Do you think people will continue buying Lindens with price change?

[Theresa Tennyson]

50 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

On the other hand, if you want to sell and get your US$600 setup back and forget the $600 you paid for GF, then it's going to be a US$1200 sale (600 back and 600 transfer) Amortisation is 1100/55 = 20 months.

 

If you paid to buy down your region to grandfathered status you had to do no later than the beginning of October 2016. Given that it's now at least 20 months after that, you've already saved that $1200 and an additional $800.

[Qie Niangao]

10 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

They don't consider that since the fee is a flat rate instead of a percentage of lindens sold, that people will make fewer but larger purchases of Lindens. As so many people do, they assume people's actions will not change after a fee increase.

Except maybe changed behavior is exactly what they expect:

16 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

They don't want the number of transactions to remain the same. Credit card companies charge businesses for every transaction - generally a flat minimum amount in the neighborhood of $0.20-$0.30 and then a percentage. Many tiny transactions are more costly for a company than fewer, larger ones.

The analogy with taxes is pretty flawed because these are practically microtransactions. It would be as if tax collection cost 90% of the revenue generated by the tax. By raising the transaction fee, they effectively raise the threshold at which fees are collected (fewer, bigger transations), effectively decreasing the percentage of revenue lost to the overhead of collection.

I mean, if y'all still want to have a Laffer curve discussion after all these years... well, everybody needs a hobby, but it's really not relevant to the matter at hand.

[Phorumities]

4 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Except maybe changed behavior is exactly what they expect:

The analogy with taxes is pretty flawed because these are practically microtransactions. It would be as if tax collection cost 90% of the revenue generated by the tax. By raising the transaction fee, they effectively raise the threshold at which fees are collected (fewer, bigger transations), effectively decreasing the percentage of revenue lost to the overhead of collection.

I mean, if y'all still want to have a Laffer curve discussion after all these years... well, everybody needs a hobby, but it's really not relevant to the matter at hand.

Personally I never heard of Laffer until that other person mentioned the name. All  I ever said was that people's actions can be changed by any increase in taxes or fees.

And like others have said, you don't notice 99 cents or $1.49, anyway. It's in the total cost off the transaction, so people's actions probably won't change and thus LL will generate more revenue from the fee increase.

[ellestones]

13 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

They don't consider that since the fee is a flat rate instead of a percentage of lindens sold, that people will make fewer but larger purchases of Lindens. As so many people do, they assume people's actions will not change after a fee increase.

Old fee: 99 cents times 1 purchase of  10,000 L per week generates $3.97  every 4 weeks

new fee: $1.49  times 1 purchase of 40,000 L once every 4 weeks generates $1.49 every 4 weeks

If enough people do this LL will make less money regardless of what Laffer says. 

If they want to increase revenue by raising the rate, they need to make the fee a percentage of Lindens bought, NOT a flat rate increase. THEN Laffer's effect will happen. Because, buy once a week, or once a month, the total fee after 4 weeks will be the same

we are getting into anticipating consumer behaviour based on a single input with this

it is an important input yes, but there are other inputs as well

another consumer behavourial input, among a whole bunch of others, is that when it comes to discretionary spend, people sometimes have a tendency to impulse buy more often when the amount available to them is larger at any given moment

a person used to say a discretionary max. bank balance of $2000 at any given time who spends it down, often spends a $8000 balance down faster. Until or if ever they change this behaviour then it can lead them to spending more than previously on discretionary items

a guess that the LL economists haven't considered all the inputs would I think be misguided

[Callum Meriman]

31 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If you paid to buy down your region to grandfathered status you had to do no later than the beginning of October 2016. Given that it's now at least 20 months after that, you've already saved that $1200 and an additional $800.

Maybe you don't understand what I am saying? I thought I was clear.

The full region cost US$600 to buy, most people want that back when they sell up. The $600 transfer is unavoidable. so...  the *new* person pays US$1200 - that's 20 months for the new purchaser before they break even. No?

