Kelloggs boycott

[rebcoola]

Have you heard about this? Are you participating?  

[Katy]

No. Why are people protesting? 

[prairiewindmomma]

Yes and yes. The CEO of Kelloggs recently advised people that they should eat cereal for dinner as an affordable meal choice. “It’s landing really well right now. Cereal for dinner is probably more on trend now, and we would expect that to continue as the consumer remains under pressure.”

It came across as a “Let them eat cake” moment from a CEO who has been in place only since October. 

Meanwhile, Kelloggs’ pricing increased 14.7% in the previous year. 
 

Remember Kelloggs also owns Nutrigrain, Kashi, pop tarts, Eggo, Pringles, Cheez-its, Morningstar and other companies in its portfolio. https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/home.html

[Faith-manor]

Apparently, the CEO was on the news in January claiming cereal is reasonably priced and that Kellogg's would move be marketing "Cereal for dinner". We don't buy cereal, haven't for years so I wasn't following the flap. But on social media among Gen Z young adults who have already done a few years of " ramen noodles three meals a day because rent is insane", it didn't go down well. I think Reddit, among other forums, jumped on that.

[NorthwestMom]

LOL, I can't boycott what I was already not buying, but this was ridiculously insensitive and I will certainly NOT buy these products in the future. That multi- millionaire obviously does not value his customers.

[prairiewindmomma]

For me, it’s rather like PepsiCo and other companies that are taking the consumer for granted, assuming we will roll over and continue to accept price hikes that are merely profit gouges…

If we are engaging in cut throat capitalism, welcome to the point where the market corrects and demand goes down. My demand for those goods has gone down. Hopefully others agree and price corrects.

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

For me, it’s rather like PepsiCo and other companies that are taking the consumer for granted, assuming we will roll over and continue to accept price hikes that are merely profit gouges…

If we are engaging in cut throat capitalism, welcome to the point where the market corrects and demand goes down. My demand for those goods has gone down. Hopefully others agree and price corrects.

Agreed.

I have two young adult bachelors trying to get themselves established financially amid all of this mess, and they do not buy cereal. They keep some juice in the house but not a lot, and occasionally make lemonade. All of the stuff Kellogg sells are just priced out of their grocery budget. Most of their friends do the same. I am not sure that Kellogg understands that they are rapidly pricing themselves out of the young folks market. Cereal is expensive and unhealthy to feed little kids; my dd doesn't keep it around. Maybe Gen X would eat it for dinner? I don't know. Seems like the company the CEO was really re-enacting that moment right before the peasants go, "Eff it! Let's storm the castle!"

[HomeAgain]

51 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Yes and yes. The CEO of Kelloggs recently advised people that they should eat cereal for dinner as an affordable meal choice. “It’s landing really well right now. Cereal for dinner is probably more on trend now, and we would expect that to continue as the consumer remains under pressure.”

It came across as a “Let them eat cake” moment from a CEO who has been in place only since October. 

Meanwhile, Kelloggs’ pricing increased 14.7% in the previous year. 
 

Remember Kelloggs also owns Nutrigrain, Kashi, pop tarts, Eggo, Pringles, Cheez-its, Morningstar and other companies in its portfolio. https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/home.html

I remember hearing something about this, and thank you for the longer list.  We very occasionally buy Pop Tarts.

I will say every company now seems to be run by the unsavory.  Trader Joe's is anti-union to a high degree.  Kellogg's is out of touch.  Goya is straight up in Trump's rear end.  It's hard to find ethical corporations.  I really wish there was a short list of those instead of an increasing list of people I don't want to give money to.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

came across as a “Let them eat cake” moment from a CEO who has been in place only since October. 

I’ve seen it as “Let the eat flakes” and found it hilarious.  
 

I will be participating.  

Edited March 3 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

 

I will say every company now seems to be run by the unsavory.  Trader Joe's is anti-union to a high degree.  Kellogg's is out of touch.  Goya is straight up in Trump's rear end.  It's hard to find ethical corporations.  I really wish there was a short list of those instead of an increasing list of people I don't want to give money to.

This boycott is designed to target a different mega corp every quarter.  

[ScoutTN]

Cereal is highly processed junk food and is very expensive for the amount you get. My Ds16 can eat most of a box as a snack. We rarely buy it, though I cook hot cereal, mostly steel cut oats, a couple times a month as snack food. No Kelloggs here bc it’s not quality food. No cold cereal is.

Edited March 3 by ScoutTN

[Heartstrings]

Just now, ScoutTN said:

Cereal is highly processed junk food and is very expensive for the amount you get. My Ds16 can eat most of a box as a snack. We rarely buy it, though I cook hot cereal, mostly steel cut oats, a couple times a month as snack food. No Kelloggs here bc it’s not quality food. 

