in many other people. Other forms of discrimination don't have this problem, at least to the same degree.
For this reason all race-based discrimination should be illegal, but other types of profit-based discrimination should be legal: (a) Senior citizens pay less than other people for cinema tickets; (b) Women pay less for car insurance than men; (c) Students pay less for drinks at the bar; (d) US citizens pay less than Australians for software licences.
By the way, it sounds like you want to see both race-based and country-based discrimination banned. If so, do you think that (a), (b) and (c) above should also be banned? If not, by what principal are you allowing businesses to segment their customer base?
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I think the root of it all comes from our base expectation that humans should be treated equally. We expect that as a base and small deviations from it, especially favorable ones. But anything else has to be tied to very rational reasoning about why the discrimmination is happening.
So we can say insurance for women vs men is generally OK because it is two large groups and the discrimmination is tied to real justifiable costs in the difference of insuring them. We can say students vs others is OK because everybody has the experience of and choice to be a student. Similarly with seniors - we will all get to be seniors one day, with luck :-) So you're not discrimminating between people - everyone will get to experience these benefits at some stage.
The geographical segmentation is difficult because (just like race), it's something beyond our control - we can't help where we live, and it will never change. Suffering a selective negative consequence for something that is beyond your control violates our basic sense of right and wrong about human equality.
The time honored way to segment a customer base is to offer tiers of product. Identify a few special features and sprinkle them into a "professional" version. Then sell that for a higher price. If Australians on average are more affluent, more of them will buy the higher priced version, and you will still be making (some of) your extra money. But the ones who are equally well off compared to those in other countries will not be disadvantaged.
I think the root of it all comes from our base expectation that humans should be treated equally. We expect that as a base and small deviations from it, especially favorable ones. But anything else has to be tied to very rational reasoning about why the discrimmination is happening.
So we can say insurance for women vs men is generally OK because it is two large groups and the discrimmination is tied to real justifiable costs in the difference of insuring them. We can say students vs others is OK because everybody has the experience of and choice to be a student. Similarly with seniors - we will all get to be seniors one day, with luck :-) So you're not discrimminating between people - everyone will get to experience these benefits at some stage.
The geographical segmentation is difficult because (just like race), it's something beyond our control - we can't help where we live, and it will never change. Suffering a selective negative consequence for something that is beyond your control violates our basic sense of right and wrong about human equality.
The time honored way to segment a customer base is to offer tiers of product. Identify a few special features and sprinkle them into a "professional" version. Then sell that for a higher price. If Australians on average are more affluent, more of them will buy the higher priced version, and you will still be making (some of) your extra money. But the ones who are equally well off compared to those in other countries will not be disadvantaged.
That makes sense - certainly I agree that there is a fundamental human desire to be treated equally. (And not just in humans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b_L... )
But:
1. When given a free hand to segment their customers, businesses will generally set a higher price for people who can afford to pay more. This might be less equal but it is more equitable. For example, let's say Paramount Studios releases the latest James Bond film - they will want to charge an Australian cinema more for the right to screen the film than an Indian cinema. My sense of social justice says it is fair for someone whose income is £4/day to be charged less to see a film than someone who earns £100/day. If Paramount was forced to charge the same price then it would mean that Indian cinemas simply cannot afford to buy the rights to screen the film, and Indians would miss out entirely.
The argument is even stronger for medicine. If a pharmaceutical company can be sure there is no arbitrage between two countries, then it will want to sell a medical treatment cheaper in India than in Australia. That is A Good Thing.
2. If you say to a business, "You must offer your product to Person A and Person B for the same price" then you are restricting the total size of the economic pie in a similar way to saying "You must offer your product for $6". Take Paramount Studios again - if they are prevented from charging different prices in different countries then they will earn less revenue. This means they will be pay their scriptwriters less, have less impressive special effects and pay less tax. (Or quite possibly the film is not made at all).
3. You are happy for a car insurance company to discriminate on the basis of sex if there is a real difference in accident rates between men and women. Would you allow a car insurance company to discriminate on the basis of race if there is a real difference in accident rates?
But:
1. When given a free hand to segment their customers, businesses will generally set a higher price for people who can afford to pay more. This might be less equal but it is more equitable. For example, let's say Paramount Studios releases the latest James Bond film - they will want to charge an Australian cinema more for the right to screen the film than an Indian cinema. My sense of social justice says it is fair for someone whose income is £4/day to be charged less to see a film than someone who earns £100/day. If Paramount was forced to charge the same price then it would mean that Indian cinemas simply cannot afford to buy the rights to screen the film, and Indians would miss out entirely.
The argument is even stronger for medicine. If a pharmaceutical company can be sure there is no arbitrage between two countries, then it will want to sell a medical treatment cheaper in India than in Australia. That is A Good Thing.
2. If you say to a business, "You must offer your product to Person A and Person B for the same price" then you are restricting the total size of the economic pie in a similar way to saying "You must offer your product for $6". Take Paramount Studios again - if they are prevented from charging different prices in different countries then they will earn less revenue. This means they will be pay their scriptwriters less, have less impressive special effects and pay less tax. (Or quite possibly the film is not made at all).
