The best way to show a company you do not want to support them or their practices is to stop giving them money. Voting with your wallet is the thing that’ll be the the most notably change in an earnings call. I feel many people forgot that.
It’s not always convenient, but you can’t just take all the benefits of a capitalist system without having any of the responsibilities.
It’s almost funny how sometimes, this works, but for the completely wrong reasons. Bud light tanked HARD - because of a trans ad. Coca-Cola had an (somewhat unsuccessful) boycott - because of alleged connections to Israel. On the other hand, nestle has been killing people in Africa for at least 2 decades by buying up the entire water supply and nobody seems to really care.
I’d really like to see people take some responsibility and think about which company they are giving their money.
not to be a debby downer on you, but short-term fluctuations in any given companies stock-price is rarely indicative of anything. there is a whole side of trading built exclusively around “event trading”. see something negative in the news? open up a short-line on that ticker to crash the price, see how far emotional gamblers take it down…then cover for a solid profit.
considering the type of people generally on lemmy, i imagine your already quite disillusioned with the state of our society but if for some reason your a glutton for punishment and want to become even more disgusted…there’s a book I highly recommend you read.
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, written over a century ago as sort of tongue-in-cheek guidebook to how this casino we call the stock/futures market (that we have seemingly tied our entire economy too…) really operates, everyone who trades professionally is familiar with all the fundamental ideas laid down in that book, any that arent don’t survive a recession/crash cycle.
It’s possible that they have the iPhone for some reason other than they bought it new. Maybe it was a gift from a parent who uses iPhones, or maybe it was a hand-me-down, for example. Point being, the guy in the second panel doesn’t have enough information to say what he’s saying.
beyond that, even if it was bought new, its not like that person can, upon learning something about apple that they dont like, go back and retroactively un-buy their phone.
If someone is complaining about the reasonableness of the price of an Apple product, while using one (and presumably leaving on the features that advertise in messages that an iPhone was used), I think it’s fair to assume they are paying or going to pay those prices, especially because of all the stuff Apple does to maintain a closed ecosystem of products.
There’s also the implied expectation that an ethical company would be voluntarily using the money they get to make sure they are giving back to employees and the broader society, but that’s unrealistic because companies never work like that.
Voting with your wallet is the thing that’ll be the the most notably change in an earnings call.
Voting to break up monopolies via anti-trust law enforcement will have more effect. “Voting with your wallet” is useless when oligarchs buy out their competitors on this hypothetical voting ballot.
It’s not always convenient, but you can’t just take all the benefits of a capitalist system without having any of the responsibilities.
There is literally no product you can buy in a capitalist system that did not feature suffering somewhere along the manufacturing pipeline.
The absolute best situation you can hope for is that every single person in the chain from acquisition of raw materials to manufacturing a finished product is that the only suffering they experience is “I am forced to do this labor so I don’t starve”
I should point out that this is an extrme rarity in supply chains and manufacturing goods. Typically it’s much worse.
The reason things are like this is that it’s very easy for humans to compartmentalize things and ignore the suffering of others if it makes their own situation just a little more bearable.
As much as I wish Nestle would shrivel and die, there are far too many people out there that will buy the baby formula or the chocolate bar without even considering the misery that went into making it. And even if they know about it, it’s easier to just buy it and feel a small pang of guilt than go without.
That line of thinking only benefits the large corporations in the end. There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so whatever, let’s keep consuming from the corporations around and let’s not try to reduce their power? It’s like criticizing veganism because plants are also living beings, and we can’t eat anything without causing some form of suffering.
The first panel is pretty accurate tho.
The best way to show a company you do not want to support them or their practices is to stop giving them money. Voting with your wallet is the thing that’ll be the the most notably change in an earnings call. I feel many people forgot that.
It’s not always convenient, but you can’t just take all the benefits of a capitalist system without having any of the responsibilities.
It’s almost funny how sometimes, this works, but for the completely wrong reasons. Bud light tanked HARD - because of a trans ad. Coca-Cola had an (somewhat unsuccessful) boycott - because of alleged connections to Israel. On the other hand, nestle has been killing people in Africa for at least 2 decades by buying up the entire water supply and nobody seems to really care.
I’d really like to see people take some responsibility and think about which company they are giving their money.
You’d be making a great point if Google, Samsung et al weren’t also behaving atrociously.
not to be a debby downer on you, but short-term fluctuations in any given companies stock-price is rarely indicative of anything. there is a whole side of trading built exclusively around “event trading”. see something negative in the news? open up a short-line on that ticker to crash the price, see how far emotional gamblers take it down…then cover for a solid profit.
considering the type of people generally on lemmy, i imagine your already quite disillusioned with the state of our society but if for some reason your a glutton for punishment and want to become even more disgusted…there’s a book I highly recommend you read.
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, written over a century ago as sort of tongue-in-cheek guidebook to how this casino we call the stock/futures market (that we have seemingly tied our entire economy too…) really operates, everyone who trades professionally is familiar with all the fundamental ideas laid down in that book, any that arent don’t survive a recession/crash cycle.
It’s possible that they have the iPhone for some reason other than they bought it new. Maybe it was a gift from a parent who uses iPhones, or maybe it was a hand-me-down, for example. Point being, the guy in the second panel doesn’t have enough information to say what he’s saying.
beyond that, even if it was bought new, its not like that person can, upon learning something about apple that they dont like, go back and retroactively un-buy their phone.
If anything, throwing a perfectly good iPhone in the trash and buying another smartphone would be even more hypocritical
If someone is complaining about the reasonableness of the price of an Apple product, while using one (and presumably leaving on the features that advertise in messages that an iPhone was used), I think it’s fair to assume they are paying or going to pay those prices, especially because of all the stuff Apple does to maintain a closed ecosystem of products.
There’s also the implied expectation that an ethical company would be voluntarily using the money they get to make sure they are giving back to employees and the broader society, but that’s unrealistic because companies never work like that.
Voting to break up monopolies via anti-trust law enforcement will have more effect. “Voting with your wallet” is useless when oligarchs buy out their competitors on this hypothetical voting ballot.
There is literally no product you can buy in a capitalist system that did not feature suffering somewhere along the manufacturing pipeline.
The absolute best situation you can hope for is that every single person in the chain from acquisition of raw materials to manufacturing a finished product is that the only suffering they experience is “I am forced to do this labor so I don’t starve”
I should point out that this is an extrme rarity in supply chains and manufacturing goods. Typically it’s much worse.
The reason things are like this is that it’s very easy for humans to compartmentalize things and ignore the suffering of others if it makes their own situation just a little more bearable.
As much as I wish Nestle would shrivel and die, there are far too many people out there that will buy the baby formula or the chocolate bar without even considering the misery that went into making it. And even if they know about it, it’s easier to just buy it and feel a small pang of guilt than go without.
That line of thinking only benefits the large corporations in the end. There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so whatever, let’s keep consuming from the corporations around and let’s not try to reduce their power? It’s like criticizing veganism because plants are also living beings, and we can’t eat anything without causing some form of suffering.
True, but my point is that this is a systemic problem. You cannot buy different things to solve it.
You would do much better by reducing your consumption rather than buying different brands
Aren’t boycotts illegal in some parts of the US or is that only for Israeli products?
…you said on an iphone^¤
heh, gotcha
^¤ or similar device