Exactly why it being suggested as a great dinner option for the poors was offensive.  
 

The idea is to target all of Kelloggs, including cheez it’s, kashi, Morning Star, all of its different brands.   

[prairiewindmomma]

Don Lee veggie burgers are replacing our Morningstar ones (for when the 11yo cooks as she isnt quite up to DIY yet), fwiw.

[bolt.]

This kind of public reaction always surprises me and amuses me a little. I guess I'm just not that surprised to find robber-barons at the top of the food chain of our everyday mega companies. Did people really think these things were run by Joe-ordinary folks who are struggling to pay their bills?

I mean, I know he put his foot in his mouth by saying the quiet part out loud -- but literally every one of these CEO's is *mandated* and fully expected to be able to answer the question, "How can we get even more money out of people under these circumstances of stress." That's. Their. Job.

He observed that replacing the supper meal (that often contains meat and other expensive ingredients) with cereal alone (which basically contains empty carbs) instead *could* be made to appeal to someone whose main priority is saving money. That's not untrue. It's a sound strategy for increasing his profits at the expense of people who are poor and suffering. He's supposed to be developing strategies like that.

Bottom feeders rule the world.

But the rest of them are exactly the same. It's capitalism. That's how it works. That's *why* it works.

[rebcoola]

2 hours ago, NorthwestMom said:

LOL, I can't boycott what I was already not buying, but this was ridiculously insensitive and I will certainly NOT buy these products in the future. That multi- millionaire obviously does not value his customers.

We dont buy Kelloggs cereal normally but we have done the mini boxed in kids stockings or easter baskets.  Kelloggs owns many thingswe do buy mornigstar, kashi and bare naked occasionally so wont be buying those anymore.

46 minutes ago, bolt. said:

This kind of public reaction always surprises me and amuses me a little. I guess I'm just not that surprised to find robber-barons at the top of the food chain of our everyday mega companies. Did people really think these things were run by Joe-ordinary folks who are struggling to pay their bills?

I mean, I know he put his foot in his mouth by saying the quiet part out loud -- but literally every one of these CEO's is *mandated* and fully expected to be able to answer the question, "How can we get even more money out of people under these circumstances of stress." That's. Their. Job.

He observed that replacing the supper meal (that often contains meat and other expensive ingredients) with cereal alone (which basically contains empty carbs) instead *could* be made to appeal to someone whose main priority is saving money. That's not untrue. It's a sound strategy for increasing his profits at the expense of people who are poor and suffering. He's supposed to be developing strategies like that.

Bottom feeders rule the world.

But the rest of them are exactly the same. It's capitalism. That's how it works. That's *why* it works.

The lady who started it or at least got the most traction fastest wants to boycott the 10 major conglomerates in turn basically just start with Kelloggs.

[bolt.]

30 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

The lady who started it or at least got the most traction fastest wants to boycott the 10 major conglomerates in turn basically just start with Kelloggs.

I suppose that makes a little more sense -- but I don't know what can be accomplished, really.

There are some few ways to source some of our foods apart from corporate interests. Maybe short rotating boycotts help give us practice in doing that? There are unconventional ways of eating and unusual ways of sourcing ingredients that lead to less dependence on food corporations So, in the long run -- if these are our values, than that's our path.

But in the short term, for those of us who can't (or don't want to) go whole-hog into direct purchasing from local producers, and limiting our nutrition to sources that we find as altruistic as our personal values are... I don't see that we have a lot of options.

But it is true that our power is in our purchasing power. Because capitalism cares about profits above any other value, and it might be possible to redirect some of our funds away from food conglomerates entirely. They won't cease chasing profits, of course, but maybe we will be slightly less personally complicit. And they might begin looking for marketing strategies that match our evolving sentiments, in order to regain access to those funds. (But it's also likely that they will just purchase the independent local sellers that we find for ourselves and loop us back in that way.)

Is there such a thing as being 'too big to boycott'?

Or am I just in a sour mood today?

[mom31257]

Dh loves frosted mini-wheats, but we buy store brands, which are cheaper than Kellogg's. He likes a bowl as a snack from time to time and might even eat it for dinner if he's not very hungry. 

Considering many families will eat fast food for dinner, I think a bowl of cereal (especially those with more fiber like above) could be a little less bad for you than fast food and is cheaper. 

I'm not into boycotting stuff. If sales go down, the CEOs won't be the ones who will be hurt. It will be the regular Americans who get laid off. I don't want to contribute to that over a philosophical high horse. 

