Jordan Brand will be remastering (building better quality shoes) starting in 2015

apthekid said:
You would be foolish to think that inflation is the reason that prices for Jordans have gone up so dramatically over the last 15 years. While it may play a minor role, it is not the main reason.

Allow me to offer a little perspective for you...

SB Dunks lows were $65 in 2003...GR's are now $85. That's an increase of 31% in 11 years.

Nike Air Raid were $90 in 2003...The "Peace" colorway retrod this past weekend for $125. That's an increase of about 39% in 11 years.

Jordan III (white cement) retro'd in 2003 for $110. They will sell for approx $200 in 2015 (if they retro). That's an increase of 82% in 12 years

Jordan I (royal) retro'd in 2001 for $80. They retro'd again in 2013 for $140. That's an increase of 75% in 12 years

Jordan XII (several) retro'd in 2003 for $135. They will sell for approx $200 in 2015 (if they retro). That's an increase of a little over 50% in 12 years.

Aside from the fact that price increases are significantly more for Jordan retros than non-Jordan retros, the price increase rate is all over the place. The inflation rate is the inflation rate...it doesn't vary from item to item. These price increases aren't based on inflation rates...They're based on what Nike can sell their products for on the market. They increase their prices by large amounts because they can still sell their products at these increased prices.


And just to be clear, not everything has gone up in price. Someone already mentioned cell phones, but home electronics as an industry is constantly declining in price and becoming more affordable. CD's used to cost $18 back in the day...They certainly don't cost that much now...Neither do televisions or computers.

NTers have a habit of throwing around the term "inflation" like it's a high-intellect, complicated finance term. It's not. It's also not the answer to "why do Jordans cost more now than they did before".
Click to expand...
inflation isnt the ONLY reason.. but it is definetly a HUGE factor...

if Nike COST to make a pair of jordans go up(inflation), dont you think the price of the shoes will go up?
 
hulk7280 said:
inflation isnt the ONLY reason.. but it is definetly a HUGE factor...

if Nike COST to make a pair of jordans go up(inflation), dont you think the price of the shoes will go up?
Click to expand...

Dude...cost of production increasing is not necessarily due to inflation. There are MANY factors for rising prices in cost of production.

And for the record...Inflation actually has nothing to do with rising prices of goods...It's actually related to the value, or "buying power" (which is the most accurate term) of the dollar.

Just let it go homie. It doesn't really matter and it's not worth the continued debate. Especially after what I posted before, displaying that your theory on inflation is total bs, since price rises in Nike aren't consistent from product to product or division to division.
 
apthekid said:
Dude...cost of production increasing is not necessarily due to inflation. There are MANY factors for rising prices in cost of production.

And for the record...Inflation actually has nothing to do with rising prices of goods...It's actually related to the value, or "buying power" (which is the most accurate term) of the dollar.

Just let it go homie. It doesn't really matter and it's not worth the continued debate. Especially after what I posted before, displaying that your theory on inflation is total bs, since price rises in Nike aren't consistent from product to product or division to division.
Click to expand...
oh.. inflation has nothing to do with rising cost's?

so 1 dollar today is worth about .75 in 1999, but it doesnt have ANYTHING to do with rising costs? 

please explain that to me.   I am dying to hear why that is true..

Do you honestly thing inflation has to be 1 for 1.. like everything has to go up a certian percentage?  thats not how it works  of course there is going to be variablity.. but what is consistent, is everything has gone up in value.

meh i have no idea why i even bother.. if you can't understand a simple concept that 1 dollar 15 years ago is worth 1.50 cents today.. then how could you possibly be able to intelligent debate this topic.
 
Last edited:
HollaHollygrove said:
No genius... I'm saying I learned about inflation in 1999! So your saying $200-$250 is a good price to pay for shoes that will most likely be the same as recent years? And you are also saying that for the current prices you shouldn't already be getting top notch high quality premium sneakers? Ok...
Click to expand...
i am not saying its a good price or not.. all I am saying is everything is more expensive today.. so comparing the cost of jordan 4's today with the cost they were 15 years ago and expecting them to be exactly the same price is unrealistic..

production costs go up, employee salaries have gone up, it costs more money to produce the shoe in 2014 then it did in 1999.  Do you really think consomers are not going to eat that cost?

