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.

  • Vcio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like a weird saying.

      It assumes that the people with bigger wallets also use a larger portion (absolute money, not percentages) on the “thing” to begin with. If the billionaire and the middle class man uses 10€ on the same thing a month, and both stop doing it, then they both got the same amount of “votes”. Much more fitting would be: “if you vote with your wallet, people who spend more money get more votes”.

      Of course this only applies if you’re talking about boycots etc, and not about buying stuff.

      And yes, people with bigger wallets probably have more sway and power when it comes to get getting their way if they want to, but when people talk about voting with your wallet, they’re not talking about this.

      • Vcio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “if you vote with your wallet, people who spend more money get more votes”.

        as i said “something like”, but overall it’s the same idea, semantics.

        Of course this only applies if you’re talking about boycots etc, and not about buying stuff.

        It applies in both cases, for example the design of a product (game Diablo 4) or the process of gentrification.