[Eos]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

I suppose that makes a little more sense -- but I don't know what can be accomplished, really.

There are some few ways to source some of our foods apart from corporate interests. Maybe short rotating boycotts help give us practice in doing that? There are unconventional ways of eating and unusual ways of sourcing ingredients that lead to less dependence on food corporations So, in the long run -- if these are our values, than that's our path.

But in the short term, for those of us who can't (or don't want to) go whole-hog into direct purchasing from local producers, and limiting our nutrition to sources that we find as altruistic as our personal values are... I don't see that we have a lot of options.

But it is true that our power is in our purchasing power. Because capitalism cares about profits above any other value, and it might be possible to redirect some of our funds away from food conglomerates entirely. They won't cease chasing profits, of course, but maybe we will be slightly less personally complicit. And they might begin looking for marketing strategies that match our evolving sentiments, in order to regain access to those funds. (But it's also likely that they will just purchase the independent local sellers that we find for ourselves and loop us back in that way.)

Is there such a thing as being 'too big to boycott'?

Or am I just in a sour mood today?

I've been reading lately about the Quaker-initiated boycotts of sugar in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, due to its being produced in the most brutal of the slavery economies. Many abolitionists actually objected to the "free produce" movement of the 1830s, some on theological grounds and others because there could be no purity, even then. The slave trade touched everything and there was some feeling that individual, consumer-based actions were ineffectual and therefore distracting from the larger political movement.

This is neither here nor there in terms of Kellogg's but it's something I've been thinking a lot about lately (also divestment, BDS, etc.)

[prairiewindmomma]

I think short term boycotts do matter because they bring discussion and negative media attention to the companies. Wendy’s announcement of algorithmic based pricing is an example of this. I still think that they will roll this out, but I think they also got a clear signal that consumers arent happy about it.

The last big media event re: Kelloggs had to do with the 2021(?) worker strike. They had workers working 80+ hours a week (supposedly due to covid shortages of workers), but the company sought to lower benefits and pay. It led to unionization and eventually a better contract for its employees. Their strike gave momentum to other union workers at other facilities—I followed the nabisco strike here more closely—and worker lives also improved here.

While most large companies seek favor most with the stock market, it is everyday sales that push that number. It is true that they generally try to cut labor costs to increase profit—but strikes by worker or consumer do move the needle. 

[Heartstrings]

It’s been really encouraging watching people on tik tok make waffles to put in the freezer, or make home made cheez it’s and pop tarts.  If ALL this boycott does is remind people that they CAN cook at home it will be a net positive.   I’m sure someone will now complain about people cooking with store bought white flour instead of milling whole grains grown in their own back yard but whatever.  Progress!  

[Eos]

I will add to my post above that the earlier, English boycott of sugar directly contributed to the British slave trade being abolished, and was also accompanied by objections that it would hurt the enslaved people it was meant to help.

https://theconversation.com/how-18th-century-quakers-led-a-boycott-of-sugar-to-protest-against-slavery-174114

[Corraleno]

8 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

It's hard to find ethical corporations.  I really wish there was a short list of those instead of an increasing list of people I don't want to give money to.

Bob's Red Mill is 100% employee owned. The founder, Bob Moore (who recently passed away at 94), turned down multiple very lucrative offers to buy the company and instead transferred ownership to the workers. They sell lots of different varieties of oatmeal, muesli, granola, and multigrain hot cereal mixes — and it's so much healthier than Kelloggs junk.

[DawnM]

I hadn't heard.   We only buy one kind of cereal, and I just looked, it is owned by General Mills.

Although I am not sure this is boycott worthy.   The guy was a little insensitive but trying to capitalize on saving money.   He is not responsible for people's financial state, so the "Let them eat cake"  phrase doesn't really apply IMO.   Their costs have gone up as well I am sure, so a price hike isn't unexpected.   

 

Edited March 4 by DawnM

[Carrie12345]

15 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

It's hard to find ethical corporations.  I really wish there was a short list of those instead of an increasing list of people I don't want to give money to.

Because there are so few owning so much.

[prairiewindmomma]

The comment was made during an interview in which they announced they were raising their annual profit forecast because they have been able to continue to steadily increase their margin …ie price hikes well above cost increases.

 

[Pawz4me]

32 minutes ago, DawnM said:

I hadn't heard.   We only buy one kind of cereal, and I just looked, it is owned by General Mills.

Although I am not sure this is boycott worthy.   The guy was a little insensitive but trying to capitalize on saving money.   He is not responsible for people's financial state, so the "Let them eat cake"  phrase doesn't really apply IMO.   Their costs have gone up as well I am sure, so a price hike isn't unexpected.   

