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.
Huggies went up in price, but their cost of manufacturing actually went down.
It’s got nothing to do with profit margins, it’s just pure greed. Also, the law requires that publicly traded companies be greedy.
The law doesn’t actually state you need screw over your customers and maximize profit. It says that executives have a fiduciary duty, which means they must act in the best interest of the shareholder, not themselves.
That does not mean they have to suck out every single dollar of profit. Executives have some leeway in this and can very easily explain that napkins lead to happier customers and longer term retention which means long term profits.
It’s purely a short-term, wall street driven, behavior also driven by executive pay being also based in stock so they’re incentivized to drive up the price over the next quarter so they can cash out.
Yeah sure, but then you could also say the same about a private business. The CEO works for the business owner, whether the owner is private or public stockholders.
But the reality is that publicly traded companies end up being far more greedy and profit driven than private businesses. In particular, the greedy private businesses tend to taget an IPO, while the more conscientious ones remain private.
???
Maybe I should have said “it’s nothing to do with maintaining profit margins” against rising costs.
Gotcha, that makes sense.
How does the law require them to be greedy?
I just assumed that it was shareholders.
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
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.
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.
Yeah, your right. I guess I got to the part where it said “comply with regulations and laws” and laughed through the rest.