CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: Gigem on May 30, 2026, 08:59:25 AM
-
Me and my son were looking at some land for him this week. I got to thinking about all the deals I could have made in my youth, but decided they were too much.
When me and my wife got married in 2001, we looked into building a home a few years after we got married. Now this was no custom job, but it was new, and decent sized. I think it was 1800 sq ft. I want to say it was around $120,000. For a brand new home. 3 BR, 2 Ba. The land was extra. $10k for a 1 acre plot. To put things into perspective our combined income at the time was around $80,000. The upgraded home, about 2400 sq ft, about 160k, I think.
1999. My father in law made an offer on 40 acres just outside of town. $80,000. He had the deal made, but got cold feet after he learned about an electric easement in the front. Land now goes for 20k an acre here, minimum. Maybe $40-60k per acre.
In 2000, my last year of college, my old 1988 truck was done. Bought a brand new Chevy truck. Silverado, single cab. V6, 4x4. Base trim, manual roll up window, no cruise control. Drive out for $18,600. No trades.
10-12 years ago. 10 acres across the street from my parents, for sale by owner. Called the number. They wanted $60k. I said no way, way too much. Same land now would be $300k or more.
-
1980 - junior in high school - pump jockey and night shift manager at a gas station on the east side of Sioux City, IA
gasoline had just gone over 99 cents a gallon - $1.17/gallon the night I started in the fall
pack of cigarettes 60 cents - $5.75 for a carton
______________________________
Edit for people's earnings
1980 my pay at Dividend Bonded Gas station - $3.25/hr - minimum wage
-
Luckily, people's earnings creep along, not increasing even with moderate (normal) inflation.
-
In the 80s, a former coworker lived in the town where I live now. Him and his wife bought a nice little house in a very pleasant neighborhood next to downtown.
He paid $40k. I would be impressed if you could get a lot in that neighborhood right now for under $700k.
-
purchased my house in 1989 - $44,000
-
Luckily, people's earnings creep along, not increasing even with moderate (normal) inflation.
Depends on the field one works in.
-
The house I rent was built in 1973, and I *think* my landlord is the original owner. (Or more accurately, his kids, because he died I think 18 months ago or so according to the property manager.)
Zillow doesn't have the actual purchase history, but in 2000 it had a tax assessment of $135K and even now in 2026 it's tax assessed at $213K--here in CA with Prop 13 it can typically only go up 2% per year. So back in the mid-70s it was probably worth $80K.
Zillow's "Zestimate" today is $997K.
-
My dad use to send me to the gas station with a quarter to fill the gas can for the lawnmower. Also sent me to the convenient store with a dollar to get 2 packs of cigarettes and use the dime change for an icee or baseball cards
-
I remember that - didn't even need a note for the cigs in a small town
gas was stuck at 49.9 for a while - similar to 99.9
older pumps wouldn't regulate a dollar
-
Remember the $5 footlongs for Subway? They're like $13-15 now.
I guess lettuce and bread and ham costs triple now, right? That's the only explanation. It's not corporate greed.
-
I "used" to go to Subway once in awhile, back in the day
haven't been for at least 5 years, probably closer to 10
that's my solution to corporate greed
-
Remember the $5 footlongs for Subway? They're like $13-15 now.
I guess lettuce and bread and ham costs triple now, right? That's the only explanation. It's not corporate greed.
Not trying to get political here. But why does it have to be corporate greed ? Why can’t it just be a lot of different factors…like commodity prices, overhead, etc.
-
Not trying to get political here. But why does it have to be corporate greed ? Why can’t it just be a lot of different factors…like commodity prices, overhead, etc.
Tripling in like 10 years? A pandemic after which prices didn't really come back down. The "factors" help the sellers and hurt the buyers. Funny how it always happens that way.
-
Not trying to get political here. But why does it have to be corporate greed ? Why can’t it just be a lot of different factors…like commodity prices, overhead, etc.
(If we encourage this, it goes that way)
The actual answer is that the $5 was probably barely sustainable to begin with, and a bunch of of other stuff came to pass with the company. It’s kind of surprising they can survive with prices that aren’t drastically lower than competitors.
