Why Does Everyone Get So Salty about People Reselling Items for a Profit?

takutox on 29/09/2020 - 13:12
Last edited 29/09/2020 - 13:12

I've noticed throughout the years that everyone on here gets extremely angry and salty whenever someone resells items for a profit, regardless of what item it is. Whether it be a item won from a competition (you won this Pizza Hut voucher and want to resell it? HOW DARE YOU!!) or sold at higher than RRP (you want to sell a PS5 that is no longer available worldwide at more than RRP? HOW DARE YOU!?). Why do you get salty and what are your thoughts on this topic?

Capitalism dictates that we have the right to buy and sell and the market dictates what the value is. The buyer is happy to pay the price and the seller is happy to sell for that price. The items in question are nowhere near "necessities".

My question is, what's the problem with buying low and selling high? Let's not talk in terms of legality as there are dozens of countries where scalping is completely legal. In fact it is legal in Australia besides ticket scalping, which is a law I vehemently disagree with and goes completely against capitalism. It should be on the onus of the seller to run adequate verification measures, but they give zero shits as it does not affect their bottom line (sold out is sold out).

Put differently, what's the difference if you decide you don't want the item anymore? If you buy one, you don't want one anymore, would you sell that item at RRP? Or it's market value? And why is this not scalping? Why is there an arbitrary rule that you must sell something at the price you bought it for? That is not capitalism and goes heavily against our freedoms.

Also, lets not use the high quantity or bot arguments, since even if you buy one legitimately and want to sell it for the market price you are shunned by the community.

I'd like to hear your arguments as to why you feel you are on such a moral high ground compared to people who sell non-necessities in a free market.

General Discussion

Comments

                          • [Deactivated] on 01/10/2020 - 19:11

                            @takutox: wtf are you saying if you can't insult someone properly just stfu

      • wittyusername on 29/09/2020 - 15:10

        How is it a strawman?

        • jellykingdom on 29/09/2020 - 15:45

          He didn't have a brain I think… or did he kill the wicked witch…?

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 17:40
          -1

          I point out in the OP that the PS5 is nowhere near a necessity.

          They then proceed to say "butwaddabout necessities". An argument that I never brought up and probably agree with. Well…

          I've mentioned multiple times I'm not talking about necessities for the time being, and even if we were, what's the counterargument to investment properties being A-ok?

          Why is buying out land until the supply of land is gone and making families have to pay through their nose the cost of 1000 PS5's in x years a more honorable proposition? I find it a bit rich that the same people are discussing or suggesting investment properties in another thread.

          • wittyusername on 29/09/2020 - 17:59
            +3

            @takutox: I mean, I personally don't think they are ok.

            I don't think that this is specifically a straw man, but I've always thought that logical fallacies were a pile of wank anyway.

            I was going to type something long out but it hit me that I don't really give a (profanity).

            Some people don't want to profit off others in what they think is an unfair way. They believe that the world should be a fair place, so they take what they require, and leave the rest for someone else who wants it.

            Other people are just cnuts.

            • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 18:06
              -2

              @wittyusername: It doesn't matter what you think, as it's objectively a strawman. I AGREE that you should not do this with necessities, that doesn't answer anything about non-necessities. This is why its a strawman.

              If you've ever seen someone deflect an argument and say "so you're saying…" When it's got nothing to do with what you're saying. That's what it feels like.

              It's basically a strawman "so you're saying we should limit medical supplies and food" and allow scalpers to charge $1000000000. Really annoying strawman.

              Also, arguing that you don't personally feel x just because with nothing to back up your opinion is also annoying.

    • jellykingdom on 29/09/2020 - 15:43
      +10

      This is the single most succinct argument i've ever heard and i've never quite been able to put it into words

      "Because by doing it, you'd be a dick. And yes it's legal to be a dick, and it's legal for me to call you a dick. But sometimes society decides when we legislate against people being dicks"

      Bravo sir

      • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 17:44
        -5

        "because you're a dick if you do it a dick is a dick you're a dick" doesn't explain why you're a dick and I don't understand why you are praising a senseless reply such as this.

        Also in the OP I clearly state to not discuss legality because I'm not concerned about the legality and it's not the point of the thread (there are many countries where it is legal, some where it's not). I don't think this is a legal question nor did anyone mention the legality of it is a reason it's good / ok. That would be a logical fallacy anyway, not that I ever brought it up.

        This is why people fall for things that sound like they contain logic, but if you look into it it's not even replying to or explaining why.

        The whole question is "why are they dicks". If you just say "cos you dick lul" it doesn't really add much.

        • stanstho on 29/09/2020 - 22:53
          +21

          You're being purposefully thick with all your replies in this thread dude. People aren't explaining further than "because you're being a dick" because its so simple it shouldn't need explaining. Nonetheless;

          Let's quickly define what a scalper does; they go out with the intent or purchasing as many event tickets, or limited supply physical goods as they can with the knowledge they will sell out in stores and desperate people will buy them at a mark up.

