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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Lack of competition against an embedded brand name. Change brands.
Removed by mod
Depends if you have a second washing machine because you’re now creating a new waste and different expense. Also depends on how much time you have and every dual income family answer the same. None. So no the generalisation that reusables are the solution is not accurate at all. I’d prefer biodegradable nappies any day. The washing machine goes over time as it is with the 14 outfit changes every day.
Removed by mod
Actually at least two families who have small children AND reusable nappies.
I don’t care for the “marketing” I mean it from the actual definition. Plus where I live companies are held to account for label based claims. So sounds like a US problem tbh.
So you have small children and both parents are working? Notice the plurals. We found with one baby it’s easy enough however the moment we both went to work and even more so with two babies it was impossible extra workload. Out of the friends and families in my circles the ONLY (2 families) that use reusable are the ones with a dedicated stay at home parent. Which is becoming rare more than ever.