Buffalo News increasing the cost of their subscription to $28.99 per month

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

I've grown very accustomed to my in-season Monday-morning routine of plowing through every Bills-related article in BN instead of doing my job, but admittedly this is getting to be an irrational waste of money considering how much free content is out there and the fact that I already pay for The Athletic.  I'm still sort of psychologically locked in but this is probably my last year as a subscriber.  

Same here, but it is the case that they currently have the best coverage of the Bills (at least in my opinion). I hate giving it up, but we're not paying that much for a newspaper that is peripheral to my life outside of Bills coverage. I'm up to my eyeballs in newspaper/magazine subscriptions anyway.  

[TheCockSportif]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Same here, but it is the case that they currently have the best coverage of the Bills (at least in my opinion). I hate giving it up, but we're not paying that much for a newspaper that is peripheral to my life outside of Bills coverage. I'm up to my eyeballs in newspaper/magazine subscriptions anyway.  

So very true.  That's the same reason I had to put the kibosh on my subscription to "The Economist".  Couldn't keep up, too expensive, and ended up in the recycling.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, TheCockSportif said:

Same here, pretty much, well except that it's not me who's been subscribing, but my dad, and I think that I've almost talked him into stopping his subscription.

 

The paper version of the BN -- not that I've ever mistaken the BN for the NYT in the 45 years that I've been reading it, and not that I ever wanted BN to be the NYT -- is woeful.  The Sunday edition, something that I used to look forward to, is *rolls eyes*.

 

Very interesting thread here otherwise.  Been a long offseason for the lot of us, or so it would seem.

 

 

Social Media has killed the sports newspaper industry.  Some people I know still like to read the newspaper for other subjects but with Twitter, sports news breaks instantly and anything over an hour old is old news.  

 

I think within 20 years, there won't be a physical paper anymore.  It will at antique shops and Ebay for nostalgia.  

 

Brown paper is the future of the paper industry.

[What a Tuel]

23 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

YOU said this. Not someone else. YOU.

 

"You really think it costs more to print a paper than in 1990? Give me a break.” - What a Tuel

 

That's not a derivative. It's what you wrote. It was your argument (until you realized you are wrong, of course).

 

You then doubled down a couple posts later:  "you go about your business thinking it costs more money to print paper than 1990" - What a Tuel

 

Yes, it costs more to print a paper now than it did in 1990. 

 

You're just moving the goal posts again.

 

You never said anything about outpacing inflation.

 

You simply said it cost more to produce the newspaper in 1990. Which isnt true. And I said multiple times, "Due to inflation" costs have gone up. You kept arguing.

 

You're wrong.

 

.

 

Man dude. People are right, you just can't accept being wrong. You are providing a bunch of links about soaring costs in 2022 compared to what?!? pre pandemic? 1990? 1950? What? As someone who holds themselves in high esteem for intelligence, you must certainly acknowledge that this does not prove that the cost of production in 2023 exceeds inflation adjusted cost in 1990.

 

And again no. Still wrong on this. Funny how you don't provide the context. Talk about shifting goal posts.

 

It isn't my fault that my initial post soared over your head. I literally said accounting for inflation is correct in my initial statement, but that the cost of production likely didn't skyrocket. You responded with random commodities trying to prove that it costs more in 2023 and utterly failing on multiple fronts.

 

You are literally arguing just to argue lol. Either prove it or just stop.

 

On 7/8/2023 at 10:29 AM, What a Tuel said:

 

It doesn't account for advances in production capability, and productivity that decreases cost though.

 

So yeah the inflated price is right but at the same time, how have their costs of production faired? They certainly didn't skyrocket, and would be amazed to find out they stayed the same.

 

On 7/8/2023 at 11:48 AM, Einstein said:

What in the world makes you think their cost of production didnt rise? They absolutely did skyrocket.

 

Printer ink has gone through the roof. When looking at newspaper ink, which is primarily soy oil or a distillate of petroleum (oil), you can see the rise in price:

 

 

 

Then there is the cost of paying people to write for the paper. 

 

Do you think the writers still want to be paid what they made in 1990? 