          Your example fo "Oh I ordered one PS5 for myself and decided to sell it later" is not a scalper. It's a normal person selling a PS5.

          With the above in mind, the actions of a scalper has the following consequences:

          1. Lowering stock available for actual fans. The average scalper is NOT buying one for themselves. They're buying bulk of whatever they hear is hot right now.

          2. Scalpers are rent seekers. Additional revenue does not go to a producer, who offers value in making the product. The scalper adds no value other than having the time and credit available to purchase in bulk before others can get in.

          3. Increases producer overheads. Look at how many stores have to ban returns on in demand products to reduce the cases of scalpers buying the stock and returning what doesn't sell. This makes things worse because it has all the same negatives as point no. 1 but also adds overhead to the retailer and that increased cost will be passed on to the consumer in future product sales.

          4. Reduces value of the product itself via interrupting customer support / return/consumer law rights. Many retailers wont refund a faulty item if you're not the the card holder that purchased it. If the scalper sells you a dodgy PS5 you cant even get your money back.Some concerts or event tickets only allow so many name changes, and also include the same "can not return to different card holder" restrictions.

          How would you feel if Jeff Bezos bought up every take away / fast food restaurant in the country and quadrupled the prices? Take away isn't an essential. You can cook at home. But every time a chef makes a new place and sells it cheaper Bezos finds them and buys them out too.

          You accept now that after a long day, no matter how desperate you are to feed the family quickly and go to bed that you need to pay $40 a head for a maccas burger because Bezos had the capital to make it happen.

          Sure, it's totally within his right under capitalism… But he's still a dick.

          • abb on 30/09/2020 - 09:34
            +4

            @stanstho: I tip my hat to you sir, you are hereby certified as not-a-dick.

            A thorough explanation that covers several aspects, including capitalistic reasons.

        • jellykingdom on 30/09/2020 - 07:48
          +4

          Y'know i noticed that you seem to love using "strawman argument" "logical fallacy" etc. Did someone get a word of the day calendar last Christmas?

          I don't understand why you find this broad consensus of replies so hard to grasp. Not everything is black and white, sometimes it's a bit grey. And in this case, pretty much everyone is just telling you that "just because you can, doesn't mean that you should". It's a principle our whole society is based upon. If we let capitalism and greed run amok completely unchecked, with every man out for himself and grabbing at everything he possibly can get his hands on, we would have complete chaos. Maybe that sounds like I'm getting all strawman here, but it's completely to the point. Society only continues to function on a set of rules, some legislated and some based on morales. And one of those is "thou shalt not be a dick"

          • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 16:02
            -3

            @jellykingdom: Maybe because they are?

            "Did someone get a word of the day calendar last Christmas?"

            Contributes nothing my friend

            If you have ignorant people who seem to think that attacking a completely different argument is ok, or that insulting someone is OK, they deserve to be called out

            You wrote a lengthy paragraph about "because they are dicks LOLoLOl" without a single piece of logic or justification as to why they are dicks. "Because they're dicks because they're dicks!"

            Your first paragraph is just a long ad hominem attack and you wonder why I call things like that out lmao.

            Then you go on to make a strawman that "if we let everyone go out and do whatever they want there would be chaos!!" That's effing stupid nowhere did I say let everyone grab whatever they want. The question in the OP specifically states non-essentials!!!

            If you keep using ad hominem attacks and strawmen, then I keep calling it out. Being angry about being called out and a personal attack on someone calling it out too many times is not logic

            • sakurashu on 01/10/2020 - 10:35

              @takutox: Why don't you respond to stanstho's reasoned breakdown? I see the core issue as adding a complete lack of any real value to the production chain - I think you'll find in general people dislike everyone and every job that is seen to be contributing little or nothing.

  • crazyboy on 29/09/2020 - 13:38
    +7

    I will grab my popcorns now. This is gonna be fun.

  • Jugganautx on 29/09/2020 - 13:38
    +7

    i bought 4 oculus rifts during covid peak for 650 each made a $600 profit from them.

    these days the prices have gone back down and people are selling them for $450-500.

    items are worth whatever someones willing to pay for them.

  • CyberMurning on 29/09/2020 - 13:39
    +7

    because some people missing out? dont buy if you dont need them ! full stop
    sharing is caring

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 13:45

      So there were only 2million PS5 manufactured for the first batch for example. Let's say that there were zero "purposeful" scalpers. Now the PS5 is sold out and people won't be able to get their hands on it for a year. Should you be forced / looked down upon for selling this item at what people are willing to pay?

      • sween64 on 29/09/2020 - 15:21
        +4

        I'm just here for PS5 info, where did you hear 2 million units for first batch?

