Asklemmy

43817 readers

863 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!

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

927

Why is everything in consumer / American life so fucking shitty now - and companies literally just say 'oh bc profit margins' and we're now expected to swallow that and sympathize? (lemmy.world)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by _number8_@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

341 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Chouxfleur@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How does the law require them to be greedy?

I just assumed that it was shareholders.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Maybe not an exact law to be greedy but aren't they legally responsible for acting in the interest of the shareholders not the consumer

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not technically a "law"...

"The shareholder wealth maximization doctrine requires public corporations to pursue a single purpose to the exclusion of all others: increase the wealth of shareholders by increasing the value of their shares. However, a company should be committed to enhance shareholder value and comply with all regulations and laws that govern shareholder's rights."

The" however... " part is largely ignored, except for when it benefits shareholders.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The "however" part you quoted explicitly mentions following the rights of shareholders. From what you described, there's literally nothing else in the doctrine to ignore.

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah, your right. I guess I got to the part where it said "comply with regulations and laws" and laughed through the rest.