3. You are happy for a car insurance company to discriminate on the basis of sex if there is a real difference in accident rates between men and women. Would you allow a car insurance company to discriminate on the basis of race if there is a real difference in accident rates?
There is not different pricing for Australians, there is different pricing for people who are located in Australia. Big difference.
Comparing regional pricing schemes to racial discrimination is quite a leap.
Comparing regional pricing schemes to racial discrimination is quite a leap.
Not a huge leap. Studies suggest that US car dealers regularly practice price discrimination based on race.
[1]: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
[1]: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
People located in Australia vs Australians. No, there is not a big difference. Australians are beginning to get mobilised about being discriminated against, and the Australian government will start doing things to end the ripoffs when the outrage gets too much.
Nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with me taking my copy and distributing it for a lower cost/free. (That's called arbitrage).
Or are we talking about using Copyright to be limited to geographic location? (i.e your U.S Licensed Photoshop can't be used in Australia)... Because that would be a serious misuse of laws. (in my opinion)
Or are we talking about using Copyright to be limited to geographic location? (i.e your U.S Licensed Photoshop can't be used in Australia)... Because that would be a serious misuse of laws. (in my opinion)
You wouldn't say that if you had to put up with higher prices solely because of where you lived.
If the alternative is price fixing ill take the free market approach any day. Governments should not be meddling with the prices of software.
It's not free market at all - 'parallel imports' are not allowed. Price fixing is what is currently going on, and free-market competition is what the government wants.
It's not price fixing; that is a specific term for a conspiracy between sellers. Adobe cannot conspire with themselves.
It's just pricing.
It's just pricing.
No. When I cannot import your good from another supplier at a lower cost and undercut the price you will supply to me at due to importation, and licensing arrangements you have in place. That is in-essence price fixing.
Well, if you want to ignore all the other suppliers of digital-download software and pretend that this is solely about Adobe and Photoshop, then yes, it's not 'price fixing', but neither is it 'just pricing'. It's 'price gouging'.
Please read the actual suggestions proposed - none of them include any price fixing or meddling with the prices.
The report observes a market failure - undesireable monopolistic effects caused by current legal restrictions on import&resale of goods, and proposes to remove these barriers with the expectation that free market competition will cause the local software prices to fall to global market levels.
The report observes a market failure - undesireable monopolistic effects caused by current legal restrictions on import&resale of goods, and proposes to remove these barriers with the expectation that free market competition will cause the local software prices to fall to global market levels.
In what way do any of these markets resemble a completely free market?
I am not allowed to buy songs from the US iTunes Store, or the US Steam Store.
DVD's are region locked, and parallel importation is illegal.
I am not allowed to buy songs from the US iTunes Store, or the US Steam Store.
DVD's are region locked, and parallel importation is illegal.
Nothing is wrong with it. There's no basic human entitlement to a cheap copy of Adobe Photoshop, so the ethical dimension here is extremely limited, and I'm disappointed to see you're being downvoted for making a very salient point.
I have no sympathy for those of my fellow Australians who think they have some valid complaint that the price of digital assets is "too high".
Australians simply do have a higher willingness to pay, and lower price elasticity of demand, for a whole host of economic reasons. Companies charge the price that maximises their returns, and this means price segmentation wherever it is legal.
Moreover it is, of course, also impossible to legislate against: the same laws would effectively peg the Australian dollar. This is just political grandstanding; nothing will change.
I have no sympathy for those of my fellow Australians who think they have some valid complaint that the price of digital assets is "too high".
Australians simply do have a higher willingness to pay, and lower price elasticity of demand, for a whole host of economic reasons. Companies charge the price that maximises their returns, and this means price segmentation wherever it is legal.
Moreover it is, of course, also impossible to legislate against: the same laws would effectively peg the Australian dollar. This is just political grandstanding; nothing will change.
> Moreover it is, of course, also impossible to legislate against: the same laws would effectively peg the Australian dollar.
I don't get to say this often on HN: what utter rot.
When parallel importation of CDs and movies was abolished, the dollar didn't give a damn.
When region encoding was dropped on us via the AUSFTA Chapter 17, the dollar nary stirred.
The AUD is a small rowboat that navigates between the Scyalla of Chinese iron ore demand and the Charybdis of Ben Bernanke's public nut-scratching.
I don't get to say this often on HN: what utter rot.
When parallel importation of CDs and movies was abolished, the dollar didn't give a damn.
When region encoding was dropped on us via the AUSFTA Chapter 17, the dollar nary stirred.
The AUD is a small rowboat that navigates between the Scyalla of Chinese iron ore demand and the Charybdis of Ben Bernanke's public nut-scratching.
Irrelevant. You simply cannot frame laws that will be effective at preventing the transborder price segmentation of digital assets without anything less stringent than pegging the currency, or at least the price level.
Do you have hot and cold running nonsense where you live?
Selling to Australians takes place in Australian dollars and the transactions are cleared by Australian banks. This makes them pretty easy to get a legal grip on.