  • tebbybabes on 29/09/2020 - 13:47
    +4

    I don't know that there's an arbitrary rule that you must sell something at the price you bought it for. And I agree that if there were, that would not be capitalism. So since there is no rule against it, nothing is going heavily against the freedom to do so.

    Likewise, if a seller is free to do so, they anyone else is free to be salty about it. Let's say I really really want to purchase something that is no longer available. A seller has it and is willing to selling at inflated pricing precisely because it's in demand and with limited supply. As the buyer, I am fully capable of deciding whether I will take up that proposition. No one is pointing a gun to my head. Now if I decide that I really want or need the item, I can still buy the item at the inflated pricing, and at the same time I can feel disgust at the price gouging behaviour of the seller. I don't have to be happy about it.

    Likewise, even if I wasn't the seller or the buyer, I can have an opinion of sellers that choose to conduct such behaviour. Everyone/anyone can have an opinion. Personally, I don't mind if someone profits, but if in my opinion, the profiteering is enormous, then I find it offensive. Note here that the point where it crosses over from acceptable profit to outrageous is completely arbitrary and completely up to myself.

    I suppose this line is quite telling:

    The buyer is happy to pay the price and the seller is happy to sell for that price.

    If this was the case, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the buyer feels that he's being held over a barrel, then he/she is perfectly entitled to not be happy about it then.

  • pegaxs on 29/09/2020 - 13:50
    +2

    Why? Because there are idiots with a huge amount of FOMO and plenty of disposable income willing to pay scalper prices. While ever there is a market full of these idiots, there are going to be people that take advantage of them.

    You are not forced to take part in the PS5/xPox/Nvidia/Nintendo/Apple shit storms. These consoles and add ons will be around for a while yet. There is no net gain for the average consumer to buy one on release day other than FOMO.

    • reactor-au on 29/09/2020 - 17:15
      +2

      People with too much money and not enough patience

  • Lurk Hartog on 29/09/2020 - 13:50
    +12

    Probably because we evolved in tribes that were small enough that you knew everybody that you interacted with. And the people who hoarded resources without contributing got excommunicated or killed.

    Cities now provide anonymity to those who wish to exploit others, so they do, but the underlying sentiment towards those that do so hasn't changed too much.

  • mtr on 29/09/2020 - 13:52
    +25

    Capitalism dictates that we have the right to buy and sell and the market dictates what the value is.
    That is not capitalism and goes heavily against our freedoms.

    You seem to be very badly confused about what capitalism means and what rights are. Capitalism in and of itself guarantees no rights whatsoever and has nothing at all to say about morality, nor is there any connection between your rights and your moral / ethical obligations - the latter being the actual crux of your question. Yes, it is certainly within your rights to buy something with the intent to resell it at a higher price. It also makes you a bit of a dick. Others, in turn, have the right to call you a bit of a dick for doing so.

    It is also perfectly fine if you disagree: your personal morality can be at odds with others. But feigning some kind of confusion at the idea that people would be annoyed by naked profiteering is a bit much.

    • tebbybabes on 29/09/2020 - 13:56
      +7

      ^This

      • ThithLord on 29/09/2020 - 14:07
        +4

        no, sorry - MTR's observation is completely on-point. Your opinion and stipulations are all over the place.

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 14:07
          -5

          You can see how you've contributed no actual content or logic to your response whatsoever, I hope.

          "Nope."

          Capitalism is based on free market rights on property you own and to the rights of the individual to do what they wish with their property. No amount of mental gymnastics can change that fact because that is how capitalism is generally defined.

          • ThithLord on 29/09/2020 - 14:12
            +3

            @takutox:

            Capitalism is based on free market rights on property you own and to the rights of the individual. No amount of mental gymnastics can change that fact because that is how capitalism is generally defined.

            You're completely on point here - but capitalism has no stipulations that morally you're in the clear, as was the point of MTR's comment.

            You don't get a free pass just because you're legally allowed to profiteer from scalping common goods.

            • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 14:13
              -5

              @ThithLord: 1) I never mentioned anything about being in the legal right. In the OP I explicitly said let's not use the legality arugment!
              2) I never said morally scalpers are in the clear. I want to know WHY it's morally wrong from the point of view of those who get salty because morally I see nothing wrong with it from my point of view. That's the purpose of this thread.

              • ProspectiveDarkness on 29/09/2020 - 14:18
                +9

                @takutox: "Why are people on a bargain-centric forum upset about prices being driven up by others' profiteering?"

                Hmmmm yes, quite the mystery.

                • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 14:23
                  -1

                  @ProspectiveDarkness: Because it's interesting, Ozbargainers want to profiteer off the market by getting items at lower than RRP, price errors get 50000 clicks and there are no qualms to take advantage of a retailer.

                  So I'm wondering why then, does someone selling at higher than RRP get such a fuss kicked up. It is a mystery..

