Cosplaying With A Disability Shouldn't Require Extra Bravery

[Liana Kerzner]

Cosplaying With A Disability Shouldn't Require Extra Bravery

Too many people make the assumption that disabled people are included in media because of their disability, not that their disability is only one part of their physical reality.

Read Full Article

 

[Jake Martinez]

People are overly sensitive because of the amount of outright pandering and tokenism being done in the media these days. It's like how even if you love Christmas, you get annoyed to hell that every year it seems like the Christmas decorations keep going up earlier and earlier. There is this deep suspicion that you are being manipulated. That's not necessarily the case here, but what you're seeing is more cynicism on behalf of people without fear of being shamed for being tactless. Basically - the internet in a nutshell.

I happened to see a vlog that Abby did and I think she has the right attitude. As she says, she's lived 20 years being "the person in the wheelchair" so her skin is pretty thick about all this. I really think this is a state that most people should aspire to, after all isn't it somewhat sad to think that your emotional wellbeing should be at the mercy of anonymous people on the internet that you don't know? That seems far too fragile to be good for a human being. I also kind of wonder why you needed to point out the "difficulties" that people in wheelchairs face, I mean - we all know right? Or at least, I would hope we all have some idea that it's not particularly easy? This feels pedantic, like you are lecturing the reader about something that most of us have some idea about already.

The current state of things means that a person with a disability does have to put up with more unpleasantness to attend conventions, so they do need more fortitude than the rest of us. But the fact that these things require people with disabilities to be tougher and more patient isn't a story of personal success. It's a story of society's failure to treat people with disabilities like people.

I don't know that I agree with this. Objectively, society has never been more friendly to disabled people as it is currently and I am challenged to think of what more can actually be accomplished on a big scale. There is a point where you have to admit that yes, disabled people do have it pretty shitty sometimes and that's okay. I'm sure people can individually point out to things that may be nicer, but then when can't we all point out to things that we would like to improve, and indeed I'm not saying ignore obvious areas of improvement - I'm merely challenging the idea that we exist on this polar binary where we have a current state that is "terrible!!!" and a future state that is "awesome and perfect!" because I don't think either of those things are true.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

"The current state of things means that a person with a disability does have to put up with more unpleasantness to attend conventions, so they do need more fortitude than the rest of us. But the fact that these things require people with disabilities to be tougher and more patient isn't a story of personal success. It's a story of society's failure to treat people with disabilities like people."

Sorry, but I'm dogpiling on this one as well.

The dictionary definition of "disability":
"1: a condition (such as an illness or an injury) that damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities
2: the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way : the condition of being disabled"

Diabled people are being treated like people who have disabilities, which they do. A disability, by its definition, means that you are unable to perform certain actions that a non-disabled person can.

Also, you simply can't have it both ways: you can't insist that we don't give disabled people any sort of special treatment and treat them just like everyone else, but then also demand we spend millions of dollars to treat them differently than everyone else. It's like schools that give kids with learning disabilities extra time on tests but then insist they are "just treating them like everyone else". No, if you were treating them like everyone else then they'd have the same 50 minutes to complete the exam AS everyone else.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"The current state of things means that a person with a disability does have to put up with more unpleasantness to attend conventions, so they do need more fortitude than the rest of us. But the fact that these things require people with disabilities to be tougher and more patient isn't a story of personal success. It's a story of society's failure to treat people with disabilities like people."

Sorry, but I'm dogpiling on this one as well.

The dictionary definition of "disability":
"1: a condition (such as an illness or an injury) that damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities
2: the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way : the condition of being disabled"

Diabled people are being treated like people who have disabilities, which they do. A disability, by its definition, means that you are unable to perform certain actions that a non-disabled person can.

Also, you simply can't have it both ways: you can't insist that we don't give disabled people any sort of special treatment and treat them just like everyone else, but then also demand we spend millions of dollars to treat them differently than everyone else. It's like schools that give kids with learning disabilities extra time on tests but then insist they are "just treating them like everyone else". No, if you were treating them like everyone else then they'd have the same 50 minutes to complete the exam AS everyone else.