 

I haven't been following the Kellogg's situation closely, but over the last few years multiple corporations have openly said (in so many words) in their earnings reports/calls with investors that they're taking advantage of inflation to increase their profits. They know the not-well-informed masses will blame it on inflation and not notice that they (the corporations) are reporting record breaking profits.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

I haven't been following the Kellogg's situation closely, but over the last few years multiple corporations have openly said (in so many words) in their earnings reports/calls with investors that they're taking advantage of inflation to increase their profits. They know the not-well-informed masses will blame it on inflation and not notice that they (the corporations) are reporting record breaking profits.

This.   
 

It’s obvious the mega corps are going to keep raising prices as long as the market will bear it.  This boycott is designed to send the message that the market is no longer willing to bear it.   

[Carrie12345]

15 hours ago, bolt. said:

I mean, I know he put his foot in his mouth by saying the quiet part out loud -- but literally every one of these CEO's is *mandated* and fully expected to be able to answer the question, "How can we get even more money out of people under these circumstances of stress." That's. Their. Job.

The question is, why do we allow it to be their job?

A food company’s job is supposed to be to provide food to people. And the shoe company to provide shoes, the building company to supply buildings, etc. And at a price that allows the people “doing” those companies to afford their food, shoes, buildings, etc.  
The idea that food is used as a “cover” for making a relative handful of people insanely wealthy while the masses are expected to sacrifice their nutrition to sustain that wealth is mind blowing.

 

[Heartstrings]

17 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

I really wish there was a short list of those instead of an increasing list of people I don't want to give money to

Here are a few lists.  It emphasizes family or employee owned brands for those interested in not giving money to mega corps  

The link says Cancel this Clothing Company but that’s just his handle, he started off trying to fight fast fashion but has recently moved into food and personal care.  

https://cancelthisclothingcompany.com/resources/

Edited March 4 by Heartstrings

[Faith-manor]

21 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

The question is, why do we allow it to be their job?

A food company’s job is supposed to be to provide food to people. And the shoe company to provide shoes, the building company to supply buildings, etc. And at a price that allows the people “doing” those companies to afford their food, shoes, buildings, etc.  
The idea that food is used as a “cover” for making a relative handful of people insanely wealthy while the masses are expected to sacrifice their nutrition to sustain that wealth is mind blowing.

 

This.

And I think we will continue to see more backlash from Gen Z. They just don't have a lot to hope in capitalism run amok. It is getting sooo out of control, and Millenials and GenZ, soon to be GenAlpha as well, are left holding the empty bag.

We live in Michigan, and our sons live 25 minutes from Kellogg which is in Battle Creek. It should be noted that they have continually cut back employees and saddled remaining employees with more work to increase their profits. The ounces per box have decreased regularly while the price keeps going up though their cost of production has not risen. 

They can play that game if they want to, but that doesn't mean young people have to take it on the chin either. My kids live in an apartment complex of young adults all rooming together 3-5 people crammed into 2 bedroom apartments trying to get ahead, and furious at the hand they have been dealt which includes having a strong belief that they will work until they die, that their entire generation will not be able to afford any kind of healthcare, that their SS payments will benefit their parents and grandparents while they will never see a dime of it in return, that Medicare will be disbanded before they become senior citizens/elderly, that eventually they will all be living in cars and vans, homeless, because of the housing insanity, all while being maligned by Silent Generation, Boomers, and GenX as being lazy, worthless creatures who deserve nothing more than ramen noodles. So very many of them work two jobs just to barely survive, have no hope of being able to afford a family, and pinch pennies much harder than their parents and grandparents ever did. That is their view. People without hope may seem complacent for a while, but that raging underbelly eventually explodes. It isn't going to be pretty.

One of the issues I see just from the big three automakers is that when they offshored manufacturing to places where they pay $3 an hour, some places $5, they let go millions of Americans whom they used to pay decent wages to then were shocked when new car sales plummeted. Well duh. You shafted your workers and now they cannot afford your stupid product so you shot yourself in the foot! One of GM's most profitable divisions now is its car and truck brand for China. China has just about ZERO safety standards so they produce this pathetic "sail a car" kind of mini- pickup truck that is just a death trap, and costs them $2500 to produce in China, and it sells in country as well as surrounding Asian nations that also have no safety standards for twice that much which makes it affordable there. Never mind how many people will die in relatively minor accidents because it is just utter junk. Sigh. I think this kind of thing will be all the rage. Figure out a way to make something for foreign market while watching America descend into a living hellscape, but continue to operate "headquarters" in the US for all the tax breaks. I saw the other day that the effective tax rate on net profits for many companies is 9.6%. That's it. The average family pays 13%.

