Change in price of Spydercos in 2020?

[MacLaren]

I'll always support Spyderco for a number of reasons, regardless of the prices go up a bit each or every other year.
Sal does his employees really well, and that ain't cheap
Sal offers the most steel choices out there. CPM 10V alone - I mean, who else does CPM 10V lol? Right?
The main reason I'll always support Spyderco is because I TRUST Spyderco. Whatever they do, you can bet it's for a good reason.

[awa54]

I hate that we have to see this convo every year. It's inflation and it'll never stop. The only thing that stays the same price is cans of Arizona tea.

...and the dollar amount on my paychecks. Not sure how many others here suffer from wage stagnation, but my pay hasn't gone up in the last five years, this reality can definitely affect a buyer's perspective on price increases!

But that's not Spyderco's problem and I'd much rather skip one or two knife purchases in a year than see them either go out of business, or make cheap knives like so many other companies.

[jdw]

Spyderco is truly one of the most iconic personal brands in my life. Sal/Spyderco understood cultural competence when it wasn't even an issue. I don't believe in blind faith but I have seen good people win and still be true to their ethics. Thank you.

[Doeswhateveraspidercan]

If Spyderco is holding prices 99% but dealers are making a 10% bump in MAP the consumers are losing by the highest margin. At least that's how I see it. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who won't soon be making 10% more than they were this last year.

I hate that MAP has really altered competition among knife retailers, I used to buy pretty heavily from 1 site (it was Cutlery Shoppe), now I'm looking at a good 6 or 8 sites to see who has it in stock when I want it. If they don't have it, I'm shopping at less known sites who I never would have bought from before. I'm paying the same price everywhere, so I gamble on service just to get the knife when I want it. I actually can't remember the last time I bought from CS, they seem to get new items later than many other sites now. I'd prefer to support a dealer I know had treated me well (with price and service) in the past and reward them with loyalty. I'm failing to see how MAP deserves a bump again. It's out of line with inflation and the Amazon argument isn't an argument anymore if Spyderco isn't dealing to them directly. Amazon now probably sells Spydercos based on delivery speed and ease of shopping rather than price.

I also feel like Chinese competition is only strengthened by this move. I've bought a few really well made Chinese knives this year that were easy decisions based on price, materials and quantity.

Spydies were more based on planning ahead for models I really had a strong interest in as users, and some were exclusive runs I may or may not have actually been able to buy due to Sprint run frenzy. I'd say the exclusive run mania and subsequent flipping of the past couple years has been a source of frustration and a net negative for me. Limited runs seem to be extra limited these days and that's just not fun for a lot of us. I can't always be available at 11:00 Central time and lucky enough to get on before the site crashes, I have a job that takes priority.

I may end up getting knives here and there at the seconds sale when I can make it and dwindling my online Spydie purchases to just a couple per year. All in all, I own way more Spyderco knives than any person needs, but I'm buying fewer and fewer each year. This all seems really negative and I've wandered a bit and I apologize, but it's my view from here.

Can’t say I disagree with most of this post. Rising costs can only be delt with two ways though.

1. Pass on the increase along the supply chain because remember retailers have increased expenses as well as every part of distribution.

2. Continue to sell at the same price for newly produced items and sell yourself out of business.

I will however say that those raising their prices on stock already purchased at last years or the year before rate are getting a bonus at the cost or the buyer.

[Doeswhateveraspidercan]

I am going to say it for like 1000th time, but you US guys should really take a look at european prices.
For plain Jane Military, the lowest price I found is 191€, give or take 212 USD. Usually they are around 210€.....
It could be a lot worse, you could live in Europe

Blame your misfortune on the circumstances of your birth, my ancestors left Europe long, long ago. After reading this I thought thanks you made the right choice hundreds of years ago.

[bearfacedkiller]

I am going to say it for like 1000th time, but you US guys should really take a look at european prices.
For plain Jane Military, the lowest price I found is 191€, give or take 212 USD. Usually they are around 210€.....
It could be a lot worse, you could live in Europe

If I had to pay European prices I probably wouldn’t be here on this forum right now.

If MAP is working for spyderco then I am happy. :)

[dan31]

Costs go up for everyone in the supply chain. It’s only fair to see a small increase. We are lucky to have such high value products for a fair price. I think the newly adjusted MAP is still a great value. I’m still thinking the ZDP-189 products a even greater value given the cost of materials.

[MacLaren]

I hate that we have to see this convo every year. It's inflation and it'll never stop. The only thing that stays the same price is cans of Arizona tea.

...and the dollar amount on my paychecks. Not sure how many others here suffer from wage stagnation, but my pay hasn't gone up in the last five years, this reality can definitely affect a buyer's perspective on price increases!