Do you expect nike, a business, to eat the cost? 

i would love to hear your answers..
 
isniker said:
 
Quote:

the price of a brick phone from the early 90s is equivalent to $10,000 today

would you pay $10,000 for the same huge low-tech brick phone & made with lower quality right now?
Click to expand...
the unique thing about tech industry is that it improves, and actually becomes cheaper over time.. similiar to a computer, or flat panal tv... obviously as the technology improves and better tech comes out, manufacutring becomes cheaper.. etc. 

The term is called obsolesence.. this happens all the time in the tech industry in general.. kind of how a VHS isnt worth .50 cents today, but 20 years ago it might have cost 25 bucks.

Jordans are obviously not obsolete..

so basically that was a terrible example.
 
Last edited:
hulk7280 said:
oh.. inflation has nothing to do with rising cost's?

so 1 dollar today is worth about .75 in 1999, but it doesnt have ANYTHING to do with rising costs? 

please explain that to me.   I am dying to hear why that is true..

Do you honestly thing inflation has to be 1 for 1.. like everything has to go up a certian percentage?  of course there is going to be variablity.. but what is consistent, is everything has gone up in value.

that is not how it works at all..

meh i have no idea why i even bother.. if you can't understand a simple concept that 1 dollar 15 years ago is worth 1.50 cents today.. then how could you possibly be able to intelligent debate this topic.
Click to expand...

Actually, a dollar today is worth less than a dollar in 1999.

At no point did I say inflation has nothing to do with rising costs of sneakers...I said it's one of many factors but a minor factor. The biggest factor is that Nike can sell the same amount of products at higher prices as they did at lower products. I hope this prevents you from dying.

And yes, inflation is "1 to 1". There is ONE inflation rate that does not change from industry to industry. The "variability" (the word is "variance", for the record) is the proof that many factors are involved in rising prices.

And as I've said before, not everything has gone up in price. Consumer Electronics being the big example. I guess there's no inflation on that stuff, huh?
 
apthekid said:
Actually, a dollar today is worth less than a dollar in 1999.

At no point did I say inflation has nothing to do with rising costs of sneakers...I said it's one of many factors but a minor factor. The biggest factor is that Nike can sell the same amount of products at higher prices as they did at lower products. I hope this prevents you from dying.

And yes, inflation is "1 to 1". There is ONE inflation rate that does not change from industry to industry. The "variability" (the word is "variance", for the record) is the proof that many factors are involved in rising prices.

And as I've said before, not everything has gone up in price. Consumer Electronics being the big example. I guess there's no inflation on that stuff, huh?
Click to expand...
i typed that wrong.. it supposed to be the other way around..

but anyway you just proved my point.. a dollar today is worth less then it was in 1999.. hence attributing the rising cost..

So you say the inflation rate is a minor cause to the price increase correct? 

Using this inlfation calculater..

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

if you paid 110 dollars for something in 1999, in 2014 you would pay 157.31..

And you don't think that is a MAJOR reason why the price jordans have gone up? 

INFLATION HAS INCREASED 43.1 PERCENT IN THE LAST 15 YEARS AND YOU DONT THINK THAT IS MAJOR FACTOR IN PRICE INCREASE?

and i epxlained the part about the tech industry earlier.. the term is called obsolescense.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence

bascially as new technology comes out.. it makes previous technology obsolete driving the price down.. similiar to cars.. etc. 

obviously jordans are not affected by obsolescense, homie.
 
Last edited:
and i epxlained the part about the tech industry earlier.. the term is called obsolescense.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence

bascially as new technology comes out.. it makes previous technology obsolete driving the price down.. similiar to cars.. etc. 

obviously jordans are not affected by obsolescense, homie.
Click to expand...
Planned obsolescence is worth doing some brief research on, as it applies to jordans in certain ways.  It applies more to the tech industry, in the ways that things are designed to break in order to make you buy more.  I've heard that major research went into designing light bulbs to have a shorter, exact lifespan.  JB often uses psychological obsolescence, such as when they released the jordan 3 '88.