 

Or do you think their salaries rose with inflation too?

 

Then there is the cost of paper itself, which has risen drastically:

 

 

So we have:

 

1 - Ink - skyrocketed

2 - Paper - skyrocketed

3 - Writer Salary - went with inflation

 

This doesnt even count the cost of rent (which has also skyrocketed), new machines (they dont last forever), etc.

 

 

 

On 7/8/2023 at 1:39 PM, What a Tuel said:

 

Oh come on man. You really think it costs more to print a paper than in 1990? Give me a break. Show me all the price per barrel nonsense you want. It just isn't the case. The efficiency of technology has drastically altered the cost of production.

 

 

[teef]

22 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

No I never showed my home, that was someone else. But in general, Florida vacation homes you don't get a lot for what you pay. $3M will get you the equivalent of a $700k Orchard Park home.

No.  It was yours.   I’m not speaking down it it, but Provo g a point.  I’m pretty aware of Florida.  A large part of my family lives in palm beach and come up for the summers.  We’re don’t there all the time.   Just throwing out randoms costs of homes doesn’t really prove anything.  
 

you don’t need to do this.  You really don’t. 

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, teef said:

No.  It was yours.  

 

I have never posted my home. Feel free to link the post you're talking about. Of course by that point you'll realize it wasn't me. 

[Slippery Rubber Mats]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

I have never posted my home. Feel free to link the post you're talking about. Of course by that point you'll realize it wasn't me. 

 

Make thread all about guy named Einstein: mission accomplished.

[TheCockSportif]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

I have never posted my home. Feel free to link the post you're talking about. Of course by that point you'll realize it wasn't me. 

I guess I don't understand one's pathology -- where they are so hellbent on being right that they just can't help themselves from keepin' on keepin' on.

[Einstein]

11 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

this does not prove that the cost of production in 2023 exceeds inflation adjusted cost in 1990.

This is where you're moving the goal post to. At no point before today, did you EVER say that you want me to prove that the  2023 cost should exceed inflation.

 

You said: "You really think it costs more to print a paper than in 1990?" and "you go about your business thinking it costs more money to print paper than 1990" - What a Tuel

 

I said: "Due to inflation which has caused wages, ink, paper, etc all to climb."

 

I mentioned inflation several times, as being the primary factor. The only mention of inflation you ever made was that the inflated PRICE (how much they are charging) is right, but you said the COST is less.

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Einstein

[What a Tuel]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

This is where you're moving the goal post to.

 

At no point before today, did you EVER say that you want me to prove that the  2023 cost should exceed inflation.

 

You said: "You really think it costs more to print a paper than in 1990?" and "you go about your business thinking it costs more money to print paper than 1990" - What a Tuel

 

I said: "Due to inflation which has caused wages, ink, paper, etc all to climb."

 

I mentioned inflation several times, as being the primary factor. The only mention of inflation you ever made was that the inflated PRICE (how much they are charging) is right, but you said the COST is less.

 

 

 

So you agree then? The cost of production has not exceeded inflation adjusted dollars?

 

So my initial statement we ultimately agree then (which you disagreed with). Glad we had this talk. 😂

On 7/8/2023 at 10:29 AM, What a Tuel said:

 

It doesn't account for advances in production capability, and productivity that decreases cost though.

 

So yeah the inflated price is right but at the same time, how have their costs of production faired? They certainly didn't skyrocket, and would be amazed to find out they stayed the same.

 

On 7/8/2023 at 11:48 AM, Einstein said:

What in the world makes you think their cost of production didnt rise? They absolutely did skyrocket.

 

Edit: I find it hilarious that you won't provide the actual quotes with timestamps and keep falling back to your recollection of the order of the conversation.

Edited July 10, 2023 by What a Tuel

[Einstein]

23 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

So you agree then? The cost of production has not exceeded inflation adjusted dollars?

 

I don't know, I haven't done the research on that yet. But that wasn't your argument, so it's irrelevant.

 

You said it costs less to produce a paper today than in 1990. Which isn't true. You're only changing your narrative to focus on inflation-adjusted now that you realize you were wrong.

