this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
928 points (94.1% liked)

Asklemmy

44192 readers
1141 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

like I went to taco bell and they didn't even have napkins out. they had the other stuff just no napkins, I assume because some fucking ghoul noticed people liked taking them for their cars so now we just don't get napkins! so they can save $100 per quarter rather than provide the barest minimum quality of life features.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 263 points 1 year ago (9 children)

That’s the end result of a capitalist system once corporations have superseded governments in power. It will only get worse.

[–] morgan_423@lemmy.world 123 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Yeah, we may be at checkmate. Unlike the end of the age of the robber barons, when we reformed capitalism in the late 1800s / early 1900s in the US... this time the capitalists have purchased enough politicians to stop reform completely and forever.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 127 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

What's funny is that this is entirely unsustainable. If they were in any way a real "capitalist" they would realize that the creeping authoritarianism they're pushing destroys economies long-term. They're laughing all the way to the bank right now because they're not concerned with the future.

However, they should be, because this House of Cards can easily collapse with the right push. They literally can't see past the profits at the end of the next quarter.

They literally can't imagine that all of them choosing to undermine capitalist principles at the same time will result in capitalism failing completely. The only reason it even functioned as well as it did for so long was 1. regulation and 2. raping the third world for resources.

I mean, I'm a fucking leftist, and it makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills that things are so far gone that I'm actually arguing "if we're going to do capitalism, we may as well do it in a way that it actually functions properly" as if that is a fucking fringe idea here.

The wheels are about to fly off this fuckin turkey.

[–] pensivepangolin@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Yep! And their short-sighted greed is going to drive us right to the brink of annihilation. We’re staring down the barrel of environmental collapse and our leaders are generally either old enough they assume they’ll die before it gets “that bad,” and the others stupidly think money makes them immune to the destruction of the biosphere. Anyone under 50 right now is going to live through some incredibly dark times. We are all dogs in a car with the windows closed and the heater on in a Texas parking lot. Business as usual is going to get really ugly, really quickly, really soon.

The car's on fire and there's no driver at the wheel

And the sewers are all muddied with a thousand lonely suicides

And a dark wind blows

The government is corrupt

And we're on so many drugs

With the radio on and the curtains drawn

We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine

And the machine is bleeding to death

The sun has fallen down

And the billboards are all leering

And the flags are all dead at the top of their poles

It went like this:

The buildings tumbled in on themselves

Mothers clutching babies picked through the rubble

And pulled out their hair

The skyline was beautiful on fire

All twisted metal stretching upwards

Everything washed in a thin orange haze

I said: "kiss me, you're beautiful -

These are truly the last days"

You grabbed my hand and we fell into it

Like a daydream or a fever

We woke up one morning and fell a little further down -

For sure it's the valley of death

I open up my wallet

And it's full of blood

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfortunately their house of cards is built on a foundation of wealth...and not just fuck you money, but literal centuries of fuck you money.

The fortune 50 I worked for could literally stop doing all business and maintain their current spend for a century and still be solvent.

This isn't unstable at all...it's built to last for 100s of years...the current leaders to their grandkids will be safe.

To further that...the 1% have private armies and well stocked bunkers to ride out any social uprising. That's the really scary stuff.

We are all fucked though. Enjoy the hunger games.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 124 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You load 16 tons, what do you get?

Another day older and deeper in debt

St. Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Much as I love that song, it doesn't really apply to the OP question, which is more about companies exploiting their customers rather than their workers.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think what a lot of people are saying is that they do both, exploit their customers and their workers.

[–] jhulten@infosec.pub 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And at least in food, it's the same eight companies that own everything...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Wootz@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think what this comment is trying to say is that we're headed towards an age that resembles what that song talks about: An age of unfettered capitalism, with a small number of corporation owning so much of the market that they can do what they want with no repercussions.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kromem@lemmy.world 92 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Because stocks kept trading at higher and higher P/E ratios essentially saying "the market thinks this company can make much more money in the future than they are making now."