It is not equal treatment as well though to give them the same amount of time due to having to do much more than everyone else to perform the same actions due to their disability. IF you required everyone else to have to go through what the disabled person does to perform the same actions, then it would be equal, but rather than attempt to create equality by making everyone have the same level of difficulty as the disabled person has, they just allow them more time.

Sometimes equal does not always mean " the exact same". For example, IF your favorite pie is cherry and mine is apple, you should have a slice of cherry and I should have a slice of apple for us to equally have a slice of our favorite pie. It would not be equal to force you to eat apple or me to eat cherry as then one of us would not be having a slice of our favorite pie. It is not always as simple as " Everyone is allowed this amount of time to complete this task" since not everyone has to go through the same processes to complete the same task. For example, if they are severely dyslexic, they are having to actually do much more work than everyone who is not in order to complete the same assignment. That is not equal unless you made everyone else have to do as much work as the person with dyslexia in order to have it actually equal. IF they wrote all of the letters backwards for all the other students to reverse to complete the same assignment they would be doing the same amount of work as someone with dyslexia, but instead of making them work harder they just allow the dyslexic student more time, or other options to complete their assignments as even though that is still not actually equal work for the student, it is still more work for that student than the other students, but it is at least giving them a way to complete the assignment when they would have none otherwise. They are however, equally allowing them the time it takes to complete the assignment taking into consideration the amount of work that is involved for both the dyslexic student and the non dyslexic students to be able to do so. Non dyslexic students are doing less work to accomplish the same task, therefor require less time to do so.

 

[Silvanus]

Also, you simply can't have it both ways: you can't insist that we don't give disabled people any sort of special treatment and treat them just like everyone else, but then also demand we spend millions of dollars to treat them differently than everyone else.

You're being asked to spend millions of dollars?

You've used "we" to refer to completely different entities, here, to make it seem as if there's inconsistency when there really isn't. We-- other people on the street, colleagues, friends, Romans, countrymen-- are being asked to treat disabled people like everybody else in general, unless an exception is clearly indicated. Some specific organisations are being asked to invest more money in ensuring that disabled people can live comfortably.

There's no inconsistency there.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Also, you simply can't have it both ways: you can't insist that we don't give disabled people any sort of special treatment and treat them just like everyone else, but then also demand we spend millions of dollars to treat them differently than everyone else.

You're being asked to spend millions of dollars?

You've used "we" to refer to completely different entities, here, to make it seem as if there's inconsistency when there really isn't. We-- other people on the street, colleagues, friends, Romans, countrymen-- are being asked to treat disabled people like everybody else in general, unless an exception is clearly indicated. Some specific organisations are being asked to invest more money in ensuring that disabled people can live comfortably.

There's no inconsistency there.

I don't think you are understanding his point (and granted, it was rambling).

Suffice it to say, the fact that we do as a society specially craft laws and spend resources to cater to disabled people means that they are in effect, not really like everyone else.

Of course, I think he's misinterpreting what Liana is aiming for which is simply don't be condescending to disabled people, not necessarily consider them "just like everyone else!" when obviously they are not. Although most people have enough common sense, some people do interpret that later sentiment in an extreme sort of way, to the point where even acknowledging that someone is disabled is deemed somehow offensive (odd, since I'm sure most disabled people know they are disabled).

Really, I think it just comes down to not being patronizing. Imagine if someone came up and said, "Oh you poor thing, what a shame you were born black!" I bet most people would lose their shit at that. Disabled people have to put up with varying degrees of that on a daily basis. I do think that this is what Liana was trying to get across, but she could have been sharper with her language (like I said, I believe it's more about not being condescending than pretending disabilities don't mark someone as different).

 

[Sylveria]

Sadly, in the hyper-sensitive yet completely self-contradictory PC culture that's been created lately, people like Miss Green are going to be the ones that get the harshest end of the stick. Tokenism is becoming more rampant than it ever was, but despite it being obvious tokenism, it's being praised as being "inclusive". So, if you want to cover someone like Abby, not because she's disabled, but because of what she does while also happening to be disabled, its unfortunately going to be assumed by some that it's a token inclusion. That's the environment the tumblr mentality has created. People feel obligated to shove in as much diversity as possible and most people are seeing that forced diversity as what it is: forced. So, the end result is someone like Abby's work isn't going to be properly appreciated because of the appearance that she was included cause a quota needed to be met rather than what she did was actually good.

