Re: "Make Money" in context

In article <3s3gd4$7ee@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, WONDERFULR <wonderfulr@aol.com> wrote: [...] >What many here seem to be saying is - "okay, charge money, but charge a
>lot less".
Yes. Absolutely.

>To them I reply - if you don't think the services are worth the money,
>don't buy them. The only people who continue are those individuals who
>paid for services, and liked them enough to continue to pay for more.
>
>Money itself seems quite a button here. Having it is "bad", getting it is
>"bad", wanting more of it is "bad" - all seem to be a common view on ars.
No, this is not true. Money is not bad, paying a lot of money for something is not bad. People pay a lot of money for cars, houses, college and medical operations. I see nothing wrong in any of those.

Cars are expensive to make; the materials are expensive and the manufacturing process is expensive. Makes perfect sense.

Houses are expensive. You have the property itself, you have the materials (quite a lot), you have to pay the people that built it. Makes perfect sense.

College is expensive. They have a lot of expenses; the property and buildings, food for the students, teaching materials (including computers and lab equipment, some of which is very expensive) and teachers' salaries. Makes perfect sense.

Operations are expensive. You have the building, an awful lot of equipment, an extra amount of cleaning to ensure a sterile environment (which includes throwing away many supplies after one use) and pay for doctors and nurses. Makes perfect sense.

Where's the extreme expense in Scientology? Staff pay? Please; we know how pitiful staff pay is. Building upkeep? I've seen some of the Orgs, there's nothing there that merits tens of thousands of dollars. Exotic equipment or a special environment? You got books and emeters and some paper and clay, and a couple PCs. Again, nothing worth the huge costs. Staff training? This is the snake swallowing its own tail - "it costs so much to deliver services because it costs so much to train people". Lower the price of training and that excuse evaporates.

The only valid "big expense" I see is advertising. You can't tell me that advertising alone makes up 90% of costs. If it does, whoever's in charge of advertising should be fired.

Where's the big expense? We've seen the cost sheets (someone care to repost the Bridge to OT8 FAQ?). It just doesn't add up.

[...] >Scientologists consider auditing to be a very valuable commodity. We
>exchange our money for the services.
Price should be a function both of value and expense. If the service is extremely valuable but very inexpensive to deliver, the price should be moderate to low. Instead the price is outrageously high; $1000 an hour for some services which cost next to nothing to deliver. Sounds to me like whoever is setting the prices is just plain greedy.

>If you have no reality on the wins - talking about the prices makes no
>sense.
If I have "reality on the wins", I can understand why people are willing to pay so much for it. If I have a cure for AIDS, I can understand people being willing to sell their homes, cars and wedding rings for it. Does that make it right?

RA

rogue@ccs.neu.edu (Rogue Agent/KoX/ACT Kha Khan/ARS Project Entheta IC)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.