The boycott probably will not make a difference. However, I do think it could be a warning bell of what the future holds. Millenials and GenZ become the largest voting block in 2026, and they are a very gloomy, anti-establishment, anti-capitalist people.

 

[Carrie12345]

17 hours ago, bolt. said:

How can we get even more money out of people under these circumstances of stress."

Sorry for quoting again, but I have a fabulous answer for this. Provide the best product at the best price. Isn’t that what capitalism is *supposed* to be?

[Heartstrings]

42 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Sorry for quoting again, but I have a fabulous answer for this. Provide the best product at the best price. Isn’t that what capitalism is *supposed* to be?

People forget that the best price and best product is determined by the consumer.  *We* get to determine what is a good product and what is the best price.  Our corporate overlords have to appeal to us, not just dictate to us.  That’s why they have billion dollar marketing budgets.  We play a role in this, we are not supposed to be passive.     

[Paige]

We are already defacto boycotting because I won't pay these recent price increases. Cereal, pop tarts, chips, soda- all of these have become ridiculously expensive and provide such little nutritional value, that they are no longer even "fun" foods. Our budget isn't even that tight but I grew up with a very price conscious parent who grew up *VERY* poor. I grew up with the idea that consumers must punish price gaugers. $10 Disney Ice Cream Ears? Heck no. My dad would give us ice cream at home. Kellogs and Pepsi are pricing like the grocery store is an amusement park or airport. 

[bolt.]

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

The question is, why do we allow it to be their job?

A food company’s job is supposed to be to provide food to people. And the shoe company to provide shoes, the building company to supply buildings, etc. And at a price that allows the people “doing” those companies to afford their food, shoes, buildings, etc.  
The idea that food is used as a “cover” for making a relative handful of people insanely wealthy while the masses are expected to sacrifice their nutrition to sustain that wealth is mind blowing.

 

I think you have misunderstood capitalism. The descriptions you are giving are for food (or other product) collective or co-operative organizations.

In capitalism the goal of any company is to generate profits for its owners/shareholders. It is their duty (and sometimes their legal obligation) to generate profits maximally, to the degree that it can do so under government regulation (or by paying fines) and to the degree that the market will maximally bear. That's the company's job. It's the CEO's job. It's the management's job. It's the employees' job. And it's even your job. You as the consumer are the foundational source of the wealth that works through this system. That's why you are called 'the consumer'.

If this idea is mind-blowing, I'm surprised. It has been a component of the basic understanding of companies, corporations, and businesses under capitalism since Adam Smith, Karl Marx and their contemporary economic theorists.

Under the current model of capitalism, a 'company' who provided food, shoes, or any other good in the manner you suggest would both fail (in the practical sense, either fail to launch or fail to succeed) and probably be subject to lawsuits by its investors (for failing to provide expected returns when they reasonably could have done so, but chose not to).

Unregulated capitalism was always going to, 'make a relative handful of people insanely wealthy while the masses are expected to sacrifice their nutrition [or make other unwitting sacrifices and contributions] to sustain that wealth.' It was fully predictable and fully predicted. Regulated capitalism wasn't supposed to get us to quite the same point. Unfortunately, under modern democracy, money buys for the rich the privilege of influencing the regulations to suit themselves -- so that was the end of that.

The only two ways out of this trap (that I can see) are:

1. To use our role as consumers to apply leverage when possible (although in the case of food, that set of actions is seriously difficult) and permanently and generously direct our money towards what we perceive as 'more responsible' commercial entities (thereby making 'responsibility' (or the appearance thereof) profitable enough to at least survive.

2. To use our role as voters to seek out reforms to political & campaign financing regulations, together with strict oversight and harsh penalties for violators. (That's how we get the politicians some freedom and independence from the already-rich oligarchs, thereby reducing their power to have their commercial enterprises under-regulated and under-taxed through the variety of forms of legal bribery currently available to them.)

[Lady Florida.]

I heard about the comment but this thread is the first I've heard of the boycott. We occasionally buy Eggo waffles when they go on a BOGO sale but that's all we buy from Kellogg. 

[73349]

We don't buy their products (or their competitors') anyway. But I ate breakfast cereal every morning as a kid, and even with milk, it doesn't have enough calories per serving to be a full meal even for a child. If I wanted it as an affordable dinner (supposing it didn't contain ingredients we can't have), I would not pay full price for any name brand. DS alone would need 4+ servings a night.