I've maintained that over the past few years, the "BE DIVERSE YOU SHITLORDS" attitude of the social-justice minded groups is just making the environment worse for the groups they claim to be "fighting" for and the fact Liana needed to write this article to clarify that Abby's cosplaying is exemplary in its own right demonstrates that.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I've been having this discussion funnily enough as Halloween is coming along and all my American friends are asking 'So what will you be doing for Halloween?'.
My disability requires I be in a walking frame. My running has been considered 'skating' and I have the dexterity of a Dwarven Defender. It gets looks obviously, but if I was to talk to you sitting in a chair you may have difficulty telling I've been inflicted with The Palsy.
So what does this have to do with disabled people and cosplay?
I just want to be treated like a person. That's all. For the most part that's the case but you do get people who make assumptions. I can't blame them. It's not something you see everyday. I can deal with it to be honest, it's a part of me I've lived with my entire life.
As for me, I'd want to cosplay someone who can sorta work with my disability (recent example being Kaz or, dare I say, Huey (eugh) from MGSV).

My disability is just a thing. It's something to look at but in no way does it define me. I don't want people making exceptions because I could win a dance competition by trying to walk to the bar. To say that we need a thick skin because of the 'failures of society' is silly. It's a DISABILITY, and it will be different, strange, even weird. It should be remembered but it shouldn't be the biggest part to worry about.
Point out my shitty costume design, that's all you need to do.

 

[Gorrath]

I've been having this discussion funnily enough as Halloween is coming along and all my American friends are asking 'So what will you be doing for Halloween?'.
My disability requires I be in a walking frame. My running has been considered 'skating' and I have the dexterity of a Dwarven Defender. It gets looks obviously, but if I was to talk to you sitting in a chair you may have difficulty telling I've been inflicted with The Palsy.
So what does this have to do with disabled people and cosplay?
I just want to be treated like a person. That's all. For the most part that's the case but you do get people who make assumptions. I can't blame them. It's not something you see everyday. I can deal with it to be honest, it's a part of me I've lived with my entire life.
As for me, I'd want to cosplay someone who can sorta work with my disability (recent example being Kaz or, dare I say, Huey (eugh) from MGSV).

My disability is just a thing. It's something to look at but in no way does it define me. I don't want people making exceptions because I could win a dance competition by trying to walk to the bar. To say that we need a thick skin because of the 'failures of society' is silly. It's a DISABILITY, and it will be different, strange, even weird. It should be remembered but it shouldn't be the biggest part to worry about.
Point out my shitty costume design, that's all you need to do.

I love the humor in your post, I honestly loled. I also agree with your point. There's a big emphasis on physical disabilities because they are easier to see and recognize. People like myself who have no physical disability, but who had to do major cognitive therapy to learn to read and do math, get treated like everyone else. I am not and was not defined in any way by the immense difficulties I had in learning these abstractions even though they had a major effect on my life. No one considered me "brave" because I had to spend three or four times as long as anyone else reading, writing or solving mathematical problems. I'd never have asked for and certainly would not have been granted exceptions in any of my classes for more time or other benefits because of my difficulties.

I just worked through it, completed my cognitive therapy and came out the better for it. I still read and do math at a snail's pace but my accuracy in reading comprehension and solving equations is top notch. I would never have wanted to be known as, "that slow kid" or as "that guy who can't read." And I'd never want anyone to act as if I needed special exceptions or act as if I weren't capable. If someone had decided I needed a special award for getting the same good grades as any of my peers I would have considered it condescending and annoying. As you say, having my teachers understand my cognitive problems was nice and useful but having them act as if they defined who I was and make a bunch of special rules for me would have been awful.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Sometimes equal does not always mean " the exact same". For example, IF your favorite pie is cherry and mine is apple, you should have a slice of cherry and I should have a slice of apple for us to equally have a slice of our favorite pie. It would not be equal to force you to eat apple or me to eat cherry as then one of us would not be having a slice of our favorite pie. It is not always as simple as " Everyone is allowed this amount of time to complete this task" since not everyone has to go through the same processes to complete the same task.