 The major factors to me are demand in North America, as well as cultural changes and inflation in China.  The middle class has grownin China in the last ten years, and the skilled labour Nike used to get for slave wages, is now working middle class jobs.
 
hulk7280 said:
i am not saying its a good price or not.. all I am saying is everything is more expensive today.. so comparing the cost of jordan 4's today with the cost they were 15 years ago and expecting them to be exactly the same price is unrealistic..

production costs go up, employee salaries have gone up, it costs more money to produce the shoe in 2014 then it did in 1999.  Do you really think consomers are not going to eat that cost?

Do you expect nike, a business, to eat the cost? 

i would love to hear your answers..
Click to expand...
I didn't say they should cost the same as they did in 1999! Due to the fact that you have yet to understand I said 1999 IS THE YEAR I LEARNED ABOUT INFLATION WHEN I WAS IN TENTH GRADE... I have no answers for you! I do have one question tho... DO YOU WORK FOR JORDAN BRAND? The way you try to make sense of an obvious ripoff by blaming inflation just screams JB employee! It's like your trying to mislead the younger and less educated consumer that may frequent this post into believing it's ok to spend a ridiculous amount on RETRO Jordan's because the price of everything has gone up because of inflation! Like I said a few post back the prices of the current retros are the same as retail prices for Jordan 15-23 so according to your theory these will retail starting at $250-$300 right? Even tho some of them are not liked as much as say the 1-14...
 
Chenks said:
 
Planned obsolescence is worth doing some brief research on, as it applies to jordans in certain ways.  It applies more to the tech industry, in the ways that things are designed to break in order to make you buy more.  I've heard that major research went into designing light bulbs to have a shorter, exact lifespan.  JB often uses psychological obsolescence, such as when they released the jordan 3 '88.

 The major factors to me are demand in North America, as well as cultural changes and inflation in China.  The middle class has grownin China in the last ten years, and the skilled labour Nike used to get for slave wages, is now working middle class jobs.
Click to expand...
i have never once discounted demand as a factor in price increases.. all I am saying is inflation is a major factor in price increase.
 

and for some reason people love to compare the price of jordans back in 1999 to 2014.  but when adjusted for inflation, they are only 13 dollars different! 
 
hulk7280 said:
i typed that wrong.. it supposed to be the other way around..

but anyway you just proved my point.. a dollar today is worth less then it was in 1999.. hence attributing the rising cost..

So you say the inflation rate is a minor cause to the price increase correct? 

Using this inlfation calculater..

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

if you paid 110 dollars for something in 1999, in 2014 you would pay 157.31..

And you don't think that is a MAJOR reason why the price jordans have gone up? 

INFLATION HAS INCREASED 43.1 PERCENT IN THE LAST 15 YEARS AND YOU DONT THINK THAT IS MAJOR FACTOR IN PRICE INCREASE?

and i epxlained the part about the tech industry earlier.. the term is called obsolescense.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence

bascially as new technology comes out.. it makes previous technology obsolete driving the price down.. similiar to cars.. etc. 

obviously jordans are not affected by obsolescense, homie.
Click to expand...

Your example (that which I have bolded), would be valid if the goods were the same. Jordan Retros from yesteryear do not use the same materials as current Jordan Retros. Your example goes out the window because the items in discussion are the same in appearance, but not in raw materials. Also, with that exact example, why then, did the Retro '88 III's cost $200, not $157.31?

AGAIN, yes, it is a factor, but one of many factors and not the main factor.

As for obsolescence...Again, your example is not apples to apples. A NEW computer/tv/etc cost less today than a NEW computer/tv/etc did years ago. We're not talking about obsolete technology. The main reason for that is cost of production has gone down over the years, even while this inflation that you keep referring back to, has consistently risen.

All kidding aside, I'm gonna stop now with this. You can believe what you wish. Peace.
 
HollaHollygrove said:
I didn't say they should cost the same as they did in 1999! Due to the fact that you have yet to understand I said 1999 IS THE YEAR I LEARNED ABOUT INFLATION WHEN I WAS IN TENTH GRADE... I have no answers for you! I do have one question tho... DO YOU WORK FOR JORDAN BRAND? The way you try to make sense of an obvious ripoff by blaming inflation just screams JB employee! It's like your trying to mislead the younger and less educated consumer that may frequent this post into believing it's ok to spend a ridiculous amount on RETRO Jordan's because the price of everything has gone up because of inflation! Like I said a few post back the prices of the current retros are the same as retail prices for Jordan 15-23 so according to your theory these will retail starting at $250-$300 right? Even tho some of them are not liked as much as say the 1-14...
Click to expand...
I never said the prices are ok.. all I am saying is they arent far off from what they were in 1999 retro's..