Breakfast here is any combination of leftovers from dinner; fruit, such as bananas and clementines; and Bob's Red Mill buckwheat groats with cinnamon, raisins, and pecans.

[Carrie12345]

18 minutes ago, bolt. said:

If this idea is mind-blowing, I'm surprised.

Maybe my description was flawed? It is mind blowing to me that humans can treat/use humans like this.

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with earning an impressive amount of money. If I could come up with a novelty item that cost $20 to produce and 100,000 people would buy it for $100 each, I’d do it, pay the people who helped me very well, and live happily ever after. Peace out!

But if people depended on me, along with a small handful of others, to provide essential products, I’d rather die than play f- f- with struggling customers.

”Business is business” doesn’t, imo, supersede humanity. Money over people makes me nauseous even if it isn’t surprising at this point. 

[TechWife]

3 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

The question is, why do we allow it to be their job?

A food company’s job is supposed to be to provide food to people. And the shoe company to provide shoes, the building company to supply buildings, etc. And at a price that allows the people “doing” those companies to afford their food, shoes, buildings, etc.  
The idea that food is used as a “cover” for making a relative handful of people insanely wealthy while the masses are expected to sacrifice their nutrition to sustain that wealth is mind blowing.

 

 

The food company's job is to make money for their shareholders. Selling food is the way that they do that. They employ as few people as possible to meet that goal. Money is the goal, food is the means. For the consumer, food is the goal, money is the means. The two are indirect conflict with one another. That is what capitalism is, it really isn't a "cover."

 

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

This.

And I think we will continue to see more backlash from Gen Z. They just don't have a lot to hope in capitalism run amok. It is getting sooo out of control, and Millenials and GenZ, soon to be GenAlpha as well, are left holding the empty bag.

 

The younger generations need to run for office and change the laws, if that is what they want to do. The income/wealth gap gets larger everyday. There are laws that could, be changed that would narrow that gap. If the following generations decide that they want to course correct that, it will take a while from a legal and practical perspective.

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Sorry for quoting again, but I have a fabulous answer for this. Provide the best product at the best price. Isn’t that what capitalism is *supposed* to be?

No. It's to provide a product that people will buy that will turn the highest profit for the company selling it. That's what capitalism is - it doesn't take into account what is best - it takes into account what is possible. The best price for the company often doesn't produce the best product for the consumer. Producing the best product for the consumer cuts into company profits, therefore it isn't what is best for the company. The interests of the company are in conflicts with the interests of the consumer. Capitalism also means sellers are competing for buyers. They will try to differentiate themselves up to the point, but only to the point where they can preserve their profits/share value.

[Faith-manor]

Consumers have no real control. Monopolies have been allowed to thrive which prevents the consumers from having choice. Occasionally the government tries to act like it is doing something about anti-trust, but it jut for show. Kroger/Albertson being a prime example. The time to act was back when most of the food available was consolidated into a handful of companies. It isn't like what is available at each of those stores is from different sources. Same sources, different labels.

Same with clothing, and many other things. Blaming consumers for their lack of choice of where the end product is sourced doesn't make any sense.

https://time.com/6139127/u-s-food-prices-monopoly/

[bolt.]

50 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Maybe my description was flawed? It is mind blowing to me that humans can treat/use humans like this.

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with earning an impressive amount of money. If I could come up with a novelty item that cost $20 to produce and 100,000 people would buy it for $100 each, I’d do it, pay the people who helped me very well, and live happily ever after. Peace out!

But if people depended on me, along with a small handful of others, to provide essential products, I’d rather die than play f- f- with struggling customers.

”Business is business” doesn’t, imo, supersede humanity. Money over people makes me nauseous even if it isn’t surprising at this point. 

For what it's worth, it makes me nauseous too.

As a religious person, I consider the abject service of money that is elevated as a value for capitalists to be a form of idolatry and a deadly sin.

In plain philosophy, I consider it an abnegation of humanity.

But I'm not shocked, surprised, or blown away. It is entirely consistent with my education and worldview -- to know that I share a world with such humans who would behave in such a way, to be sure that such snakes will inevitably rise to the top (and that good folks will not), and to know that I unwillingly am constrained and conditioned to support and to fund such people -- And even to know that I personally derive benefit from their activities.

We live in places where business *does* supersede humanity (and pretty much always has) and where money has consistently triumphed over people from time immemorial. That many of us have believed otherwise for a time is simply a function of marketing strategies.

Figuring out how to face such truths with a personally acceptable balance between fatalism and activism is a task for all of us.

Edited March 4 by bolt.

