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.

  • piyuv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • rbhfd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      1% might have 50% of the wealth, they do not account for 50% of the spending. Especially not at Taco Bell.

      Pure capitalism is broken af, but companies like this will feel it if 10% of costumers stops going there. The increase in price can recover some of it, but only to a certain extent. It’s a simple supply and demand issue.

      That being said, I’m not from the US, so take my opinion on local issues with a grain of salth. And I definitely don’t mean to imply that wealth inequality is not an issue. On the contrary.

      • piyuv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        You mean well and I wish you were right, but capitalism proves you wrong time and time again. Remember when everyone cancelled their Netflix subscriptions and the company went bankrupt because they disallowed account sharing? Yeah, that was the sentiment on all social media.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nobody did that in net change numbers.

          If your theory was right, Netflix is succeeding because Saudi billionaires from the 1% bought up thousands of Netflix subscriptions to make up for the average Joe from the 99% that unsubscribed.

          What really happened was that when they added household restrictions they saw a net increase in subscriptions, not from the 1%, but from the 99%.

          While the concentration of wealth has significant effects on opportunity and access to capital, it means pretty much jack shit to access to revenue, which is dictated by mass spending and very susceptible to voting with your dollar.

          We literally just saw a company hit hard by people voting with their dollar, with one of the largest alcoholic beverage companies taking a significant loss because they pissed off two sides of the market with their behavior, with effects still going on today.

        • rbhfd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, it proves me right. People are still willing to pay for the service despite the price hike. So it must mean that people think this non-essential service, for which there are alternatives, is worth the money.

          Unfortunately, this is users allowing for this kind of behaviour.

          The original comment was that voting with your wallet doesn’t work. I’m saying that it’s a problem with enough people voting with their wallet. If you are the only person that cares about something and stop buying from a particular company, they will not even notice it.

          On the other hand, look what happened when bud light had this thing with a trans influencer and conservatives got ridiculously upset with this, as they do. ABInbev is still feeling the effects of that.