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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      50
      edit-2
      2 years ago

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

      • AnonStoleMyPants
        link
        fedilink
        22 years 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Yep that’s true, but I think in the long haul appealing to more people is better than just one

    • nik0
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      We’re in a generation of complacency. Nobody cares and our to busy consuming to care.

        • PlasterAnalyst
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          I mean, you would save a lot more money if you did 2 seconds of research by comparing prices before you buy things and also avoiding unnecessary expenditures like convenience foods like Taco Bell, junk food, and carbonated beverages.

          It’s amazing to me how many people let themselves get nickel and dimed to death because, “it’s only $20.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      482 years 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          82 years 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Hard to do that when everything is a fucking oligopoly. If you don’t like Taco Bell, have fun also avoiding KFC, Pizza Hut, and The Habit, all owned by Yum! Brands.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Go to your locally owned Mexican restaurant instead.

        Stop letting advertising direct your purchasing intent towards mega-corp brands.