I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of giving people with learning disabilities more time on exams (I don't pretend to be an expert on learning disabilities, and thus I have no opinion on the justification of such a policy), I'm just saying that one shouldn't claim that everyone is being treated the same when they aren't being treated the same.

And the pie example doesn't really apply in the case of providing accommodations for the disabled, because it assumes that the cherry pie and apple pie have the same cost, but they don't. If you need to install an elevator instead of stairs in order to give disabled people access to something, the elevator will cost more than the stairs (the vast majority of the time). Since a person in a wheelchair (the majority of the time) is going to take up more raw space than a person sitting in a seat, if you need to remove multiple seats from a bus to provide room for the disabled, this means less seats for everyone else (and potentially less money in fares for the bus). Bear in mind I'm not saying that either of these things are wrong, just that they simply aren't interchangeable in the way a piece of apple pie is with a piece of cherry pie (mmmmmm, pie).

Also, you simply can't have it both ways: you can't insist that we don't give disabled people any sort of special treatment and treat them just like everyone else, but then also demand we spend millions of dollars to treat them differently than everyone else.

You're being asked to spend millions of dollars?

You've used "we" to refer to completely different entities, here, to make it seem as if there's inconsistency when there really isn't. We-- other people on the street, colleagues, friends, Romans, countrymen-- are being asked to treat disabled people like everybody else in general, unless an exception is clearly indicated. Some specific organisations are being asked to invest more money in ensuring that disabled people can live comfortably.

There's no inconsistency there.

By 'we', in this case, I'm referring to anyone whom Liana is insisting (or, at the very least, desiring) that they spend their money to provide additional accommodations for the disabled, be it businesses, individuals, Governments, etc. In the case of Governments, then 'we' does, in fact, include me, but this would lead into a whole different discussion on the ADA which I won't get into.

Also, we're not talking about "living comfortably" here, or living anything really. This is not about people having access to food, or medical care, or a home, or a paycheck, this is about providing accommodations so people can dress up in costumes and go to a comic book convention. Her opinion is that convention centers and what not should do more (read: spend more money) for the disabled. Ok then, got it. My point is that when you say "we need to spend more money to accommodate a particular sub-set of people", then you are, in fact, asking for people to be treated differently.

 

[Abomination]

get transit for attendees in wheelchairs staying at convention hotels! We're not talking about small amounts of money. It can be as much as eighty dollars a day. Over the course of a three day convention, a person in a wheelchair might spend two hundred and forty dollars an able-bodied person doesn't have to shell out. That's... that's just bullshit!

The only thing bullshit here is that line of reasoning.

Convention hotels? As in hotels that are literally attached to the convention? No extra payment is needed because there's no need for additional transit.

Hotels that are NOT physically attached to the convention? The convention isn't responsible for the transit functions (or lack thereof) of the city its located in.

All those costs should be paid by the taxpayer or the disabled person themselves. Should McDonalds give a disabled subsidy on its meals due to transit costs of those arriving at its restaurant? Why only conventions? Let's apply it to every sporting event, cinema, and any other means of entertainment... no, because that's ludicrous as those are entertainment pieces and considered luxuries.

It will also breed contempt towards disabled people as customers because they're no longer a customer, they're a COST to business. Why the hell would I ever want to cater to a demographic that, should they attend my function, objectively cost me money and thus be less profitable to the point of loss?

 

[Silvanus]

By 'we', in this case, I'm referring to anyone whom Liana is insisting (or, at the very least, desiring) that they spend their money to provide additional accommodations for the disabled, be it businesses, individuals, Governments, etc. In the case of Governments, then 'we' does, in fact, include me, but this would lead into a whole different discussion on the ADA which I won't get into.

Also, we're not talking about "living comfortably" here, or living anything really. This is not about people having access to food, or medical care, or a home, or a paycheck, this is about providing accommodations so people can dress up in costumes and go to a comic book convention. Her opinion is that convention centers and what not should do more (read: spend more money) for the disabled. Ok then, got it. My point is that when you say "we need to spend more money to accommodate a particular sub-set of people", then you are, in fact, asking for people to be treated differently.