Considering the Lab have said there will be more drops - why would someone buy a GF sim to wait 20 months before they break even?

 

[ellestones]

42 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

Personally I never heard of Laffer until that other person mentioned the name

the statement you made is something that is often misquoted

Arthur Laffer:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer

[ChinRey]

16 hours ago, Elvina Ewing said:

then who will profit from these new changes? only the landlords? so the rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer?

The landlords will not get richer from this, you can be sure of that. For a start, with the drastic increase in premium memberhsip land tier LL themselves are moving agressively into what used to be the core market for independent landlords and that hurts really bad. Then there are all the other fee increases LL has announced. Some of them will hurt the landlords too.

 

12 hours ago, clivesteel said:

Imagine how glorious it would be if all SL renters hit refund and then refused to pay...they could put these wannabe Trumps out of business in hours...how satisfying it would be to see the landowners come crawling back with timid apologies and reducing their fees...why not make it happen, today?

What most landowners trying to run a rental business in SL actually would do if that happened, was sigh in relief, shut down their sims, leave SL and never look back.

Edited June 22, 2018 by ChinRey

[ellestones]

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

The full region cost US$600 to buy, most people want that back when they sell up. The $600 transfer is unavoidable. so...  the *new* person pays US$1200 - that's 20 months for the new purchaser before they break even. No?

Considering the Lab have said there will be more drops - why would someone buy a GF sim to wait 20 months before they break even?

 

should the expectation that LL will further drop sim tiers become widespread then a person wanting to sell a GF sim may find that they have to accept less than $600 for it

[Callum Meriman]

13 minutes ago, ellestones said:

should the expectation that LL will further drop sim tiers become widespread then a person wanting to sell a GF sim may find that they have to accept less than $600 for it

Yep, or just abandon it.

Consider a non-grandfather homestead: A new homestead costs US$149, US$109 of that is a "free" month's teir - so the flat cost to buy a new homestead is US$40. 

But the cost to transfer a homestead from one person to another is US$100

It now costs $60 more to buy a homestead from someone else, and that's with the other person getting nothing for it.

 

I guess the Lab either forgot about reducing transfer fees, or are aiming to have people stop trade in old regions and just abandon them.

 

 

[ChinRey]

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

I guess the Lab either forgot about reducing transfer fees, or are aiming to have people stop trade in old regions and just abandon them.

Already answered:

23 hours ago, AmandaKeen said:

When I was in my early 20’s, I learned not to balance my checkbook while well into a bottle of wine..........

 

Edit: Since my post confused Callum: They forgot about the transfer fees.

Edited June 22, 2018 by ChinRey

[Qie Niangao]

17 minutes ago, clivesteel said:

 you ill-mannered snipe

The difference between calling an argument imbecilic and directing invective at an individual is the difference between reason and ad hominem attack. The latter is also how one gets a forum ban. If it doesn't work this time, keep trying.

On the off chance this isn't a troll: I suppose there must still be Estate owners who don't offer their tenants a fair deal. Maybe clive and his friends are all so unlucky as to rent from those bad landlords. And if they want to "strike" against their freakishly unfair landlords they might start by shopping for better offers.

And if they don't find better offers, they might either:

• run the numbers themselves and see what margins are to be had, or
• ask themselves why this particular market should fail to function as all others, despite trivial barriers to entry and crazily numerous competing suppliers.

[Theresa Tennyson]

7 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

Maybe you don't understand what I am saying? I thought I was clear.

The full region cost US$600 to buy, most people want that back when they sell up. The $600 transfer is unavoidable. so...  the *new* person pays US$1200 - that's 20 months for the new purchaser before they break even. No?

Considering the Lab have said there will be more drops - why would someone buy a GF sim to wait 20 months before they break even?

 

Why would someone be encouraged to buy a region they're not going to keep for more than 20 months?

