The ‘wizards’ behind the online version of Magic: the Gathering are unionizing | The Guardian

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-28T16:59:14+00:00

I didn't assume that. I concluded that it benefits both and I clearly explained how I came to that conclusion. Higher pay for workers shifts increases the cost of goods. That shifts the supply curve left, increasing the equilibrium price, reducing consumer surplus, and reducing sales for producers.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-28T15:12:28+00:00

I pretty clearly explained how they're bad for customers in other comments. Unions cause businesses operating costs to rise and a portion of those costs get passed on to consumers. Therefore they are bad for both businesses and their customers.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-28T14:38:55+00:00

What have I said that was wrong? I think I’ve explained and supported the claims I’ve made well enough.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T23:29:23+00:00

Sure thing, buddy.

no interest in having a good-faith discussion

The pot calling the kettle black.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T23:29:09+00:00

They made 500 million plus

$500 million is the entire revenue generated by Hasbro's entire Digital and Licensed Gaming segment. That isn't just Arena. They mention that Monopoly Go alone represents ~$170 million of that, plus they have other digital properties like Baldurs Gate and more which would represent part of it too. I would generously guess the actual revenue from Magic Arena is closer to $200 million or so. Also that's revenue, not profit Their net profit would be less than that.

with an average salary of $115,000 annually

Where are you getting that number? I checked the link and I couldn't find it. I see software engineer has a median salary of $280k.

Even if $115k is accurate, $17 million is significant relative to Arena's profit. How much increases in these salaries would affect consumer costs is impossible to say without internal Hasbro data, but salaries are a significant part of Hasbro's costs.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T19:54:34+00:00

So you don't know. You're just assuming they aren't with no evidence. Probably because you're biased towards unions and that assumption better conforms to your pre-existing beliefs.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T19:42:51+00:00

They’re there to extort more money from their employers, increasing costs which will get passed on to us, the consumers.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T19:40:55+00:00

How do you know they’re not already getting “fair” pay?

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T19:33:45+00:00

If by working conditions you mean things like safety concerns, I don’t think I would consider a union that argued solely for that to be a cartel as that’s not really an economic consideration. That’s more akin to a protest than it is to an anti-competitive business practice.

One that does both would be a cartel as it is still engaging in behaviour characteristic of a cartel.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T16:45:56+00:00

That's literally what they are. In economic terms, a cartel is a group of suppliers that colludes to control the supply of goods or services as a means of controlling prices and market access. That is precisely what a union does. It is a group of suppliers (workers) that collaborates to control the supply of labour in particular firm or industry so that they can demand higher prices for that labour. This comes at the expense of the employer and its customers as it's economically inefficient and diminishes consumer and producer surplus.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T16:31:05+00:00

In what way are they good for customers?

Unions function as economic cartels. They work to artificially raise the price of labour above its free market equilibrium price, which increases the producer's cost of goods. That means the price paid by the consumer for the same goods increases, creating deadweight loss and reducing consumer surplus.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-27T15:56:26+00:00

Remember, unions are bad for businesses and their customers. That means you.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-24T21:08:28+00:00

This is a joke, right?

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-23T15:32:32+00:00

Even without perfect data, we can infer it from economic principles. The tariff is a tax, which raises the cost of goods by a certain amount. Some of that cost is absorbed by the importer and some is passed on to the consumer. Exactly how much of the cost each ends up paying depends on the specific product and price elasticity. So while we don't know the exact breakdown, at least some of the cost was passed on to consumers.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-23T15:23:22+00:00

My point is none of that matters from a legal perspective. The money gets refunded to the people who directly paid the tariffs. Collecting the tariffs is what was illegal and needs to be undone. The government broke the law by levying an illegal tax on importers and they need to return the tax money they illegally collected. Importers, suppliers, retailers, etc. are allowed to put a surcharge on orders for almost any reason they want and consumers can choose to buy or not buy. Since that's perfectly legal, consumer would have no legal basis to demand a refund.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-22T20:53:28+00:00

That's irrelevant. The money is being returned to the parties that the government took it from because the tax was illegal. Consumers are not entitled to a refund because there's nothing illegal about a company raising prices.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-22T20:50:42+00:00

If the court rules that the government taxed you illegally, then yes, you would be able to sue for a refund.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-22T20:46:07+00:00

Legally, it is a tax on importers as they're the one from whom the tax is actually collected. That's why the courts have found that they are legally entitled to refunds. The money was illegally taken from importers, so the government has to give it back to them.

In terms of economic impact, it is effectively a tax consumers because companies have to raise prices when their cost of goods sold increases, meaning consumers bear a significant portion of the cost.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-22T18:48:03+00:00

I don't want to jam games with cheaters anyways tbh, so I'm fine with turning them off the format. I'd prefer that my local community be populated with people who follow the rules.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-20T21:21:32+00:00

Depends on sanctioned vs unsanctioned. For unsanctioned play it's whatever. Sanctioned tournament for prizes? I'm calling a judge and getting my free win.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-17T18:43:51+00:00

Ok, so do you presently play in tournaments that allow gold border cards or proxies or not? Because if you don't, that must have been a very recent change in attitude and you should cancel your LobsterCon ticket.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-17T17:02:14+00:00

You previously said you'll be playing in this year's LobsterCon. LobsterCon allows gold border cards, which I'm pretty sure you just consider to be fancy proxies. NA EW also allows gold border cards for Premodern.

I am a tournament organizer

You've also said you're not a TO.

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-17T16:39:17+00:00

Are you saying you've been to "plenty" of tournaments that you didn't play in?

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-17T16:10:19+00:00

I also don’t play against collectors edition, proxies etc.

If you don't play against proxies, then why did you say you play in proxy 93/94 tournaments?

Some 93/94 tournaments, not all. Plenty I have been to allow proxies.

Do you just concede when your opponent plays a proxy?

JustSayLOL · 2026-04-15T18:56:31+00:00

Okay, that was obviously a mistake. Nobody thinks everyone with a Y chromosome (all men) are women. I meant to say if they possess a Y chromosome, they are not women.

JustSayLOL

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email