The problem is, most companies couldn't, and as we have hit a recessionary phase those companies are now scrambling to try to show continued growth justifying their price.

The way they do that is by cutting off their limbs and selling them for short term cash at long term consequence.

So you see them cutting costs in all kinds of ways that screw over their customers but can show quarterly profits. Even though it means customers may not stay customers if better options appear.

So we are in this sort of pendulum swing period where large corporations suck because there's effectively no competition that doesn't and sucking is the last way for them to squeeze water from a stone. The natural solution is that we'd see competition rise up that doesn't suck to take their customers away and force pro-customer changes.

This likely will eventually happen, but it's going to take time. There are emerging tech trends that will accelerate it, but are still a few years away from practically changing the equation.

In about a decade things should suck less, and a number of the crappy companies around right now may no longer be around, but in the meantime it's still going to suck for a while yet as things adjust to the dying of the old guard and birth of the new.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't really agree with this. It is the answer that I think classical economics would give but I just don't think it's useful. For one, it ignores politics. Large corporations also have bought our government, and a few large wealth management funds like vanguard own a de facto controlling share in many public companies, oftentimes including virtually an entire industry, such that competition between them isn't really incentived as much as financial shenanigans and other Jack Welch style shit.

Some scholars (i think I read this in Adrienne bullers value of a whale, which is basically basis for this entire comment) even argue that we've reached a point where it might be more useful to think of our economy as a planned economy, but planned by finance instead of a state central authority.

All that is to say: why would we expect competition to grow, as you suggest, when the current companies already won, and therefore have the power to crush competition? They've already dismantled so many of the antimonopoly and other regulations standing in their way. The classical economics argument treats these new better companies as just sorta rising out of the aether but in reality there's a whole political context that is probably worth considering.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 86 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Huggies went up in price, but their cost of manufacturing actually went down.

It's got nothing to do with profit margins, it's just pure greed. Also, the law requires that publicly traded companies be greedy.

[–] chaospatterns@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, the law requires that publicly traded companies be greedy

The law doesn't actually state you need screw over your customers and maximize profit. It says that executives have a fiduciary duty, which means they must act in the best interest of the shareholder, not themselves.

That does not mean they have to suck out every single dollar of profit. Executives have some leeway in this and can very easily explain that napkins lead to happier customers and longer term retention which means long term profits.

It's purely a short-term, wall street driven, behavior also driven by executive pay being also based in stock so they're incentivized to drive up the price over the next quarter so they can cash out.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 64 points 1 year ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] TooManyGames@sopuli.xyz 62 points 1 year ago (5 children)

We've let our companies grow too large, giving them the ability to put the screws on us. Also competition isn't really happening in many fields, as ask the companies are owned by pretty much the same people.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 59 points 1 year ago

because somehow our economic system says that a company is only successful if it's growing, not if it's regularly turning a profit every quarter. at least, that's my understanding of it. so, they have to do something to generate something that looks like growth somehow

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It's pretty simple. Because we are all so spoiled and entitled that we won't even consider NOT buying their shit anymore. It's the same reason the video game market has grown rampant with micro transactions. They keep pushing the boundaries, and we keep giving them our money regardless of what they do. I'm actually curious to see how far they can push this insanity. They already slap a new year on sports titles every year and somehow sell the same game to the same people annually.

PUT YOUR WALLET DOWN.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Neve8028@lemm.ee 49 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I assume because some fucking ghoul noticed people liked taking them for their cars so now we just don't get napkins!

They were probably just out and too busy to restock or something. It happens. Never been to a fast food place where they don't provide napkins and I steal napkins from the taco bell I live near regularly. What a weird overreaction.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Referable2424@lemdro.id 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

in dodge v ford the supreme court ruled that publicly traded companies must put profits first above their workers and the the build quality of their products.