                  People seem to be more angry and focused that Bob is making $5 and that $5 is not in their pocket and they don't "deserve" the $5, rather than the fact that Bob is driving prices up.

                  • ProspectiveDarkness on 29/09/2020 - 14:33
                    +6

                    @takutox: False dichotomy there. There are plenty of us who don't agree with taking advantage of price errors or scalping - exploitation is generally agreed to be a bad thing in broader society.

                    If you really want to split hairs - people feel like they can get away with exploiting a price error because it's only 'hurting' a typically large face-less business that can silently absorb the loss. Compare that to driving up prices and driving down accessibility for regular consumers, of course the latter is going to evoke a stronger reaction.

                    There's only so many ways to say "driving up prices pisses people off", it's not a novel idea or some new phenomenon - if you haven't gotten it yet, you won't get it at all.

              • tebbybabes on 29/09/2020 - 14:32
                +5

                @takutox: That's just it.

                • From your standpoint there's nothing wrong with it.

                • From others it is distasteful.

                There are a whole heap of comments addressing the "why"

                Your personal morality is your personal morality, just like it is for everyone else. And it's fine if we disagree. I'm now asking if you'd be happier or satisfied if everyone changed their point of view to be in line with yours because you think it's "right" one?

                • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 14:34
                  -2

                  @tebbybabes: Well, that's the point of the thread, to get comments as to why it's distasteful. That is why I started this thread. Pointing out that there are a whole heap of comments that address this makes no sense because that is the purpose of the thread. I don't see any actual content or logic in your response.

                  And no I'm not here to change points of view, I'm just here to learn and discuss. I'm not sure where you got that impression to even ask that. I'm never saying don't think like that, I'm asking the why? If it's not just a blanket "resell bad and distasteful", that would be desireable

                  • Bjingo on 29/09/2020 - 14:59
                    +16

                    @takutox: From what I read it seems pretty unanimous among the people arguing against it that the core issue is "exploitation is morally wrong". Just because a situation allows you to do something does not mean you are exonerated from moral criticism.

                    If I go to the shops with my mates to buy ice cream and one of my mates buys two knowing there will be none left then tries to sell it to me for $20, he's a shit person. if he then argues its fine because capitalism and free market concepts allow it and no law prevents him. He's still a shit person.

                    • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 15:36
                      +5

                      @Bjingo: Your friend should wait for it to start melting and offer to take it off his hands for $0 or it will just form a sticky mess.

                    • Altitud on 30/09/2020 - 01:01

                      @Bjingo: But think about this - you bought those ice creams for $2.50 but they cost only $1 to make including all overheads, packaging, tax on the profits all up - you were exploited for $1.50.

                      The people that did that to you are shit people ?

                      The entire concept of buy sell trade in any form whether through mates / companies / individuals is all one big series of exploits and I think people are very picky and choosy with which situations morality should apply.

                      • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 02:26
                        +3

                        @Altitud: That’s the difference between providing a service and a disservice. One person created an object for my pleasure and sold it to me. The other bought the object of my pleasure before me so they can turn around and it sell to me but more expensive. Realistically scalpers are like a supermarket buying cheap and selling at a mark up, only they don’t provide the service of getting all the various things an individual needs from various wholesalers they just make it harder and more expensive for someone to buy one thing. In addition I can almost guarantee these scalpers who purchase the PlayStation as an investment with the intention of selling it at a profit are not declaring it on their returns either. Where as Sony will certainly have them on the on their P+L come 2021 financial year.

                        In summary the person that makes and sells me a product is marking it up due to the service involved, ie creating it or facilitating it when I could not. Scalpers do literally neither

                        Edit: repeated myself and realised after posting.

                        • BreezyPalms on 30/09/2020 - 21:04

                          @Bjingo: I don't agree that supermarkets merely provide a service. Woolwoths/Coles take advantage of their duopoly over the market. They use customer data (tracked via reward cards) to identify shopping habits/demographics/average spend and use that data to (profanity) the customer by ensuring the average basket or trolley of goods maximises profit.
                          Supermarkets also use their buying power to completely (profanity) suppliers/'manufactures - e.g. dairy farmers and milk fiasco.

                          Also… ever notice how airline tickets seem to increase in price the more you look at them doing your research? Airlines are gaping a$$holes… taking advantage of the consumer at every turn.

                          • Bjingo on 01/10/2020 - 03:49

                            @BreezyPalms: My point was more about paying premiums due to the fact a service is given rather than disservice. Not to say that loads of industries don’t do shady shit, because tons of them do.

                            Personally I’m quite the fan of farmer jacks I think they are a good supermarket. WA based don’t know if they have any stores in other states.

                            • BreezyPalms on 01/10/2020 - 20:56

                              @Bjingo: I kind of see your point but In my experience the service provided doesn’t always correlate with the premium paid… so I think there are a lot more cases of disservice which are passed off/accepted as being a business.