But that's not Spyderco's problem and I'd much rather skip one or two knife purchases in a year than see them either go out of business, or make cheap knives like so many other companies.

You said a real mouthful about wages not going up.
It's high time they do. Gas as well as food and housing sure have risen over the past five years.....

[Slash]

Be prepared for EVERYTHING to be a lot more expensive due to IMO 2020

[Larry_Mott]

I wonder if anyone has done the maths how many % of your paycheck it took to buy a Delica 20 years ago vs today?

[Evil D]

I will however say that those raising their prices on stock already purchased at last years or the year before rate are getting a bonus at the cost or the buyer.

I bet there's a rush of orders from dealers before the end of the year for this exact reason.

[sal]

I believe that the stagnation of wages is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The question is why and how?

sal

[yablanowitz]

There isn't a good way. Raising wages increases costs, which is passed on in higher prices, which offsets increased wages. As long as the population continues to rise this will continue.

[JonLeBlanc]

Seconded, there is no good way at the macroeconomic level. Also, within firms, the only good way is to increase sales revenue, productivity, and profitability. And as an aside, because there tends to be a lot of confusion among the general public on this issue, increasing wages does not lead to inflation; inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply.

[sal]

There isn't a good way. Raising wages increases costs, which is passed on in higher prices, which offsets increased wages. As long as the population continues to rise this will continue.

Interesting perspective. You think that increased population is part of the equation. Please explain?

sal

[sal]

Seconded, there is no good way at the macroeconomic level. Also, within firms, the only good way is to increase sales revenue, productivity, and profitability. And as an aside, because there tends to be a lot of confusion among the general public on this issue, increasing wages does not lead to inflation; inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply.

Also an interesting perspective. You think if we stop adding money to the population, it will affect wages? Please explain?

sal

[captnvegtble]

Seconded, there is no good way at the macroeconomic level. Also, within firms, the only good way is to increase sales revenue, productivity, and profitability. And as an aside, because there tends to be a lot of confusion among the general public on this issue, increasing wages does not lead to inflation; inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply.

Also an interesting perspective. You think if we stop adding money to the population, it will affect wages? Please explain?

sal

I don't want to speak for JonLeBlanc, but I think he's saying that the Federal Reserve prints more money which causes inflation (not necessarily related to increasing wages), but the increased inflation causes products to be more expensive, and employers ideally give a cost of living increase that at least matches inflation (otherwise over time employees essentially suffer a relative cut in pay). It's inflation (controlled by the Federal Reserve) that partly justifies increasing wages over time.

[JonLeBlanc]

Seconded, there is no good way at the macroeconomic level. Also, within firms, the only good way is to increase sales revenue, productivity, and profitability. And as an aside, because there tends to be a lot of confusion among the general public on this issue, increasing wages does not lead to inflation; inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply.

Also an interesting perspective. You think if we stop adding money to the population, it will affect wages? Please explain?

sal

Oh thanks for asking, no I simply meant that when the central bank (in our case, the Federal Reserve) "creates" money (that is, prints it) AND commercial banks "create" money (that is, through the multiplier effect on M1-M3 generated by commercial loans), the supply of money increases, and this increased supply means that each dollar (or pound, or yen etc) is worth less than before. This is inflation; inflation is not caused by increased wages. Now, data from the Federal Reserve through about 2015 does indicate that there is a positive relationship between inflation and real wages, but this is not causation, it is correlation. Again, inflation is a technical term that refers to the increase in the money supply.

And, my apologies Mr Sal, to answer your question more directly, if we "stop adding money," in other words, if we tighten our monetary policy, the likely near-term effect would be increased unemployment. Cf. the result of Margaret Thatcher's (absolutely necessary) monetary tightening in the 1980s in the UK. Increased unemployment CAN lead to lower wage growth, but again this is in the near-term, and the "good effect" of lower inflation (the result of tight monetary policy) generally leads to better economic performance in the long term. And better economic performance is the only good way, to bring the discussion back to your original question, of raising wages at the macroeconomic level. Raising the minimum wage simply won't do it, sorry trade unions.

[sal]

Very interesting point of view. Thanx. So, how do we solve the wage problem?

Realistically, we give regular raises, bonuses, and other spiffs. But the cost of doing business is rising faster than the increase in wages pretty much throughout the country. I believe that somewhere, there is a solution, it's just more elusive than it might appear.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I think it's relevant.

sal

[JonLeBlanc]

Very interesting point of view. Thanx. So, how do we solve the wage problem?

Realistically, we give regular raises, bonuses, and other spiffs. But the cost of doing business is rising faster than the increase in wages pretty much throughout the country. I believe that somewhere, there is a solution, it's just more elusive than it might appear.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I think it's relevant.

sal

Through better economic performance (not by passing laws), both at the macro level and within firms.