 

You said the inflated PRICE is right (the $28 they charge now compared to $12.50 back then), but that their COST is lower. Which is 100% wrong.

 

 

Their production costs DID skyrocket. You are 100% wrong.

You were trying to make the argument that - yes, they raised the price along with inflation, but theircosts are less now, so they shouldn't have to raise their price that much.

 

You're not fooling anyone.

 

But I honestly don't think you have the computational ability to understand this, so i'm going to let it go.

 

You can have the last word.

 

.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Einstein

[What a Tuel]

 

20 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

I don't know, I haven't done the research on that yet. 

 

Bu that wasn't your argument, so it's irrelevant.

 

You said it costs less to produce a paper today than in 1990. Which isn't true. You're only changing your narrative now.

 

You said the inflated PRICE is right (the $28 they charge), but that their COST is lower. Which is 100% wrong.

 

 

Their production costs DID skyrocket. You are 100% wrong.

 

 

 

 

Lol. Now you don't know huh and haven't done that research yet. And yet you are over here comparing non inflation adjusted ink and oil costs and how machinery replaced in 2004 has the same efficiency as the new machinery. That cuts in headcount aren't anything and if anything are counteracted by inflated salaries (which I am sure you'll probably find out have lagged behind inflation). That computing hasn't touched the newspaper industry in any meaningful way.

 

But YEAH, you really were only focused on convincing me that inflation exists, not at all that the costs of production have not only not decreased but INCREASED. 🙄

 

I'll point you towards your example and leave you to continue going round and round with this.

 

15 hours ago, Einstein said:

Maybe this will help @What a Tuelunderstand. 
 

Pretend you have a company that has $1,000,000 of expenses per year and 500,000 of that is salaries.

Automation comes along, making 90% of your ENTIRE workforce obsolete. 

 

What is 90% of 500,000? $450,000

 

You just laid off 90% of your employees and saved 450k. 

 

Now your expenses are down to $550,000.

 

Then inflation comes along and everything costs 2.4x more.

 

What is $550,000 x 2.4?  

 

It’s $1,320,000.

 

You're now paying $1,320,000.

 

So you reduced your workforce by 90%, but still pay more…

 

Are you starting to understand how inflation makes things cost more?

 

It is more like:

 

$1,000,000 x 2.4 inflation equals $2,400,000 in costs without the efficiency improvements.

$550,000 x 2.4 inflation equals $1,320,000 in costs with the efficiency improvements.

 

Inflation happens either way however ultimately the cost of production DECLINES.

Edited July 10, 2023 by What a Tuel

[teef]

32 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

I have never posted my home. Feel free to link the post you're talking about. Of course by that point you'll realize it wasn't me. 

nah.  

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, teef said:

nah.  

 

That's what I figured.

[teef]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

That's what I figured.

no one believes you.  no one cares.  

[Einstein]

Just now, teef said:

no one believes you.  no one cares.  

 

Hard to find a post that doesn't exist.

[teef]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

Hard to find a post that doesn't exist.

who is to say you didn't delete something.  you're completely untrustworthy.  you've called me out for things that never occurred...did you not.  nothing is genuine.  it's ok.  if it's fun and makes you feel better on a message board, please have at it.

[Einstein]

4 minutes ago, teef said:

who is to say you didn't delete something. 

 

There would be quotes from other posters that I couldn't delete. It didn't exist. 
I apologize about making whatever I made up about you. I don't even remember what you're speaking of, but it's clearly hurting you, so I apologize regardless. 

[Chandler#81]

I had a Buffalo Evening News paper route as a teenager. Started at $.35/wk and grew to $.65/Week when I gave it up. It was bigger and had much better writers. 
 

$28.99?? Highway Robbery, GOTDAMMIT!

 

[teef]

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

There would be quotes from other posters that I couldn't delete. It didn't exist. 
I apologize about making whatever I made up about you. I don't even remember what you're speaking of, but it's clearly hurting you, so I apologize regardless. 

so you posted pics of how you decorate someone else's house for christmas?