                              I don’t like scalpers either…. but I hate big corporates that exploit consumers even more

                        • sakurashu on 01/10/2020 - 10:44
                          +1

                          @Bjingo: Bang on and my main issue with scalping and the like - I'm still paying for something when I pay that $1.50 like it being available and shipped to the store that I bought it from, it being kept refrigerated there and having the equipment or people there for me to transact with. What am I paying for if I pay a scalper? For their risk involved with purchasing so many units? I don't want to pay for that. What am I paying for if I purchase a single item from a personal user at a higher cost - possibly the inconvenience of them no longer having a unit to use until they are back in stock? That seems a whole lot easier to swallow for me - they lose something, I gain something and I pay them for it.

                • ozhunter on 29/09/2020 - 15:37
                  +2

                  @tebbybabes:

                  I'm now asking if you'd be happier or satisfied if everyone changed their point of view to be in line with yours because you think it's "right" one?

                  Yes, of course. lol

      • abb on 29/09/2020 - 16:52
        +2

        Capitalism at it's core has the defining characteristic that individuals have the right to freely do what they want with their property as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of others

        The defining characteristic of Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

        What you've described sounds more like Libertarianism.

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 17:22

          Note that I said defining characteristic. I did not say it can't have other defining characteristics such as private ownership of the means of production. There can be multiple defining characteristics. Private ownership of property and the ability to sell it on a free market is definitely one of them. So it's a bit of a strawman to take that out of context and make it seem like I'm saying that's the ONLY defining characteristic. There are probably 5-10 that you can list.

          • Bjingo on 29/09/2020 - 20:00
            +4

            @takutox: I can't help but notice, you keep using the strawman fallacy as a means of discrediting what is written in responses. If memory serves me correctly that is known as an argument from fallacy.

            Any who since we are arguing semantics might I add you in fact called it "the defining characteristic" by prefacing defining characteristic with the word the you do in fact say that no other characteristic is as defining as the free market.

            abb then stated that private ownership is the defining characteristic, which it is. In this circumstance you were the one that attempted to use the straw man fallacy as an argument by broadening the scope of the argument to include all characteristics of capitalism rather than discussing the defining characteristic.

            In theory a fully communist society would have a completely free secondary market as the government would not be governing it. for example, Jack and Mike both use their food stamps to collect their weeks amount of meat from the government butcher. Jack does not like pork belly whereas Mike loves it, so Jack decides to Sell his supply of pork belly to Mike. There is no intervention from the government or any other body therefore that is a free market transaction.

            • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 02:46

              @Bjingo: They are actual strawmans.

              User abbs argument addressed that "what you described as the defining characteristic sounds more like libertarianism". This is a strawman attack because I never said being able to freely do what you want with your own property and individual rights is the ONLY defining characteristic. There can be multiple defining characteristics, and the defining characteristic I pointed out was a direct response to someone else's reply, taken out of context. Also, private ownership of production means is definitely not the only defining characteristic of capitalism. Without many other characteristics you couldn't really call it capitalism.

              Saying "no, the defining characteristic is actually x, the defining characteristic you listed here sounds more like y" is strawman because both characteristic 1 AND 2 are defining characteristics of capitalism. Private ownership of property as well as the rights to that property are a crux of capitalism.

              How am I attacking a strawman by broadening the scope? His core argument was literally that the defining characteristic I provided was somehow incorrect and his defining characteristic was more correct, when in actual fact both defining characteristics together make up capitalism.

              • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 03:23
                +1

                @takutox: Private ownership is the rights to that property, that’s what ownership is. The free market is something completely seperate of capitalism.

                “The” is the definite article so saying free markets is the defining characteristic of capitalism most certainly singles it out the number 1 defining characteristic. If you said free market is a defining characteristic of capitalism that would be fine. I understand if you did not intend it to come of that way but that’s what you wrote.

                You never said “being able to freely do what you want with your own property and individual rights“ At all. You said the free market, which As I mentioned is not exclusive to capitalism therefore not a defining characteristic at all.

                Finally privatisation or private ownership is literally the only defining characteristic of capitalism.

                • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 03:28

                  @Bjingo:

                  Capitalism at it's core has the defining characteristic that individuals have the right to freely do what they want with their property as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of others

                  This was literally what I said and he replied to lmao.

                  And no, there are a bunch of defining characteristics for capitalism, it's not just a single thing.

                  • Bjingo on 30/09/2020 - 03:41

                    @takutox: My bad that is what you wrote I apologise.

                    Though I’m certain capitalism is literally just privatisation or private ownership. It’s the process of privatising goods and services in order to make profit rather than having it owned by the government.

                    Like removing Medicare and making it only private health insurance. Or having school only be private schools with entry fees. Or owning a house and renting it out

      • Ughhh on 29/09/2020 - 18:19

        You are embarrassing yourself.

        • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 18:44

          You know when someone has no argument, they resort to ad hominem attacks such as this.