--By specific organisations, not you. Treated differently so as to allow a (roughly) equivalent experience. That is not inconsistent.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Sometimes equal does not always mean " the exact same". For example, IF your favorite pie is cherry and mine is apple, you should have a slice of cherry and I should have a slice of apple for us to equally have a slice of our favorite pie. It would not be equal to force you to eat apple or me to eat cherry as then one of us would not be having a slice of our favorite pie. It is not always as simple as " Everyone is allowed this amount of time to complete this task" since not everyone has to go through the same processes to complete the same task.

I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of giving people with learning disabilities more time on exams (I don't pretend to be an expert on learning disabilities, and thus I have no opinion on the justification of such a policy), I'm just saying that one shouldn't claim that everyone is being treated the same when they aren't being treated the same.

And the pie example doesn't really apply in the case of providing accommodations for the disabled, because it assumes that the cherry pie and apple pie have the same cost, but they don't. If you need to install an elevator instead of stairs in order to give disabled people access to something, the elevator will cost more than the stairs (the vast majority of the time). Since a person in a wheelchair (the majority of the time) is going to take up more raw space than a person sitting in a seat, if you need to remove multiple seats from a bus to provide room for the disabled, this means less seats for everyone else (and potentially less money in fares for the bus). Bear in mind I'm not saying that either of these things are wrong, just that they simply aren't interchangeable in the way a piece of apple pie is with a piece of cherry pie (mmmmmm, pie).

Also, you simply can't have it both ways: you can't insist that we don't give disabled people any sort of special treatment and treat them just like everyone else, but then also demand we spend millions of dollars to treat them differently than everyone else.

You're being asked to spend millions of dollars?

You've used "we" to refer to completely different entities, here, to make it seem as if there's inconsistency when there really isn't. We-- other people on the street, colleagues, friends, Romans, countrymen-- are being asked to treat disabled people like everybody else in general, unless an exception is clearly indicated. Some specific organisations are being asked to invest more money in ensuring that disabled people can live comfortably.

There's no inconsistency there.

By 'we', in this case, I'm referring to anyone whom Liana is insisting (or, at the very least, desiring) that they spend their money to provide additional accommodations for the disabled, be it businesses, individuals, Governments, etc. In the case of Governments, then 'we' does, in fact, include me, but this would lead into a whole different discussion on the ADA which I won't get into.

Also, we're not talking about "living comfortably" here, or living anything really. This is not about people having access to food, or medical care, or a home, or a paycheck, this is about providing accommodations so people can dress up in costumes and go to a comic book convention. Her opinion is that convention centers and what not should do more (read: spend more money) for the disabled. Ok then, got it. My point is that when you say "we need to spend more money to accommodate a particular sub-set of people", then you are, in fact, asking for people to be treated differently.

It does not assume that the pies have the same cost, cost can be irrelevant to equality as well,considering the pies can be drastically different in cost, as not every measure of equal is determined by cost. Cost is a separate invention of man, not the primary measure of equality. Cost is what we choose to pay for something, not the actual measure of it's usefulness or importance to society. Stairs can cost more than an elevator, depending on what people choose to pay for them ( the elevator at my brothers airport hangar costs less than the staircase in my friends home), and that is irrelevant to it being considered equal in terms of access. Yes, they are interchangeable as cost is not what is being measured. "Cost" is not something set as a constant, or the measure of equality, it is an ever changing invention of man.

If you were really going to treat them equal, you would reverse the roles. For example,If the majority of people were dyslexic and we wrote everything to make it easier for those who are dyslexic to read it, catering to the majority, making everyone who is not dyslexic have to work harder, would it not be the handicap to not be dyslexic and needing to give those who are not dyslexic more time to reverse everything so they can read it? The amount of time given should reflect the amount of work that has to be done to accomplish that task. Considering someone who has to reverse all of the letters before they can read it has to do that much extra work, they should be given the time to do so. If the majority were in wheelchairs and required the same amount of space, it would not be even considered " giving them more space" it would just be giving them adequate space. You see, that is all they are receiving now with " making space for wheelchairs" is adequate space, not extra. They are not actually receiving special treatment for receiving adequate space, they are being treated the same as everyone else who also is receiving adequate space. Trying to make them accept less than adequate space to accommodate their wheelchair would not be treating them equally at all. Providing each student with adequate space is equality, not " special treatment".

