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.
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.
deleted by creator
And at least in food, it’s the same eight companies that own everything…
In a lot of towns your only grocery option is Walmart, unless you wanna drive 1+ hours. In small towns/villages you might only have a dollar general within that distance. Large corporation slaughter small businesses when they move in.
It’s true, but it’s also because small businesses often suck and exploit their communities, so people just stop shopping there when they have better options.
I’m not sure why so many people have rose colored glasses on for mom and pop stores, but they are just run by people trying to make a profit off of a community same as anyone else.
Some are, some aren’t. Just like how some large corporations do things way more ethically than others. It’s wrong to say that Valve is as evil as Eli Lilly because the former cares much more about consumers, and the latter cares way more about margins. Within my local community, I’ve seen a much higher proportion of businesses that try their best to serve their community, but just like every other business, a good portion just does not care. My theory is that most communities are similar, so mom and pops get a much better rep than large companies.
See also The Walmart effect
Workers are consumers.
That is what people miss. This is “the system”. It starts and ends with government and “we” chose this (I’m Canadian, we have similar issues but not as extreme, yet).
By continually voting in sociopathic narcissistic social climbers as both public and private sector policy makers (think of shareholders and corporate governance boards) we ensure the system is rigged for the top dogs.
The truth is the system could work in the average person’s favour very easily but it would mean limiting some personal freedoms; mostly of very, very rich people. It also would require the average person to get off the “everyone is exploiting me, so I need to do that to them first” treadmill.
Many people have never been on that treadmill (never had the chance or donate excess income or time to local food banks, etc).
The very, very rich don’t care. They simply maximize the profit in any situation. Put them in prison and they’ll give out legal advice for cigarettes and turn that into a burner phone they use to call their Cayman Islands broker.
It’s the upper/upper-middle people who will feel the pain as income is redistributed to poverty stricken people. And if we just impose ubi without fixing the “CEO problem” it will simply lead to inflation. Sucess of ubi programs is entirely due to it happening in a local market. Expand globally without fixing capitalism and you get inflation.
A socialist approach that still allows significant room for upwrd mobility (e.g. CEO can make up to 10x minimum wage, as a non-expert guess) with some type of employee representation on the board of large businesses (state imposed labour union) would probably do it.
Then make ubi contingent on minor public service with free daycare that you can use when performing said services (exception if you have more than 2 kids under 12, or are disabled in some way) say two days a week (networking, activity, build resume) would be a brainstorming idea to workshop.
Removed by mod
And it seems that “our corporate masters” don’t understand that underpaid or laid off people don’t have the purchasing power to buy more stuff.
In their relentless pursuit of profits, they are killing off the ability of people to be customers.
Just give em a subscription then!
They don’t even give them 50% of meals anymore, for a full shift.
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.
Okay but that song is from like a century ago and mostly things haven’t changed much in that time. Certainly we don’t have company stores/scrip anymore, but the grim outlook that song has on the world is still fairly accurate.
Bro. We are already there. The tobacco industry sued Australia for fighting to keep graphic pictures and descriptions of lung disease/cancer on cigarette packs and WON. Against the entire fucking government of Australia.
the song is about debt bondage from last century lol look up Company Towns
the song was about company towns where the laborers were paid in store credit instead of wages. you’d work, but never pay off debts, since it all went back to the companies who set the prices for everything you buy, and so they were able to keep you on a tight leash.
That’s how it feels like things are going now. a few companies own everything, pay our wages, and set our prices. we cannot get ahead.
I love Joe Vs. The Volcano (where this song is featured) because it really encapsulates the idea of the song.