          Might as well say "shut up dummy u wrong" and get it over with lol.

          • Ughhh on 29/09/2020 - 20:42
            +1

            @takutox: Was trying to help you dude, but you know when someone gets so upset…

          • mrhashish on 29/09/2020 - 21:10

            @takutox: "Your response is invalid. It's a strawman argument or its offtopic or it's an ad hominem attack as it doesn't align with what I want your answer to be."

            • Takutox 29/09/20 14:00-21:00
            • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 03:20
              -1

              @mrhashish: Yep, because I definitely called out "You are embarrassing yourself," as ad hominem simply because it wasn't the answer I wanted it to be. It's definitely not because it's actually off topic and ad hominem herpaderp

              • delusional user
              • Ughhh on 30/09/2020 - 13:57
                +1

                @takutox: Wasn't an argument?? Lol. Simply calling out what I can see.

                Cringe.

                • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 17:47
                  -1

                  @Ughhh: Exactly, you provide zero value. Thanks for noticing that you have no arguments and cringing at yourself

                  • Ughhh on 30/09/2020 - 18:00
                    +1

                    @takutox: It's like telling a stranger they have lettuce between their teeth, then the stranger yells at you for not have a valid arguement and providing value. Im not cringing at myself. Surely you can't be that thick??

                    You've provided value, entertainment value that is. Thanks for the laughs.

                    • takutox on 30/09/2020 - 18:29

                      @Ughhh: Braindead analogy, zero value.

                      Keep cringing at yourself

                      • Ughhh on 01/10/2020 - 16:45

                        @takutox: It's ok to be upset you know, I would give you some tissues if it wasn't so nice and warm outside.

  • monky on 29/09/2020 - 13:56
    +3

    Capitalism bad

  • ThithLord on 29/09/2020 - 14:00
    +6

    (you won this Pizza Hut voucher and want to resell it? HOW DARE YOU!!)

    Something similar happened to me, but it was a PS4. I won a PS4, already had one, so I didn't need it. Popped it on Ebay expecting to make ~$400-450, some bloke bid it up to $530!! When you could buy a brand new one for $499 at the time! I was blown away. I felt pretty bad so i gave him a heap of PS4 games with the purchase that I wasn't playing, lol.

    I was well within my rights to just finalise the sale and not give him a second thought, but alas - I have a conscious.

    • Altitud on 30/09/2020 - 01:05

      Were you conscious when you gave him all the extra games ?

      • ThithLord on 30/09/2020 - 08:07

        Man I constantly forget there's two different words, lmao. But hey, I was awake!

  • monky on 29/09/2020 - 14:07
    -1

    OP It's okay I don't hate you for scalping PS5s on eBay

  • bobbified on 29/09/2020 - 14:09
    +7

    It's not a blanket case of everyone getting salty if you buy something and resell it at a higher price. At the end of the day, that is literally how any business operates.

    The shit thing is when people come here, see a high-demand deal that's been posted for the benefit of the OzB community, buys up all the stock of that deal, then tries to sell it back to everyone at a higher price.

    • Altitud on 30/09/2020 - 01:09
      -1

      So what you're saying is "businesses do it and that's fine but if individuals do it then that's a shit thing" ?

      • bobbified on 30/09/2020 - 09:35

        I've written what I wrote above in a way I thought would be easy for everyone to understand. Don't try and twist my words.

        I think most would agree that what I described in my earlier post goes against the spirit of this community. If that's the kind of thing you use this community for, go find your own deals.

  • Domingo on 29/09/2020 - 14:10
    +5

    One example of this is limited release prints by artists. They go live and are all snapped up within seconds, a good portion of that by scripts/bots. Shortly thereafter they are for sale on eBay at 100% markup.

    The artists could charge those prices in the first place but choose to not so that they are accessible to more people. Then people with the resources/nous/technology skills take advantage of that with their only intention being to resell.

    Part of the issue is that they add nothing to what is being purchased and push the price up to secure profit for themselves.

    • Aerith-Waifu on 29/09/2020 - 16:36
      +1

      Without eBay their art work might be worth less than the original price also. Goes both ways

      • Domingo on 30/09/2020 - 10:49

        There are forums where they are sold, as well as on Facebook groups where people are generally a lot more reasonable (and collectively salty against eBay resellers).

    • Altitud on 30/09/2020 - 01:11
      -1

      So why don't you do the same thing make scripts and bots to snap them up as well ?

      It's clear that extra effort has extra reward.

      Why can't people just accept that ?

      Someone smarter and more efficient than you who has put more time and effort in than you have is benefiting…. How bizarre ! So unfair !!

      • Domingo on 30/09/2020 - 10:36
        +1

        I'm answering the title of the OP which is "Why Does Everyone Get So Salty about People Reselling Items for a Profit?"