 

[Abomination]

Cost is a separate invention of man, not the primary measure of equality. Cost is what we choose to pay for something, not the actual measure of it's usefulness or importance to society.

No, cost is the value of an item as determined by those who labored to produce it. It is based on many factors, but most of all scarcity.

Cost is a real factor in our life, in spite of our present excess by comparison to years past.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Cost is what we choose to pay for something, not the actual measure of it's usefulness or importance to society.

I wish. If that were true I'd walk down to the Masserati dealer right now and 'choose' to pay $10 for a new car.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Cost is a separate invention of man, not the primary measure of equality. Cost is what we choose to pay for something, not the actual measure of it's usefulness or importance to society.

No, cost is the value of an item as determined by those who labored to produce it. It is based on many factors, but most of all scarcity.

Cost is a real factor in our life, in spite of our present excess by comparison to years past.

LOL.. No rarely are the ones who labored to produce it ALSO the ones who profit the most from it. Yes, scarcity plays a role, but that is not the same as the product actually being scarce due to necessity. More often than not, it is scarce due to those profiting from it the most creating artificial scarcity through manipulation rather than there necessarily being an actual shortage of the item. We can actually produce MANY more luxury goods than we do currently, we do not due to not enough people in the world being able to afford them. They are not necessarily high priced due to quality, scarcity, or demand.. No many are created for the purpose exclusivity, limited by blocking competition and marketed with the illusion of gandeur. Making people think they " need or want" something is not difficult with marketing, limiting the supply side with copywrite and patents and driving up the costs to ridiculous amount by shutting down competition. That is the reality of our economy, not scarcity.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Cost is what we choose to pay for something, not the actual measure of it's usefulness or importance to society.

I wish. If that were true I'd walk down to the Masserati dealer right now and 'choose' to pay $10 for a new car.

The reason you cannot is that other people choose to pay more. If merchants cannot sell items at the price they wish to, they will eventually lower prices until they reach a price they can. If it is still not profitable at that point, they try to break even and not resupply the products that lost them money. Since there are many others willing to pay more than you are for that product, the price will remain high. They cannot sell something at a price if people are not willing to pay it. If people refused to pay their prices, they would sell nothing and go out of business, be unable to pay there own bills, and often, they do take a loss when they do not have enough buyers because they still have bills to pay and deadlines to meet. Cost is what we choose to pay for it, even if that means merchants may take a loss or go out of business due to it.

 

[Abomination]

More often than not, it is scarce due to those profiting from it the most creating artificial scarcity through manipulation rather than there necessarily being an actual shortage of the item.

More often than not?

Bullshit.

Come on, you're just banging some romantic drum here. Cost of production is a real and actual thing.

Transport is the key reason why excess can not be granted to everyone. Children starving in Africa while people grow obese in the United States is due to cost of production in transport and storage. Combined with those markets possessing minimal buying power does not encourage investment in those trade lanes either.

While yes, the desire for profit does impact price - so does production costs in equal measure. That's why so many factories are in China and South East Asia - infrastructure with low wages. Low cost of production resulting in greatest possible profitability.

While an iPhone individually may only cost Apple about $40 to make in parts and assembly labour it costs far more in R&D and transport. Marketing, advertisement, service plans, customer care - all are costs in production. All require labour (and at times skilled labour - a SCARCE resource, which is actually competitive) and that is the driving factor of the price of the item.

In fact, in modern society we are finding more and more that we DO need Smartphones as we are growing reliant upon the application they bring to modern business.

No business aims to "break even". The objective is profit, otherwise why work? It's not about survival, it's about growth. If a business isn't making profit it won't continue.

No business is going to slit its own throat to adopt a $80 transit cost for disabled folk unless it can see business sense in doing so. If the cost will return greater revenue and increase profits. But to call them immoral or decadent for not doing so? That's just pathetic.

 

[McElroy]

Providing each student with adequate space is equality, not " special treatment".