Edited June 22, 2018 by Theresa Tennyson

[Phorumities]

52 minutes ago, clivesteel said:

If Community Participation Standards mean anything at all, you should be BANNED from this forum PERMANENTLY, you ill-mannered snipe (and suspended inworld for a few months too).

MY idea has the potential to be the most monumental development in SL since the departure of Mr Rosedale. All residents need to do is forego their pixelated doll houses for ONE WEEK and the landowners will reduce prices.

I've spoken to numerous people inworld and they agree - it's time for a tenants' strike. Total refusal to rent, across the grid, until greedy landowners pass on the benefits of reduced tier: a sane response to metaverse lunacy.

No wonder the vultures are scared!!

So you are serious. Well good luck with your strike. If you'd live within your means instead of expecting others to subsidise your excessive extravagant life style, you wouldn't have a problem with "too high rent".

 

[Phil Deakins]

28 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

You can find anything you need to know about Clive by reading their profile and doing a minute's research.

I see what you mean.

His profile isn't available in the web search, so maybe he's been suspended since his previous post, or perhaps even banned again.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phorumities]

6 hours ago, ChinRey said:

The landlords will not get richer from this, you can be sure of that. For a start, with the drastic increase in premium memberhsip land tier LL themselves are moving agressively into what used to be the core market for independent landlords and that hurts really bad. Then there are all the other fee increases LL has announced. Some of them will hurt the landlords too.

 

What most landowners trying to run a rental business in SL actually would do if that happened, was sigh in relief, shut down their sims, leave SL and never look back.

And then of course, rental land would be scarce, and the remaining land owners could raise their rents to meet the increased demand for rental land.

 

[Phorumities]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I see what you mean.

LOL, a chip on your shoulder that size probably has a render weight high enough to crash anyone that sees it

[Callum Meriman]

58 minutes ago, clivesteel said:

I've spoken to numerous people inworld and they agree - it's time for a tenants' strike. Total refusal to rent, across the grid, until greedy landowners pass on the benefits of reduced tier: a sane response to metaverse lunacy.

So, go ahead and strike then?

[Phorumities]

2 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

So, go ahead and strike then?

People are free to rent or not rent. If everyone decides to not rent at the same time, its their free choice.

One must remember though, One can control one's actions, but one cannot control the consequences of those actions.

[Fionalein]

I just turned around from that thread for breakfast and now THIS????

PS: I want a Dramallama Emoji

Edited June 22, 2018 by Fionalein

[Callum Meriman]

2 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

PS: I want a Dramallama Emoji

[Callum Meriman]

13 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

His profile isn't available in the web search, so maybe he's been suspended since his previous post, or perhaps even banned again.

It's in the old-style search, so not banned. But it is an interesting profile.

[Amanda Crisp]

its not an emoji, but it is Lama....

[Phil Deakins]

6 hours ago, ChinRey said:

For a start, with the drastic increase in premium memberhsip land tier LL themselves are moving agressively into what used to be the core market for independent landlords and that hurts really bad.

To be fair to LL (and I'm not even suggesting that you weren't), there used to be only one landlord, and that was LL. LL LL has a product - Second Life  - and Second Life is land (and sea). That's all it is. So it's not surprising that they would seek to earn more from it. And, of course, lower land costs is something that we users have been asking for since forever. I don't consider it to be "moving agressively" into any market. They are merely selling their own product. So any impact on landlords doesn't bother me. We've all been asking for lower land costs, and it was always known that it might affect some landlords.

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Callum Meriman said:

It's in the old-style search, so not banned. But it is an interesting profile.

I know it is. That's what I looked up when his profile wasn't available in the web search. It's why I told Theresa that "I see what you mean".

[Phil Deakins]

14 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

LOL, a chip on your shoulder that size probably has a render weight high enough to crash anyone that sees it

Chip? What chip? Explain please.