Well, I just meant that if you treat wood or people as strict commodities, then the fact that the price might continue to rise in the future doesn't really seem to imply that I shouldn't pay a slightly higher price now; you just pay the market price so long as you still make a profit and there isn't a cheaper alternative. (This is the naive, econ-101 analysis.)

But, of course, people are more complicated than wood. So if you wanted to argue that you should refuse to pay the higher price, you would need to explain exactly what the difference between people and wood are, and exactly why it should lead you to reject the naive analysis.