        The "getting so salty" comes from a person/group/organisation with skills/resources buying a limited release item and selling at a higher price without adding any value to it. They haven't enhanced the item in any way, they aren't playing a distribution service to get it to me, they're just selling the exact same thing they bought for a higher price.

        If it's someone buying things wholesale, warehousing them here and managing distribution for a producer who doesn't sell retail, that is a different matter because they are providing a service.

        So yes, someone somewhere is putting in effort and getting reward from it, but it is frustrating from my perspective as a buyer because they aren't contributing anything of value.

      • sakurashu on 01/10/2020 - 10:49

        Smarter and more efficient than me? Hah - I could write one of these hacked together bots in my sleep. We don't think this extra effort should be rewarded - it's not valuable. I think the same thing of day traders against the stock market - except there's a blurrier line where there isn't as clear a victim of the behaviour

  • Mac40 on 29/09/2020 - 14:13
    +4

    An individual has no legal or moral resposiblity when purchasing a consumer item other than paying for it. They have the right to pull it apart, sell it or exchange it with another person etc. People don't deserve something you have because they exist, and it would be generous of you to include the thoughts of strangers in your decision making, but not neccessary. Generally in our society, its your job to utilise the services or purchases available to take care of yourself and your family and that's considered the limit with most other things considered charity. If you purchase a seat to a concert but then don't go, that's ok. If you forgot to go, in that you taking a seat from another potential customer unintellionally, you obviously can't be prosecuted. Likewise property is an entire market based on what people will pay determines the value of the item, not the physical parts, what it was sold for last time etc. Housing would be considered essential but still follows these ideals.

    Peoples anger generally comes from the 'missing out' part and not because they have considered all facts and peoples intentions and come to a conclusion. Many have missed out on PS5 & XS/X preorders so they are angry and that's where the abuse and death threats to people who are selling comes from. A seller should expect people who are missing out to be upset by that - though people being upset about something you do is no reason to change your behaviour.

    • takutox on 29/09/2020 - 14:31
      +2

      That's an interesting argument. I wonder how these same people feel about investment properties since I recognise that a few people here are purchasers of them.

      They are literally scalping property and reselling at a 1000 PS5 profit when land is harder to come by while people can't get a place to live. If the only distinction or argument against that is that the retail item has an arbitrary starting RRP then I don't think that's a good enough argument.

      • Mac40 on 29/09/2020 - 15:15
        +2

        We certainly see a lot more socialist values nowadays compared to even a few years ago. People would've applauded your ability to sell something for +100% its value and many markets still do, but recently we are seeing trends of disagreement from the wider populace. Many things at supermarkets are sold for only cents of profit, and customers would be upset if they found out Woolworths was making +50% profit on each packet of cereal.

        Though there are lots of examples in society where you are not required to cater for people you don't know - it could be fun to list them out. You wouldn't want to use these sorts of angry people to be your moral compass either as these are the same people often doing the illegal act of harassment or violence in response to the legal act of selling something you purchased at a price you choose.

        I think increase in personal entitlement is part of the problem here. Where people feel they can expect things to be a certain way and when things don't go that way, they are vocal or dangerous in their response sometimes in a way more aggregious than the intial act that triggered them. There is an expectation that when Sony releases a new console, you should be able to buy it when it releases without considering all of the variables between these things. We expect Sony to apologise when things don't go as planned or people disagree with the plans. It's partly a marketing/ownership thing too, in that customers whom use a brand for years feel ownership of a product strongly, their memories and feelings will be connected with it and missing out hits them particularly hard.

      • sakurashu on 01/10/2020 - 10:54

        I think the rental market is a valuable market to society - it is a good thing that there are properties available for rent.
        The issue isn't just investment properties existing - it's a lot more complex but I think you'll find most people are also angry about people who have purchased investment properties that sit vacant without tenants or occupiers - they've attempted to profit off of the system without providing any value

  • SnowDragon on 29/09/2020 - 14:17
    +4

    Where is Broden for this conversation?

    • monky on 29/09/2020 - 14:20
      +2

      In the kiln

  • philme on 29/09/2020 - 14:26
    +2

    I managed to get myself a pair of Nike Alphaflys in store when it got released a week or two ago for sale to the general public. The worst part was when i searched on ebay someone had come into that exact store I got them from (they actually had a photo of that shoe on display at the shop) and bought a few pairs and had it up for $100 more.

    Such a dick move since the shoes are so hard to get already and there are people like me who only want to buy it to run marathons in.

    • z10cvbnm on 29/09/2020 - 15:01
      +1

      Literally the whole sneakers industry is like this at the moment. Apparently they said it is billion-dollar-worth industry.

  • screensaver on 29/09/2020 - 14:31

    I was shocked yesterday to discover that facebook marketplace does not allow ads for services on free community noticeboards, eg lawnmowing, hairdressing etc. To me this is outrageeous, a local business should be allowed to place an ad on a local community noticeborad. Why would they do this. Must be because they want people to pay for advertising. I would like to stand up to them

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 12/10/2020 - 20:26

      Stand up to them by closing your account.

