• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Whomp, that sucks. It’s about on par, and yea I’ve noticed for a while but unless they’ve changed hands, at some point they do need to survive. In the same way I think wages should go up with inflation, I do understand the need to raise prices from time to time as well. The issue I have is with predatory price jumps, shrink-flation, etc. and doubly when the only people who benefit are the super wealthy at the top.

    • wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      need to survive.

      That’s the thing though: they don’t need to survive.

      We, The People never needed them to.

      Yet, they gorge themselves on our public funds (ie. “bail out”= oopsie, free do-over w/ bonus) if when they invariably fail to come up with yet another scheme before their greed tanks run dry. (There’s no “if” here, it’s a disgusting “when”.)

      Every fucking time.

      Then, it’s right back to the age-old tradition of bleeding us all more directly —mostly legal, too. 🤷🏼‍♂️

      “Too big to fail”? Nah. Too corrupt to die deservedly, too greedy to change their implicit nature.

      Funny thing about guillotines: they get right to the point. No more bullshit, no more wrigglin’, no more spin. Binary and decisive. Ah, the good ol’ days. 🤪

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yes, I am 1,000% aware that no corporation needs to survive. Telling Arizona Iced Tea, one of the few wide-spanning businesses that’s actually decent, that they need to sell at a loss to make you feel good is immensely stupid and there’s mo two ways about it.

        Maybe they suddenly started jacking up their prices to make huge profits and stopped treating their employees decently, but I missed that news in that case.