110 in 1999 is 157 dollars in 2014.. so jordans are are rougly 8-10 dollars more expensive now then they were in 15 years ago at 170 (adjusted for inflation)

so if you deemed the price "ok" in 1999, then you shouldnt be so shocked at the price in 2014.

and yes prices will continue to rise.
 
hulk7280 said:
so are you saying that link is not accurate?  if it isnt, what is untrue in that link?
Click to expand...
didnt say it was or wasnt but posting a link on a site that anyone can post/add/edit is not very credible. if i have to do research on your research it kinda negates everything. Bottom line is the prices that the shoes are now is what they should be for the higher quality shoes that they are AGAIN raising the prices of and its not about anything but greed and the fact that they dont have to give us (the avg collector) what we want because the general public is buying their product regardless of quality and also if Reebok and adidas can come out with better materials for a lot less you know that JB is just maximizing their profits with a blatant disregard for our wants/needs, from a company who we give billions to it should be unnaceptable but too many people fuel the beast so why should they stop? STOP BUYING IF YOU WANT BETTER PRICES OR QUALITY!
 
hulk7280 said:
I never said the prices are ok.. all I am saying is they arent far off from what they were in 1999 retro's..

110 in 1999 is 157 dollars in 2014.. so jordans are are rougly 8-10 dollars more expensive now then they were in 15 years ago at 170 (adjusted for inflation)

so if you deemed the price "ok" in 1999, then you shouldnt be so shocked at the price in 2014.

and yes prices will continue to rise.
Click to expand...
Dude you are 100% DEAD WRONG!!! This is a run down of what I am talking about! Air Jordan 3 -1988 $100, 1994 $105 (they sat on sales racks), 2001-03 $100 WITH NIKE AIR, they would some how rise to $150 or better without NA until last years NA 88... which let's you know you're going to be paying $200+ If you want NA!!!
 
apthekid said:
Your example (that which I have bolded), would be valid if the goods were the same. Jordan Retros from yesteryear do not use the same materials as current Jordan Retros. Your example goes out the window because the items in discussion are the same in appearance, but not in raw materials. Also, with that exact example, why then, did the Retro '88 III's cost $200, not $157.31?

AGAIN, yes, it is a factor, but one of many factors and not the main factor.

As for obsolescence...Again, your example is not apples to apples. A NEW computer/tv/etc cost less today than a NEW computer/tv/etc did years ago. We're not talking about obsolete technology. The main reason for that is cost of production has gone down over the years, even while this inflation that you keep referring back to, has consistently risen.

All kidding aside, I'm gonna stop now with this. You can believe what you wish. Peace.
Click to expand...
a pair of Jordan retro's from today are still jordan retro's its more of an apples to apples comparison then anything you have pointed out, there are going to exceptions to everything..

retro 88' 3's where a special release.. they released on the anniversiy of jordans dunk contest.. they arent your run of the mill jordan retro's ..  Jordan is going to capiliaze on that..

As far as computers are concerned, i wouldnt agree the a new computer today cost less then one did years ago.. costs have gone up on the top of the line computers, tv's etc.. which drive the costs of lower tech down.. 

for example solid state drives brought the price of computers without them down.. but computers with solid state hard drives are more expensive. 
 
HollaHollygrove said:
Dude you are 100% DEAD WRONG!!! This is a run down of what I am talking about! Air Jordan 3 -1988 $100, 1994 $105 (they sat on sales racks), 2001-03 $100 WITH NIKE AIR, they would some how rise to $150 or better without NA until last years NA 88... which let's you know you're going to be paying $200+ If you want NA!!!
Click to expand...
ok your right.. they should be selling Jordans for 100 dollars and I should be filling my gas tank up for .87 cents a gallon and paying 150k for a 4 bedroom house. 

I dont understnad how you cant comprehend that the value of 100 dollars is not equivelant to a 100 dollars today.   pretty simple concept to grasp.
 