  • Fredfloresjr on 29/09/2020 - 14:53
    +1

    Your items your rules. No one is forcing you to buy. If you don't like it, keep scrolling.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 15:00
    +2

    I wonder how many people would do it if they had to show their faces. I remember reading an article where they reached out to a scalper and he felt so guilty he reduced the price. You don't need the product; someone misses out because of scalpers and can't afford the crazy prices they're selling them for except those with higher income. It's a case of pandering to the rich.

  • Drakesy on 29/09/2020 - 15:02
    +5

    This is pretty much Australia's housing bubble in a nutshell.
    Land gets released. Investors buy up said land hoping that demand will outstrip supply and further push up their land.
    The land itself doesn't change just the value, we're literally a nation built on 'virtual' property prices driven by hype, domain, realestate.com and real estate agents (literally leaches). This is at the expense of first home owners.

    When supply outstrips demand the system 'breaks' however they're covered enough with negative gearing that they'll see it out.

    When the game's rigged like now that's when people get annoyed.

  • DingoBilly on 29/09/2020 - 15:03
    +3

    I don't mind your average Joe selling one or two items for a profit. Nice work on that one.

    It's annoying though when someone buys things in mass and actually takes away from other people. For instance, recently with the PS5 many people bought it just to resell for more.

    Of course it's fine/completely legal whatever, but (profanity) it's annoying I have to wait an extra few months to buy it at a normal price because some ass wanted to make a profit from it.

    • ozhunter on 29/09/2020 - 15:43
      -5

      It's annoying though when someone buys things in mass and actually takes away from other people. For instance, recently with the PS5 many people bought it just to resell for more.

      Same amount of people will still get it, they just pay more for it.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 22:14
        -3

        I would argue that some people who may in fact not afford one will be able to afford one.

        I could never be bothered doing these pre-order and/or sleep outside a store nonsense. Some unemployed person can do all that, scalp a few units and keep one for him/herself. Good on them.

        This whole nonsense about scalping play stations and xboxes is going to spark a violent clash between gamers. Someone are bound to get hurt (getting out of their mama's basement). Maybe even sunburn.

  • This Guy on 29/09/2020 - 15:21

    You are talking about a few different things.

    Seller's discount items to increase their business. Supplying good to another business is usually of little benefit. People get salty because goods are limited, it is against the spirit of the offer and against the spirit of the site. Broden cemented this attitude.

    Scalping sucks because the ticket industry sucks. Acts hide profits behind booking companies to pass responsibility for the high prices away from the acts. Ticket availability is deliberately opaque to artificially increase demand though fomo and to support the ego's of artists. Shows can be 'sold out' with never sold tickets available though a 'reseller' site for a higher price. There are monopolies in this industry that have taken advantage of their control of the market.

    I don't know what capitalism has to do with anything.

    I also don't get the moral high ground stuff.

    It seems like half your words were chosen to provoke a negative response. Good luck with that.

  • this is us on 29/09/2020 - 15:24
    +3

    People have different moral standards, which is fine and normal - according to my own moral standards.

    I have to say that I don't like when I see some people profiting when selling some things (e.g., face masks, alcohol gel, baby formula). That's against my sense of morality, but I also understand that's not illegal and people do whatever they want. My problem with that is the lack of empathy, which I believe to be one of the biggest issues in our society. People are becoming increasingly self-centred/selfish and can't empathise with someone else's suffering anymore.

    Let's just say if I had to choose someone to save from a sinking ship, I'd choose someone who doesn't profit during a pandemic.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 15:37
    -1

    I've been buying and flipping iPhones/iPads for years off gumtree, some i sell on ebay or sell to mobile monster, pays for my Tech habit. Last one was a new sealed iPad air 64gb 4g for $500, actually used it for a few months then sold it for $800.

    • Aerith-Waifu on 29/09/2020 - 16:32

      You sold on Gumtree for $800? I can’t even sell my iPad Air for $500 in the original box used for 1 month. End up given to my brother.

      • burningrage on 29/09/2020 - 16:38

        Just want to comment I like your nickname lol

      • [Deactivated] on 29/09/2020 - 16:39

        ebay but i had free fees deal.

        • Aerith-Waifu on 29/09/2020 - 16:40

          Good on ya! I should try that next time.

  • jackofspade on 29/09/2020 - 15:50
    -1

    Classified Posting Guidelines

    No reselling items with the intent of making profit

  • Aerith-Waifu on 29/09/2020 - 16:31
    +1

    I invest in LEGO myself and only sell them when they retire. So am I a scalper or an investor?

    • xuqi on 29/09/2020 - 16:37

      Investor, you're not buying in search of near instant $ gratification.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join