[–] tmyakal@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's a bad take. The case actually affirmed business judgement rule: the idea that the guy running the company knows how to run it better than the shareholders. It's part of why post-war America is considered the golden age of American manufacturing: Publicly traded companies invested in their employees and wages exploded across the board. A 100 year old court decision isn't the primary driver on a problem that's really only developed in the last forty or fifty years.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Manmikey@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My satellite TV (Sky TV ... UK) subscription ended recently and they would not give me any sort of deal to sign a new contract, Come black Friday they a spamming me by email and every type of advert for great deals for NEW Customers only!

I called SKY to cancel and they offered me a better deal but we're going to charge me an admin fee to sign a new contract, they wanted me to pay them to sign a contract with them!

I told them that it was not acceptable and cancel my service, having been put through to "my manager" they eventually waived the admin fee...

How has it come to this, I'm an easy customer, I am happy with the product, I'll sign a contract if it's a good deal, but they went out of their way to lose me

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Because for every person like you that jumps through hops to get a new deal there are lots of people who just passivelly let the renewal happen under inferior conditions that they could have got if they tried.

That's also why they put stupid hindrances in your way: such things cause many people to give up and just go along with a suboptimal renewal, ergo they make more money from acting thus than they lose from clients who say "enough is enough" and drop them (notice how you did not drop them - they lost nothing from giving you the run around and could've gained if you had given up and renewed with the shit conditions: it's pretty much a can't-loose situation for them)

I lived in then UK for over a decade and one thing that stood out when I moved from the The Netherlands to the UK (already more than 15 years ago) and from the UK to Portugal is how much more the larger consumer-facing companies in the UK did the most that they could to take advantage of people's mistakes or laziness than in those other countries - I remember a particularly sleazy gym membership contract from Virgin were per-contract (I always read those things) the only way to cancel it before the yearly auto-renewal was to contact them during a specific week before renewal (2 weeks before end of contract if I remember it correctly), not before nor after.

Over the whole time I was there, a handful of the most outrageous abuses when it came to consumer contracts were plugged (the one I remember the best was the creation of a rental deposit insurance to stop tenants from losing their deposits at the end of the rental agreement, as before that landlords would often just keep it all for no reason and then the only option the tenant had was take it to Court) but the whole posture of taking advantage of costumer laziness and normal mistakes (auch as, forgetting a date for canceling and auto-renewal) was widespread in the UK compared to other countries I lived in.

As it so happens, people themselves were also to blame: I remember how amazed the rental agency guy was that I actually read the Rental Agreement and even demanded corrections before I signed anything - "Nobody reads these", he said - when even at the massive daily rate I was paid back then for my work it was still worth it to spend the 1 or 2 hours reading a contract were I was assuming a commiment of at least £15k (at the time a "reasonable" London rent for a year).

Me in your position would've just said "fuck this", cancelled SKY and gone without (and I have done it for some things were I felt the other side had abused my trust, such as closing my account with my first bank in the UK the one and only time I was charged an overdraft fee), mainly because my early adult years happenned mostly in The Netherlands so I have their style of demanding consumer rather than the more passive and willing to overlook these things style common it the UK.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nemo@midwest.social 40 points 1 year ago (10 children)

So don't shop there! They'll do the bare minimum that still brings people in; the only remedy is to show them they'll lose customers.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Wile this is something that can be generally applied to fast food restaurants, this is a problem with basically all industries, many of which exist in a space where their customers are stuck with them. EG a lot of people are stuck with walmart because they are often literally the only place around or the only place around people on the lower half of income can afford.

[–] netburnr@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Same with those dollar stores. They come into poor areas and drive out the small local grocers, then you get a worse product and it's your only choice.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 39 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Because you won't do anything to hurt their bottom line, basically.

Stop eating at Taco Bell and make your own damn tacos at home. Better yet, go buy some from a family-owned taco truck instead.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yeah, I don't eat at Taco Bell when I'm in the mood for tacos from a street truck. It's like two entirely different types of food.

