Why are Chess Lessons so overpriced?

The main way to get better is to eliminate weknesses. A good coach can probably diagnose your weaknesses much better, and faster, than most books, and not by trial and error. They can also provide you with a more tailored plan to meet your goals.

I'm working the book route and it isn't as fast or as motivational as a coach could be. I also have to pinpoint my own weakesses and try to fix them. 

Exactly!  My coach had me send him 10 of my most recent games.  Wins, draws, and losses.  From those games he developed, and tailored a study plan for me.  As helpful as books are, they cant do that for you, plus books dont offer feed back.

This isn't either/or. A good coach will usually ask what books you already have and maybe recommend some additional books. Even Dvoretsky used books to help his students, and he focused on players who were already +2250 FIDE, or if they were over 11 years old, IMs and GMs.

But $50 wont buy you understanding of the material of the books. Not everyone can read a chess book and come away with 100% understanding of every concept. If you read a passage and come away thinking 2+2=5, then it will have to be someone else to correct your understanding. For example, some material might lead you to be too dogmatic about a particular principle.  It would be up to a coach to present positions that demonstrate when that principle doesn't apply.

Sure, books are great....but you need a reciprocal mind to bounce something off of and test your understanding.

So you agree with me!

Its not a matter of agreeing with anyone.  I can only use myself as an example.  I believe a coach is not needed unless its for one of two reasons:

1. Prodigy.

2. A regular player like myself that is trying to attain a goal.

I had a parent ask me before commiting to lessons for her son.  "Why" a coach would be more helpful than just books.  I told her that you can read all the books you want on brain surgery, but that doesnt mean you can perform brain surgery.

you what free lessons? go to torrent

Why does the epi-pen sell for US$400-600 in the US, when it's cost price is only US$25? That same pen in Canada is being sold for CAN$100. No, it's not supply and demand...it's just greed.

The same thing with chess lessons. suppliers want to charge as much as they can get away with. The whole supply and demand arguement is based on a perfect world...but we all know that those assumtions are false. I agree with you that the price is inflated...but name one price of a produce that isn't. Greed.

Jesterville, there's no government subsidies protecting chess lessons. And in economic terms, chess is an elastic, flexible item while pharmaceuticals are inelastice, necessary items.

That's quite a difference. 

I give lessons for 1 beer an hour.  But you get what you pay for.

+1

I guess those prices might be relevant for the services your provide in New York City, but when you say, "Coaches have spent many years acquiring the knowledge they have, and gaining the experience to prepare lessons and teach effectively". - I don't believe that is too true for all coaches. 

no..its really not. As another person has already noted, items can be elastic or inelastic.  This refers to the percentage change of quantity demanded with a percentage change in price.  Generally speaking, if the price of chess lessons went up, there will be less people who purchase it.  With epipens, there is generally a stable population that requires it, and raising the price of it does not change the fact that they need it.  This is theory but obviously in practice there is a limit, as now we are seeing public outrage and hopefully some regulations, or perhaps the market will acquire more information for substitutes.

Fact is, sure they want to charge "as much as they can get away with", just as any consumer wants to pay the lowest price possible.  But when it comes to an elastic good such as chess lessons, they are not going to get away with nearly as much as something like the epipen.  

Yeah, that makes sense. I agree with you on that. The fact is that I doubt most of these chess instructors are actually booked all day with classes or even give chess lessons as their daily jobs, so really even a coach who works two hours a day at $80 an hour is making over 40 grand a year. Absolutely ridiculous... The thing is that one coach to the next does not stick out... They all say the same and do the same... There is no way to tell whether one coach is better than the next... No competition. Just complete domination. It's great for them I guess, but only affordable to the very rich. Weird sport chess is... 

Try to find a singing coach,trumpet coach,tennis instructor who charges much less than $50/hr.Unless for absolute beginners or for group lessons you won't find it. We did a private tennis lesson for my son. $30/hr from lowest level instructor. As he gets better it goes up to $60/hr

unless you are one of less than about 50 people, you only really have a small number of ways to make money at chess.  Say you had a "lowly" 2300 rating...

you can write a book / web articles/ news stories/ puzzles / etc

you can teach/analysis of games/etc for lower ranked players

you can play scam/hustle in public places;  one guy I know set up a table at an outdoor fair for $10 a game people might as well have just handed him their wallets.   The bulk of players barely know the moves and he was a lower rated GM.  I admittedly played a couple but I knew what I was up against, I simply don't get to play and chat with GMs much, the best at our small club was under 2000.  

Teaching is one of the rather few and limited ways to make use of a high degree of skill that isnt quite good enough to win the big tournaments. 

That hypothetical coach would make that much, gross. If a coach is charging that much it is likely due to the fact they are very good, really high rated, or only want students that are very serious.

After taxes and healthcare, they would probably be better off working a regular job.

The funny thing here is that most people that complain would be insulted if someone offered them $10/hour to complete a task they are highly skilled at. 

Let the free market set the price, it's how it's supposed to work.  If enough people do not hire them, their rate will go down . . . if more people hire them, their rate goes up.  It's a good proven system even if people like me can't afford the $50 per hour.  Evidently people are hiring them if the price consistently stays at that rate.