Last edited:
hulk7280 said:
a pair of Jordan retro's from today are still jordan retro's its more of an apples to apples comparison then anything you have pointed out, there are going to exceptions to everything..

retro 88' 3's where a special release.. they released on the anniversiy of jordans dunk contest.. they arent your run of the mill jordan retro's ..  Jordan is going to capiliaze on that..

As far as computers are concerned, i wouldnt agree the a new computer today cost less then one did years ago.. costs have gone up on the top of the line computers, tv's etc.. which drive the costs of lower tech down.. 

for example solid state drives brought the price of computers without them down.. but computers with solid state hard drives are more expensive. 
Click to expand...
But retro 88 are your regular run of the mill Jordan's because they are almost the how they originally released!!! And btw way retros didn't cost $150+ In 1999... The current year models did so you really sound foolish!!!
 
Last edited:
green rhino123 said:
2001 BC has NA
2001 TB & 2003 WC do not
Click to expand...
What point are you now trying to make?
hulk7280 said:
ok your right.. they should be selling Jordans for 100 dollars and I should be filling my gas tank up for .87 cents a gallon and paying 150k for a 4 bedroom house. 

I dont understnad how you cant comprehend that the value of 100 dollars is not equivelant to a 100 dollars today.   pretty simple concept to grasp.
Click to expand...
So inflation just started in 1999 is what you are telling me? It's either that or you are not reading in full and comprehending my posts! Or any other post that fully refutes your claims for that matter! Yes inflation occurs but it is not the reason Jordan's prices have continued to JUMP in price... HYPE AND THE RESALE MARKET IS!!!!!!
 
HollaHollygrove said:
Dude you are 100% DEAD WRONG!!! This is a run down of what I am talking about! Air Jordan 3 -1988 $100, 1994 $105 (they sat on sales racks), 2001-03 $100 WITH NIKE AIR, they would some how rise to $150 or better without NA until last years NA 88... which let's you know you're going to be paying $200+ If you want NA!!!
Click to expand...
Your are missing some important years in there man. The Jordan 5 when originally released were $125. So when they re released at 160, that's not much of a price jump considering how long it's been. 

Also, what everyone else is massively FAILING at addressing, is how far below equilibrium price Jordans are currently selling at. How does it make sense to complain about prices when they sell out in seconds? The price is waaaaaaaay lower than it should be. While the price is pretty high to most of us, they could EASILY charge 250 all day every day for every retro Jordan.  Jordans SAT at 125 when they originally dropped. You literally had MONTHS to cop a pair before they were gone.

The Euro sites like Caliroots, SH, etc. Just a year and a half ago I got black cement 4s from SH for 190 SHIPPED. Their prices have gone up to 270 shipped to the U.S. Which is like 245 before shipping.  AND THEY STILL SELL OUT IN MINUTES. 
 
Last edited:
AKsuited said:
Your are missing some important years in there man. The Jordan 5 when originally released were $125. So when they re released at 160, that's not much of a price jump considering how long it's been. 

Also, what everyone else is massively FAILING at addressing, is how far below equilibrium price Jordans are currently selling at. How does it make sense to complain about prices when they sell out in seconds? The price is waaaaaaaay lower than it should be. While the price is pretty high to most of us, they could EASILY charge 250 all day every day for every retro Jordan.  Jordans SAT at 125 when they originally dropped. You literally had MONTHS to cop a pair before they were gone.

The Euro sites like Caliroots, SH, etc. Just a year and a half ago I got black cement 4s from SH for 190 SHIPPED. Their prices have gone up to 270 shipped to the U.S. Which is like 245 before shipping.  AND THEY STILL SELL OUT IN MINUTES. 
Click to expand...
V's re-released in 2000 for $120 then when they when they released again in 06 they were $135! You left those out but now they are $160 and after this year probably $200-$250 you speak of! Which is rediculous but you are free to feed the greed of JB all you want!
 
HollaHollygrove said:
V's re-released in 2000 for $120 then when they when they released again in 06 they were $135! You left those out but now they are $160 and after this year probably $200-$250 you speak of! Which is rediculous but you are free to feed the greed of JB all you want!
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what I personally do. The demand is what it is. Either get with it, or hop off. But complaining about it is lame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
Jordan IV RM
Replies
16
Views
3K
Public Enemy
Public Enemy

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom