What is the economic explanation for the high cost of weddings?
"There is the price they want and the price you pay. Everything is negotiable when its a service (always possible, but usually harder with actual ""goods""). You should always haggle and price match your vendors. You can also try going to different vendors and not telling them its for a wedding and see if there really is a price difference. For example, call up a florist and say you need X, Y, and Z for a corporate banquet or for a special event for which you cannot give the details. If you then tell them its actually a wedding, and they blindly raise it without a good justification, move on. That said, they jack up the price because they know most people will says ""it's my wedding"", ""it's once in a lifetime"", ""it's MY special day"", etc.... The same is true about diamonds, their price does not reflect the actual supply and demand ratio, just the perception that has been created. However, as mentioned in some of the comments above, the service provided at a wedding may be different or more involved than just a normal dinner The more important issue is ensuring there are no back fees, no hidden fees, and you have well written, well reviewed contracts. For example, we know a couple whose caterer added a mandatory 20% gratuity, regardless of the service which was provided. Most venues or restaurants will not be making the bar a lose-leader, but they will charge for other things.  You can also save money by buying used or looking on ebay for prices closer to wholesale for the product. I think a good analogy to this is the Recent Time Magazine article on the price of healthcare - it costs a lot because its a small market and its harder to navigate, and most are not experienced shoppers in the area or don't have control over the individual item costs."
In Malaysia, the company provides the best Wedding Videography, it's far telling a tale and capturing the emotion and believing in the strength of imagery, image taking, and storytelling even as imparting a memorable enjoy. We recognize that your wedding cinematography is the most special day of your existence and we devote ourselves to imparting you with the highest best carrier reminiscences. Now, we suppose you may agree the result is a wedding film that makes your perfect day the correct memory. Real size films, shooting real Romance, Emotion, And Laughter. &gt;where does Keynesian economics say that there is no demand?  Keynesian economists, like Paul Krugman, say so.  If the correct application of Keynesian economics says the US has insufficient demand, while the country's balance of payments has a deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year, then the theory is seriously wrong. OTOH, if there is no lack of demand while unemployment is high then the theory is also wrong.  Where is the right interpretation of Keynesian economics that would account for both a sluggish economy and a big balance of payments deficit?  The only explanation I can imagine is that production costs are too high. "My experience is in economics, so it may differ from an accounting or personal finance perspective somewhat; that being said, I find it perfectly acceptable to use a term like CAGR when the rate is positive or negative. Economists talk about negative growth rates all the time, and it's universally assumed that growth rates can be positive or negative.1 Ideally, the actual magnitude and sign of the value should be specified by the value itself. The term, whether it's ""growth rate"", some modified version of it like CAGR, or any label in a table or on a graph, should describe the calculation or source used obtain the value. I shouldn't need the name to indicate the sign of the number if the number is present; the name is only there to help me understand the value. Unfortunately, I don't know of any specific term that represents the geometric averaging nature of CAGR and also eliminates the minor potential for semantic confusion. However, I think the minor problem of semantics needs to be balanced against the tradeoff of using a different term that isn't as common, if one were to exist. CAGR is a standard, well-known term that a) allows someone who is familiar with the term to instantly understand the procedure you're using, and b) allow someone who isn't familiar with it to quickly search and find an explanation, since searching for CAGR will numerous simple explanations of how it's calculated. 1. This is different from the concept of economic growth, which is usually assumed to be positive in informal discussions. In economic modeling, many of the first steps in creating a model are symbolic anyway, so ""growth rate,"", ""change in output"", and ""economic growth"" are used interchangeably to describe changes in GDP because the values either aren't known, irrelevant until later in the project, or pulled from data that describes it using one or several of the previously stated terms." &gt;Because it's an interview piece  I've read lots of those, never seen one this egregiously use a clickbait title then bait the reader to continue all the way to the second page to get the explanation.  &gt;Not sure why this is bothering you so much?  What does **so much** mean? You mean **so much** that I'd point it out? That's not a very high bar. I do find it odd that you care about my criticism of this trash article **so much** that you're vigorously defending it. Basically, Our organization arranges the marriage and all of the wedding ceremony features together with wedding videos, wedding cinematography, and wedding videography offerings in Malaysia. Our business enterprise gives the pleasant images, we consider ourselves storytellers, and that’s the identical method we have for Malaysia Wedding cinematic videography. We flow far from the concept that videography has been only a chronological series of wedding occasions Sex and reproduction is a choice like blinking is a choice. It's messed up to say that people who aren't born wealthy should 'simply' ignore biological imperatives, especially when things like vasectomies and tubal ligation require insurance and/or a large amount of cash. I believe the reason is because society and the economy is set up a certain way, and re-enforced by the government. Your options are: So, people usually go with the most attractive of their limited options, getting a mortgage. If you want to dig deeper, do some research as to why housing is expensive. Some things to consider: you need the government's permission to build houses, thus limiting the competition in the home building market, the housing bubble, artificially setting house prices, etc.) To summarize: people need mortgages because houses are expensive, and houses are expensive for many reasons, big ones having to do with the government. "The entire time you've talked about cost. Changing incomes matters little if the cost scales with it. Me thinks you don't understand how a market works, even a semi-planned one. If more people make more money, the price of most goods goes up. This isn't due to real actual demand, its due to something called inflation. When the amount of money in circulation increases, we have inflation. Lets say I make 35k a year as a store clerk. Is my labor being undervalued compared to the income of a store clerk in the past? Or is the price of goods scaling faster than my income has scaled?  Simply adding more money doesn't fix anything. The price of the good or service is what matters the most. While everyone having more money is good, you can't just magically give everyone more money without the cost of goods and services rising. I imagine that if everyone suddenly were at least a millionaire, the price of a laptop would sky rocket. The cost of the laptop in parts wouldn't be that much more, but since most people would have disposable income beyond their needs some goods would then get more expensive. Once that happens, the inflation of prices starts to spread until its effects are seen across the market.  I don't think the ""fruit of my labor"" is being stolen by the ""upper class"". If anything, the fruit of my labor gets taken more and more by my own government and transferred to the lower classes more and more. I'm not rich, not even close. But I know I've had at least 15k of my income in the last 5 years taken and distributed through taxes ON my income to people that are generally unable to earn enough on their own.  If these people are the upper class, then I must be Marie Antoinette!"