Testosterone and Money

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Its also possible that the woman had a friend of hers who worked at an auto body shop take your check and split it with her.

Sounds like you had the testosterone and your wife had the principles

[Spanky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WithAllMyHeart So does this mean my wife is a woman of high testosterone? Or is she just a woman of high principles?

This is an example of emotion over logic.

[NinjaPigeon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WithAllMyHeart I explained to my wife that this would cost us $120 more than my approach.

You're assuming your offer would have been accepted. The woman might have used her testosterone and told you to shove your $120

I'm honestly not sure what I'd do in that situation though. If the car was already dent up, what are the odds the woman would even want to fix it?

I had an Ugly Car a few years ago, and when people hit me, they'd do a grand in damage and I'd always end up pocketing money because it wasn't worth fixing as the rest of the car still sucked

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaPigeon I had an Ugly Car a few years ago, and when people hit me, they'd do a grand in damage and I'd always end up pocketing money because it wasn't worth fixing as the rest of the car still sucked

You must have spent a lot of time sneaking around parking lots

Re paying the $240, I don't think it was principles. I think it was classic Lose-lose tactics.

If I can't win, neither will you...

If you don't like the idea of paying people to do nothing, you are living in the wrong country.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WithAllMyHeart This might help me understand a family experience, which I hope I can describe in a few words. As you read this, keep in mind that my DW handles the finances in our family. My 17-yo daughter backed out of a parking stall at the mall and hit another car, making a small dent in the door. The other car was old and beat-up, so the additional dent was hardly noticeable, but my daughter dutifully wrote a note with her name and phone number and left the note on the car's windshield. The owner of the car called us, said that she (the owner) had gotten an appraisal to fix the dent, and she wanted us to send her a check for $240. This sparked a difference of opinion between DW and me. I wanted to call the woman, tell her that I knew she wasn't really going to fix the dent but just wanted the money, and tell her that I agreed that she should get some money, but I would be willing send her only $120 (or some other negotiated amount). DW totally disagreed. She felt that if the woman wasn't going to fix her car, that we shouldn't pay anything. DW wanted to call the woman and tell her that we would write out the check but only to the repair shop after the work was done, not to the owner personally. I explained to my wife that this would cost us $120 more than my approach. My wife totally objected to my approach, with the reasoning that she didn't want the woman to get away with some cash that she wasn't going to use to fix the car. In the end, my wife called the woman, told her that we wouldn't pay her directly, and that we would only pay the repair shop. Of course the woman had the dent fixed, and we had to pay $240. Evidently my wife would rather pay the full $240 and punish the car owner than pay $120 and let the car owner "pull a fast one" by pocketing the money. So does this mean my wife is a woman of high testosterone? Or is she just a woman of high principles?

None of the above. Your daughter damaged the other car- the damage is done whether it is fixed or not. Furthermore, she is in an excellent position to make an insurance report, thus having you pay the money or more, and possibly raising your insurance rates.

She was offering you a huge bargain. Neither you nor your wife seemed to see this. Where have you heard of any body repair being done for less than $240? Maybe Mexico?

BTW your daughter was not "dutiful". The word is honest.

Ha

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny That happens all the time, and somehow it doesnt get out. Nobody pays the same price. I was a pretty big fish...5th largest US company by market cap. One company that chose to walk rather than give me a good deal lost their business when a bunch of other companies saw that we had changed products...and they all followed suit. The competitor waived the charges for their software and just charged us for support...and picked up all the other defectors as well. We paid them pretty good money for the next 7 years...not as well as if we'd paid full price for everything...but they made a lot of money and a good profit. Its all about continued and ongoing repetitive business. But thats not the way its done today...its 'get your big hit now, then dump these bozos, and we'll spend $100M in advertising to get some more of them!'. Pennywise, pound foolish.

Agree with you on this... mine was different... they wanted a very cheap price, not one that was a small discount... and there were people willing to undercut all the time... however, we gave good service and it was such a small cost in the whole that the service level mattered more than the price.. The CFOs did talk to each other and they did find out if there was a price drop.... and they would ask for it... ours was an annuity business...

My friend had a saying 'swallow a camel and gag on a knat'... your example is similar... sell it for less than cost, but make up for it in volume....

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I guess its all capitalism...one company would rather have nothing than something to preserve their business by losing a lower profit customer...the other would rather have something than nothing to grow their business by picking up a profitable customer.

[ladelfina]

The companies that tried to get discounts from us were also always the most horrible to work with in all other respects. Many times the "carrot" was offered of "more work down the road" if we would only do this or that for a discount "just this once". We quickly learned that this was almost always a lie; they got their discounts and finally moved on to the next sucker. They weren't interested in a mutually-profitable long-term relationship, just a one-night-stand where they were the screwer and we were the screwee. We quit hanging out in that bar.

Another curious thing about these experiments is that they usually involve small sums and I wonder to what degree that distorts the outcome. What if the pot is $400,000 and someone offers to split it by giving the other participant $50,000, rather than $40 and $5? It's easier to perceive $5 as being insultingly low.

As for the car thing.. WAMH..how do you come to this "high principles" conclusion, when you say your DW's intent was to 'punish' the woman (whose car was hit!)? Seems like you both wanted to 'punish' her, but you just couldn't agree on how!

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina Another curious thing about these experiments is that they usually involve small sums and I wonder to what degree that distorts the outcome. What if the pot is $400,000 and someone offers to split it by giving the other participant $50,000, rather than $40 and $5? It's easier to perceive $5 as being insultingly low.

Richard Thaler, an economist at Chicago, did some meta-studies of the Ultimatum game.

Anomalies at the Chicago Graduate School of Business

He mentions a discussion with his fellow economists at a conference. What if the pool was $1,000,000? One economist insisted he would still split it fairly, because you never know what kind of nut is on the veto side.