And you will also find that the large companies who are doing most of the price discrimination have local subsidiaries which can be dragged into court without too much fuss. If they try something like yanking funds to avoid court judgements, they're violating various laws and privileges and our government can and would be able to seek enforcement from courts in the USA.
People think that trading across boundaries gives you magical immunity from national laws. It doesn't. Where you have a nexus with a country, you can be enforced against through that nexus. Where the laws are similar, brother courts will typically reciprocally enforce them.
Selling to Australians takes place in Australian dollars and the transactions are cleared by Australian banks. This makes them pretty easy to get a legal grip on.
And you will also find that the large companies who are doing most of the price discrimination have local subsidiaries which can be dragged into court without too much fuss. If they try something like yanking funds to avoid court judgements, they're violating various laws and privileges and our government can and would be able to seek enforcement from courts in the USA.
People think that trading across boundaries gives you magical immunity from national laws. It doesn't. Where you have a nexus with a country, you can be enforced against through that nexus. Where the laws are similar, brother courts will typically reciprocally enforce them.
If you allow parallel importation then you are in most cases obviating the need for a local subsidiary. Service? Sales? Support? Not a problem. Just contract it out.
And the Australian government is not going to take legal action in the US to create border import tariffs.
I continue to be astounded by all the self-righteous outraged people here demanding cheaper Photoshop and cheaper Steam games like it was some basic human right.
And the Australian government is not going to take legal action in the US to create border import tariffs.
I continue to be astounded by all the self-righteous outraged people here demanding cheaper Photoshop and cheaper Steam games like it was some basic human right.
> If you allow parallel importation then you are in most cases obviating the need for a local subsidiary. Service? Sales? Support? Not a problem. Just contract it out.
That is not the observed and observable outcome of parallel importation in other goods.
> And the Australian government is not going to take legal action in the US to create border import tariffs.
Your terminology is incorrect. It's not a tariff. Making geo-segmentation harder or illegal is not a tax on imported goods.
> I continue to be astounded by all the self-righteous outraged people here demanding cheaper Photoshop and cheaper Steam games like it was some basic human right.
I'm likewise astounded that people think Australia's quite utilitarian, transactional political culture is going cleave to any particular ideological position.
That is not the observed and observable outcome of parallel importation in other goods.
> And the Australian government is not going to take legal action in the US to create border import tariffs.
Your terminology is incorrect. It's not a tariff. Making geo-segmentation harder or illegal is not a tax on imported goods.
> I continue to be astounded by all the self-righteous outraged people here demanding cheaper Photoshop and cheaper Steam games like it was some basic human right.
I'm likewise astounded that people think Australia's quite utilitarian, transactional political culture is going cleave to any particular ideological position.
Not necessarily true. Steam Australia, for instance, sells in USD.
Allowing parallel importation would be a good start, Gerry Harvey be damned.
There is no entitlement to it, but we're not talking of a free market. Adobe has a legal privilege to punish retailers who may undercut them via "parallel import" and it's a crime to circumvent DRM. Without those legal privileges, a free market would work by bringing prices of like goods in line.
Photoshop is neither a commodity nor an essential good; please explain why a free market needs to exist for it.
Please explain why a free market shouldn't exist for Photoshop?
I didn't say it shouldn't; I'm suggesting there's no reason why it must.
Australian voters desiring a free market for Photoshop in Australia indisputably is a good reason for that.
Is not a good reason. People will always vote themselves more bread & circuses.
It seems (to me) that there should be a good reason before a restraint is place on trade. I can get behind restraints on food prices, but Photoshop?
Judging from Japan a serious recession and growth slowing will stop it and it will be followed by 20 years of deflation. Australia is probably near the end of the 20 year boom, price elasticity will shift at some point. Good time to start businesses based on this perhaps.
People really don't make that much more here; it just costs more to live. You're basically arguing in favor of price-fixing.
What's wrong with complaining about being forced to pay more and engaging in activities to level the playing field?
I've always found this style of argument to be innately humourous, a sort of "oh no, they're fighting back somehow - only businesses should be able to make things more favourable for themselves!"
I've always found this style of argument to be innately humourous, a sort of "oh no, they're fighting back somehow - only businesses should be able to make things more favourable for themselves!"
Also...
So naturally on a market with higher purchasing power and higher overall price level
Median wage in the US and Australia are equivalent - in the mid- to high- 40k range.
So naturally on a market with higher purchasing power and higher overall price level
Median wage in the US and Australia are equivalent - in the mid- to high- 40k range.
Well, the median wage in Australia was A$57,400 [1] and US$50,000 [2], both in 2011.
[1] http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/what-is-the-typi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
[1] http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/what-is-the-typi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
Of course it is. I've worked in sales in Consumer Electronics and boxed Software for about 7 years now, and I know the actual cost prices of most things. It's good to have proper confirmation, at least.
"In relation to games, for example, the committee has not received any evidence which explains why it is almost invariably cheaper for Australian gamers to purchase and ship physical media from the United Kingdom to Australia than it is to purchase a digital copy of the same game."