They also have some business practices that are less than savory, so I’m not out here feeling so sorry for them.
-
Not trying to get political here. But why does it have to be corporate greed ? Why can’t it just be a lot of different factors…like commodity prices, overhead, etc.
Of course, and it’s not as if corporate greed just appeared suddenly. It has been part of the economy for 250 years.
the damper is competition.
-
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Real median income has been increasing over the years of course, according to the Fed.
It drops in recessions of course.
-
I bought my first home computer at Sam’s back in 1985 or so. It was a 286 with a 10 mb HD and monochrome monitor. That $1800 is about $5500 today.
The first Sony CD player was $900 as I recall, I got one as the next version came out for $600 or so. CDs cost $20 per, back then, $60 today.
-
Of course, and it’s not as if corporate greed just appeared suddenly. It has been part of the economy for 250 years.
the damper is competition.
Exactly.
Seems OAM (or anyone else) could make a ton of money opening a sandwich shop and undercutting Subway's prices while still enjoying great profits. Probably even at better taste / higher quality b/c Subway is pretty "meh".
I guess the world's businessmen must be collectively stupid that they're missing this amazing opportunity that only OAM has spotted.
-
Subway is cheap. I like Subway.
I signed up for their app and at least twice per month I get offers for BOGO and other things. Plenty of deals if you sign up.
Oh, and try going to the grocery store and buying all the ingredients to make your sandwich.
Hint: You can't.
Corporate greed my ass. Just be smart.
Just looked at my app right now and I see these:
(https://i.imgur.com/rOUSidC.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/RgNA586.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yWI8I2s.png)
-
Exactly.
Seems OAM (or anyone else) could make a ton of money opening a sandwich shop and undercutting Subway's prices while still enjoying great profits. Probably even at better taste / higher quality b/c Subway is pretty "meh".
I guess the world's businessmen must be collectively stupid that they're missing this amazing opportunity that only OAM has spotted.
Markets, how do they work???
I suspect the $5 footlong was always a loss leader.
-
I bought my first home computer at Sam’s back in 1985 or so. It was a 286 with a 10 mb HD and monochrome monitor. That $1800 is about $5500 today.
The first Sony CD player was $900 as I recall, I got one as the next version came out for $600 or so. CDs cost $20 per, back then, $60 today.
Absolutely. Improved technology for both finished goods, and the manufacturing process, have made a lot of consumer electronics substantially cheaper than their comparable models were several decades ago. Personal computers for sure, and TVs are another example.
-
or lack there of, "monopolies" anyone? Wink-wink,nudge-nudge :67:
There's a monopoly on sandwich joints? Is the monopoly here in the room with us?
-
Corporate greed my ass. Just be smart.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Real median income has been increasing over the years of course, according to the Fed.
It drops in recessions of course.
or lack there of, "monopolies" anyone? Wink-wink,nudge-nudge :67:
There's a monopoly on sandwich joints? Is the monopoly here in the room with us?
Most certainly in the Oil Industry and other corporate behemoths merging
-
Me and my son were looking at some land for him this week. I got to thinking about all the deals I could have made in my youth, but decided they were too much.
When me and my wife got married in 2001, we looked into building a home a few years after we got married. Now this was no custom job, but it was new, and decent sized. I think it was 1800 sq ft. I want to say it was around $120,000. For a brand new home. 3 BR, 2 Ba. The land was extra. $10k for a 1 acre plot. To put things into perspective our combined income at the time was around $80,000. The upgraded home, about 2400 sq ft, about 160k, I think.
1999. My father in law made an offer on 40 acres just outside of town. $80,000. He had the deal made, but got cold feet after he learned about an electric easement in the front. Land now goes for 20k an acre here, minimum. Maybe $40-60k per acre.
In 2000, my last year of college, my old 1988 truck was done. Bought a brand new Chevy truck. Silverado, single cab. V6, 4x4. Base trim, manual roll up window, no cruise control. Drive out for $18,600. No trades.
10-12 years ago. 10 acres across the street from my parents, for sale by owner. Called the number. They wanted $60k. I said no way, way too much. Same land now would be $300k or more.