While it doesn't make this not true, often enough it's required that people raise their hands and demand that adequate space specially for them. A true example: a handicapped guy (he was either blind or deaf, can't remember which) registered for an adult education class. However, thinking there was no need for special treatment, he didn't mention he has an assistant accompanying him. The guy ended up not attending the class since his assistant couldn't be accommodated for.

More OT: Here handicapped people get financial support specifically for culture/entertainment events (though it might only be selective free tickets in some places) and also some of their transportation is covered especially in their home area/town. But in the end not everyone runs a charity, and your passion might get stopped by a wall, or in this case, stairs.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

More often than not, it is scarce due to those profiting from it the most creating artificial scarcity through manipulation rather than there necessarily being an actual shortage of the item.

More often than not?

Bullshit.

Come on, you're just banging some romantic drum here. Cost of production is a real and actual thing.

Transport is the key reason why excess can not be granted to everyone. Children starving in Africa while people grow obese in the United States is due to cost of production in transport and storage. Combined with those markets possessing minimal buying power does not encourage investment in those trade lanes either.

While yes, the desire for profit does impact price - so does production costs in equal measure. That's why so many factories are in China and South East Asia - infrastructure with low wages. Low cost of production resulting in greatest possible profitability.

While an iPhone individually may only cost Apple about $40 to make in parts and assembly labour it costs far more in R&D and transport. Marketing, advertisement, service plans, customer care - all are costs in production. All require labour (and at times skilled labour - a SCARCE resource, which is actually competitive) and that is the driving factor of the price of the item.

In fact, in modern society we are finding more and more that we DO need Smartphones as we are growing reliant upon the application they bring to modern business.

No business aims to "break even". The objective is profit, otherwise why work? It's not about survival, it's about growth. If a business isn't making profit it won't continue.

No business is going to slit its own throat to adopt a $80 transit cost for disabled folk unless it can see business sense in doing so. If the cost will return greater revenue and increase profits. But to call them immoral or decadent for not doing so? That's just pathetic.

Not a "romantic drum" just the sad reality for most goods sold in the US. I have run multiple businesses, and never was the actual cost of what I sold determined primarily by the cost of production. It was primarily determined by what people are willing to pay for it. You only "break even" if you made choices that didn't pan out like you intended. Of course the objective is profit, and those who profit from it are at the top, not the laborers creating the goods. You profit most by getting top dollar for your goods, and you do not do that by allowing for cost of production to be the primary factor to determine the selling price. No, the selling price is much much more if you are doing it right and based on what people are willing to pay for the item.

Even when you are looking at discounters such as Walmart, they are often willing to go below production cost on items in order to beat out competition. Although they may take a loss on one item, they make up for it by getting the consumers to buy other items while they are there that more than make up for what they sold for under production costs. Production cost is important to the bottom line yes, but not the primary factor when setting your prices. My grandmother made dolls for Neiman Marcus, do you think production costs determined the cost of the goods sold there? Hardly.. they sell exclusivity the illusion that it is " best that money can buy", when in reality, my grandmother made and sold those same dolls she made for Neiman Marcus that they sold for $1000 at the flea market and elsewhere for under $100. That is the reality of most goods on the market. The reality is cheap labor by not paying those that create the goods enough to ever get ahead and huge markups so that those who profit most do not have to actually work as hard to do so. All you have to do is take a look at the diamond industry to see how this works in reality. Hell They even convinced people they needed them to get married just to create a demand, and shut down competition by all means necessary, not limited to, but including murder to keep the price high. There is nothing romantic about the way this works in reality or the history of how it came to be this way. I can think of quite a few names for it, but romantic would not be one of them.

Funny you bring up Apple, they would not be the best example of basing their prices on cost of production considering how much they actually overcharge people compared to the costs of production. Their prices are one based on what people are willing to pay for it, rather than what it costs to produce it by marketing apple products as "elite luxury goods" when yes, you can get better quality products elsewhere for less since no, it really doesn't cost that much to make them. That is why they
"Only the best.."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-most-profitable-company-2014-123037913.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30532463
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2602980/apple-attacked-over-worsening-factory-conditions-in-china.html
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workers-suicides-humiliation

Most profitable, yet were below even China's standards.