[TechWife]

21 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Maybe my description was flawed? It is mind blowing to me that humans can treat/use humans like this.

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with earning an impressive amount of money. If I could come up with a novelty item that cost $20 to produce and 100,000 people would buy it for $100 each, I’d do it, pay the people who helped me very well, and live happily ever after. Peace out!

But if people depended on me, along with a small handful of others, to provide essential products, I’d rather die than play f- f- with struggling customers.

”Business is business” doesn’t, imo, supersede humanity. Money over people makes me nauseous even if it isn’t surprising at this point. 

I agree, it is mind blowing. Companies would rather increase their profit than pay a living wage that would allow their employees to meet needs. This isn't true only with luxury goods. It's true with everything. When it comes down to it, farm workers bear the brunt of that box of cereal and make the least from it. Farm workers are "essential workers" but it isn't essential that they be paid reasonably.

 

 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

No. It's to provide a product that people will buy that will turn the highest profit for the company selling it. That's what capitalism is - it doesn't take into account what is best - it takes into account what is possible.

So, I have zero formal education in economics. But I thought there was a well-being component to capitalism. Did I make that up in my head? (Sincere, not sarcasm. I know I’m not always clear.)

[TechWife]

7 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

So, I have zero formal education in economics. But I thought there was a well-being component to capitalism. Did I make that up in my head? (Sincere, not sarcasm. I know I’m not always clear.)

 

I think originally (around when feudalism ended) it was supposed to have a societal benefit, but it hasn't been the case in a very long time.

Caveat - I took my economics classes, well, several decades ago, let's just leave it at that.

 

[kbutton]

2 hours ago, bolt. said:

Unfortunately, under modern democracy, money buys for the rich the privilege of influencing the regulations to suit themselves -- so that was the end of that.

That makes total sense.

12 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Bob's Red Mill is 100% employee owned.

I didn’t know this. Thanks! Makes me feel better about paying more when I buy their stuff (in addition to the quality).

[Faith-manor]

Carrie, there was never a legal component to the humanity of it. The thought process was a belief in the general goodness of humans to not do this to other humans and companies would for the most part self police themselves. Of course this was ignoring the WHOLE of human history, and the U.S. basis of economy in slavery and indentured servitude. Just utterly ignoring it, as for all time, the average rich human has been a paragon of virtue towards the serf humans. 🙄🙄🙄 Sure. Dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn with it! 

And of course apparently not one blessed thing was learned from the likes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Whitneys, Hearsts, Carnegies, Goelets, Van Rensseslaers, Livingstons, Fish, Cushings, and Roosevelts to name but a few.

Railroad tycoons. Sigh.

Thinking about the railroad and coal workers paid in script so they couldn't shop anywhere but the company store. I am just waiting for that idea to come back in vogue. I could see it. Our current leadership is so entirely owned by big business that it must be time for that idea to come back around. 😠

[prairiewindmomma]

27 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

So, I have zero formal education in economics. But I thought there was a well-being component to capitalism. Did I make that up in my head? (Sincere, not sarcasm. I know I’m not always clear.)

AFAIK, there has never been a well-being component to straight up capitalism. The Nordic model, or social market economy involves state intervention and extensive regulation aimed at maintaining some social welfare policies with the idea that putting some boundaries on the market provides stability to society as a whole by working towards a safe and healthy populace.

Capitalism rose off out of mercantilism in the 1500s in which nations/states were heavily involved in the marketplace, with the aim of improving state interests at home and abroad.  Capitalism (which no one agrees on the definition of exactly) basically revolves around 5 tenets: private property, private enterprise, market competition, profit as incentive, and consumer freedom to choose.  By contrast, in socialism the state owns the means of production and seeks to promote social good over profits, 

In our current state, one could argue that we've lost key market competition and thus consumer freedom to choose in a number of areas. We've moved toward oligarchic capitalism in which wealth and power are concentrated into the hands of a very few. 

[prairiewindmomma]

11 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Carrie, there was never a legal component to the humanity of it. The thought process was a belief in the general goodness of humans to not do this to other humans and companies would for the most part self police themselves. Of course this was ignoring the WHOLE of human history, and the U.S. basis of economy in slavery and indentured servitude. Just utterly ignoring it, as for all time, the average rich human has been a paragon of virtue towards the serf humans. 🙄🙄🙄 Sure. Dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn with it! 

And of course apparently not one blessed thing was learned from the likes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Whitneys, Hearsts, Carnegies, Goelets, Van Rensseslaers, Livingstons, Fish, Cushings, and Roosevelts to name but a few.

Railroad tycoons. Sigh.

