| ▲ | ch4s3 4 hours ago |
| That doesn't really make sense, losing your whole investment is already a strong incentive to not produce something you can't sell. |
|
| ▲ | grayhatter 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Assume the legislation is trying to reduce a real problem. Why does that problem exist if that incentive is actually really strong in practice? I assume it's not actually a really strong incentive in context. |
| |
| ▲ | ch4s3 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Assume the legislation is trying to reduce a real problem Why assume that? Could you not imagine that legislation is often meant to signal values to voters as much or more than it is intended to solve real problems. | | |
| ▲ | grayhatter an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Why assume that? Could you not imagine that legislation is often meant to signal values to voters as much or more than it is intended to solve real problems. You mean something like, to signal to voters they're trying to solve a problem voters want changed? Or a problem voters say they have? I didn't mean to imply it would fix the problem, or that the problem would be fixed. Just that there's desire for [thing targeted], is something enough people would want to change. I also said "assume that" for the sake of the argument/discussion given you started by saying you didn't understand. I say it's trivial to understand if assume there are other incentives where destroying the product is desirable. Thus making the incentive you mentioned, not very strong, (in context). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | JasonADrury 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A factory might have a minimum order quantity of 10000 units for a product. The products cost $1 landed. You know you can sell 4000 of those products for a total of $15k. This might become a bad deal if dealing with the 6000 extra units costs you money. |
| |
| ▲ | em-bee 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | maybe this will force factories to change their process. with manufacturing getting cheaper, smaller batches become affordable. at the extreme we can now print books on demand, and improved 3D printing allows one-off items in many more areas. that's the trend we need to push. to get away from wasteful mass production. | | |
| ▲ | wahnfrieden 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Push how? Through regulation? Unclear how else you’d achieve this if it is still worse economically. Buyers don’t want to pay more either. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | randomNumber7 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can produce so little people take anything you give them - like it was in the Soviet union. |
|
| ▲ | wahnfrieden 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Clothing has a huge profit margin (when manufactured overseas) especially at the higher end (for brands which do not invest in local production, which is most, because it is also hard to beat Chinese quality). It's better for these brands to over-produce on some items and lose the low-cost inventory, than to under-produce and not meet market demand, to not offer a range of sizes and varieties to meet individual taste, and not achieve wide distribution that's necessary to grow market demand. That's why regulation is needed here. |
| |
| ▲ | ch4s3 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I get he economics, but I don’t think it follows that it’s a problem governments need to involve themselves in. | | |
|