There is Mexican food, there's Tex Mex, then there is Taco Bell. They're not really all comparable 1:1:1. I love me an al pastor taco from a truck, but some days I'm not in the mood for a real taco but rather the ersatz tacos they have at Taco Bell.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 1 year ago

Because your rights have been eroded by decades of deregulation and lobbying. And because publicly traded companies are legally required to maximize profits at all costs.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Do you really have to ask? Capitalism, when it goes unchecked, turns everything shitty. Capitalism has been relatively unchecked in the US for the last 50 years, so everything is shitty. That’s starting to change as unions become more powerful again, but they’re still a fraction of what they were in the early 20th century. Late stage capitalism, baby!

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're in a modern gilded age. There are no consequences for modern day robber barons.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NeroC_Bass@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 year ago

Taco bell has switched their demographic from dining in, to take out and drive thru. Started with the pandemic, that's why most stuff that used to be readily available isn't put out anymore. All the taco bells in my area did this, same with several other fast food chains.

Why I don't eat out as much is because of the shrinkflation. Back in the mid 90's you used to be able to get a whopper for a dollar. Now they're pushing $6 and they just aren't the same anymore. More if you get a meal.

[–] 4grams@awful.systems 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s the enshittification of the entire country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because the corporations write the rules. Literally; laws are written by corps and presented to lawmakers along with "gifts" and "campaign donations" - and implicit quid pro quo. They then present them to be voted upon, sometimes without even bothering to read them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you ask if they had some napkins? Yes we are living in a post capitalist nightmare but honestly, seems more likely the wage slave in charge of putting out the napkins either hadn’t had a chance to do so or forgot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm with you, OP: for some reason, it's the little things I notice.

I'm in grocery stores a lot. It used to be, there was a nice little seating area there to sit, drink my coffee and work. But now, because homeless people dared to duck inside a public-facing area to briefly escape the elements, they removed many of the tables and chairs and they're now a big, empty space. Heaven forbid they add more seating, actually staff enough people to enforce a time-limit, etc; no, instead we all are worse off for it. But corporate profits have never been higher, so worth it, right!?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] burgersc12@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Theres a few problems

  1. Companies trying to maximize profits
  2. Corrupt political systems lets companies exploit their workers and customers alike
  3. Supply chains have been getting disrupted more and more. "Just in time" and getting "just enough" supplies no longer works well. A lot of stuff gets delayed or out of stock
  4. We expect unlimited resources on a finite planet. Whether its plastic junk, useless tech, or food we expect it to be available 24/7/365
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

Capitalism is the answer. Greed, unchecked profits.

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 24 points 1 year ago (10 children)

People haven't learned to vote with their wallets

[–] Vcio@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

As was once said(something like): if vote with your wallet, the people with bigger wallets get more votes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] piyuv@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No, this line of thinking is wrong, I wish people would stop saying this. Voting with your wallet never works when 1% has >50% of wealth. It’s easier for 5% of people (wealthy, top execs) to agree on milking the rest than 95% of people to agree on boycotting a certain brand. That’s why we have regulations, we wouldn’t need them if “voting with wallets” actually worked.

Free market capitalism got us to this point, it cannot take us out of this.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] keefshape@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh it's even more complex.

Who sells those napkins?

(Answer; Sysco. If a place is short on napkins, Sysco is turning the screws on the franchise owner).

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 23 points 1 year ago (8 children)

We're going to through the "enshittification" as a society. There was the Great Recession, the DotCom Bust, the Great Inflation, etc.

What is going to matter, is can we use this "enshittification" to benefit society by increasing wages, encouraging social mobility, protecting and enshrining rights for marginalized communities, etc. Building a more inclusive society.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Gbagginsthe3rd@aussie.zone 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Simple things are going backwards but in a few hundred years Starbucks is gonna start giving handjobs. So thats kinda nice

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›