Thinking about the railroad and coal workers paid in script so they couldn't shop anywhere but the company store. I am just waiting for that idea to come back in vogue. I could see it. Our current leadership is so entirely owned by big business that it must be time for that idea to come back around. 😠

Right, for a time in the 1900s we moved towards capitalism 2.0 briefly, in which more regulations were put into place. These have been systematically dismantled in the US and elsewhere from the 1980s on.

Personally, I think we're in some form of late stage capitalism and that we're going to be moving into a period of degrowth in the future just based on how demographics (people have stopped having kids at replacement value in much of the world) and based on how we're FAFO with climate change.  As boomers retire around the world they are moving capital out of the markets (thus constraining capital for startups and other new ventures) and spending every dang penny they can before they die. The rising generations are smaller and thus will not be able to be able to maintain current spending patterns. Additionally, we've already extracted and used up a lot of our key minerals, and with climate change we're going to see massive instability in food production.  Because of massive instability in food production, we're going to see instability in governments. Our global degrowth is going to be uneven and chaotic.  Those at c-level status in large corporations see that coming and so they are trying to do massive wealth extraction from the system before this period of high instability which we're staring at right now.  Right? An example is in Vulture capitalists (venture capitalists, if you don't catch my sarcasm) have been purchasing and systematically destroying stable cash cow companies to extract wealth and then dumping the financing of those purchases back onto the company as debt which forces them to go bankrupt. They are behaving exactly as intended based on the policies we've set up.  We're reaping what we sowed by lowering corporate tax rates and by how we've structurally set up our laws and markets.

 

[livetoread]

3 hours ago, Paige said:

I grew up with the idea that consumers must punish price gaugers. $10 Disney Ice Cream Ears? Heck no. My dad would give us ice cream at home. Kellogs and Pepsi are pricing like the grocery store is an amusement park or airport. 

My parents were decently wealthy by the time I was a teen, and this was still their philosophy. Just because you can spend the money doesn't mean you should. Both dh and I feel similarly in that I can't get pleasure out of things when I know I'm being gouged, so if I'm buying something for pleasure (like junk food) it better be reasonable or I'm not buying it. It's not about being able to afford it - it's about a pleasurable thing losing its pleasure because someone thinks I'm a captive market. Nope.

[chiguirre]

40 minutes ago, livetoread said:

It's not about being able to afford it - it's about a pleasurable thing losing its pleasure because someone thinks I'm a captive market. Nope.

Yes!!! I won't buy your overpriced soda and cereal. Put it on sale BOGO or I'll buy the store brand. Often enough, it turns out the store brand is better and I won't switch back. So next quarter you can explain to shareholders why your year on year sales are down. The short sightedness is breathtaking. They'll tick off their customers to the point where people will find an acceptable substitute and never come back.

Edited March 4 by chiguirre

[Faith-manor]

37 minutes ago, livetoread said:

My parents were decently wealthy by the time I was a teen, and this was still their philosophy. Just because you can spend the money doesn't mean you should. Both dh and I feel similarly in that I can't get pleasure out of things when I know I'm being gouged, so if I'm buying something for pleasure (like junk food) it better be reasonable or I'm not buying it. It's not about being able to afford it - it's about a pleasurable thing losing its pleasure because someone thinks I'm a captive market. Nope.

Same. Dh and I can actually afford more consumption. We just get so angry at the price gouging. I can afford a high end vacation, but in actuality we van camp, sail, and kayak. Van camping saves us a ton of money...$27-30 a night in a National Forest or State Park vs. $150 a night for a not very nice hotel room. We do sometimes use Vrbo...we are doing that when we go to Virginia as part of the team to put on a huge rocketry competition. We won't have time to set up camp, cook over a fire, haul water to wash dishes. But, avoiding hotels and high priced rentals is our new norm. 

I refuse amusement parks, over priced museums (sometimes those $5 donation local museums are pleasant and very informative), rarely a movie in theaters and usually those are matinee for the savings with no popcorn or soda, no high end restaurants, etc. My niece is in construction management, and when we were in NC last year wanted to see Biltmore. Well, until she saw the price tag. Then it was a hard, hard no. National and State Parks are marvelous price tags.

An evening of entertainment for my bachelor boys is calling their friends everyone pitching in for a couple of Little Caesars Pizza, and then playing games. None of them go out for entertainment. It seems to me that at some point, that whole industry is going to meet its end when the boomers are gone unless Gen X steps up to take the kids to Disney. I can tell you this grandma is NOT. But the grandsons will be taken to revel in the great outdoors, or to DC with camping around Shenendoah, and driving in to grab the train to go the Smithsonian for free.