It’s a philosophical question, a hairy problem to tackle, that can pull you into a never-ending rabbit hole of ethical and economic considerations. The matter is complicated by our instinctive feeling that we should have a simple, clear-cut answer to this. And sometimes we can distract ourselves from this question long enough to start thinking we know how this works, and then something like this happens.
It’s probably only possible to pull that off in retail, when dealing with B2B clients you can’t base your price only on emotion. But is 1850$ a fair price for “junk shoes”?
Here’s my take on this: if both the [[expert]] and the [[Client]] are happy with the trade, if both say “thank you” and mean it, and that feeling persists for a long time, the price was fair.
Costs or margins don’t come into it, length of experience, market averages, objective parameters – forget about it. If the [[Client]] feels ripped off, they will act as if they got ripped off, even if they objectively got more than they paid for. For all intents and purposes, the price was unfair.
The same goes for the [[expert]] – if they get paid the market rate, pay grade, calculated value, or industry average, but feel as if the [[Client]] got the lion’s share of the value, the price is unfair.
Robots would never buy those shoes, but hundreds of humans did, for human reasons. Let’s stop pricing for robots.