When I was living in Round Rock and working in College Station, there was a few acres for sale in Hutto where I turned off 79 to get home to RR. It was primed to be segmented for business development. That road may have been turned into the 130 tollway now, but looking at a map, I think 130 may cross 79 at a different point and the intersection I remember is a little further into town. Anyway, I forget how much it was, but I believe it was around $80k. I drove by the realtor sign every Friday on my way home and remember thinking I'd like to do something with that. I talked myself out of it for all kinds of reasons. The last time I went through there it had all predictably blown up, as places like Hutto get pulled into the general greater-Austin mish-mash. Somebody made a heck of a lot more than 80k off that land and no telling what the value of it is now.
People I knew in College Station also told me back then that CS was expected to double in some amount of years....I forget how many. 15, or something like that....pretty sure we're past it now, I don't know if the population wound up doubling or not. I knew a tenured chemistry professor at the university there who was from my hometown and knew all my family, who was quite wealthy from a number of ChemE patents he held, and he used his money to buy up real estate in CS and turn it into more money. The new Walmart in CS....he owned the land and sold that to WM, made a killing off them. I wish I'd have asked him for some guidance when I could've afforded to take more risks and was healthy enough to hustle.
-
I suspect the $5 footlong was always a loss leader.
Subway had a $5 footlong meal-deal when I was in college. Footlong, chips and a drink for right at $5. At least the one near campus did. I remember even way back then thinking how much food it was for significantly cheaper than other fast food places. Wouldn't surprise me if it were a loss leader.
I do miss that deal.
-
When I was living in Round Rock and working in College Station,
about a 2 hour drive
-
I only made it on Mondays and Fridays. Stayed in College Station during the week. A good commute for my line of work. Most of the places I worked were 4+ hrs. away.
-
my brother did the 3 hr commute from Round Rock to Arlington for a few years - same mondays & fridays
-
My first commercial flight in 1980 for a job interview in Pittsburg cost about $800, coach of course, from RDU. That $3233 in current dollars.
I’d guess today it might cost $400.
-
I was a poor student, they reimbursed me later. They put me on a cab after the interview and I think I had $30 in cash, and saw the can meter running past that. The cab driver said not to worry about it, he took me all the way, wouldn’t give me his name.
Then I got to my car and didn’t have money to pay for parking.
To me back then, $80 was a LOT of money, and places didn’t take credit cards much. And my student Visa was maxed and then some.
-
Cell phone bills used to be incredibly expensive. I recall paying like $50/month for 100 minutes or something like that, and of course, no data.
Now my wife pays $22/month for unlimited minutes and data through Pure Talk.
Everyone can quit their bitchin' now.
-
Now my wife pays $22/month for unlimited minutes and data through Pure Talk.
How do y'all like it? I've briefly looked at Pure Talk and couple others like them. Biggest question is new phones. The cost of phones kind of gets folded into your monthly bill for a while with major carriers. How does it work with outfits like Pure Talk? Because I'm basically required to have a smart phone for work, wife as well, and paying $800 each out of pocket for new phones every few years would be rough.
-
How do y'all like it? I've briefly looked at Pure Talk and couple others like them. Biggest question is new phones. The cost of phones kind of gets folded into your monthly bill for a while with major carriers. How does it work with outfits like Pure Talk? Because I'm basically required to have a smart phone for work, wife as well, and paying $800 each out of pocket for new phones every few years would be rough.
We bought a refurbished S25 for $350 at Best Buy and it works perfectly. Around here, they use Verizon towers, so service is also perfect. They only thing she can't do is a video call, but that's what Teams is for (or my Verizon "work" phone).
-
Of course, and it’s not as if corporate greed just appeared suddenly. It has been part of the economy for 250 years.
the damper is competition.
And they've been improving it and weaponizing it the whole time. Influencing politicians, getting the rules slanted in their favor, etc. They've just gotten more radical lately as congress has absolutely forfeited any pretense of ethics.
You guys can poo-poo it all you want, but you know it's true, it's getting worse, and as members of the 'in' group, you can just brush me aside. Cool. None of that makes anything I say any less true.
Until citizen's united is reversed, none of it matters. Undercut Subway? How many hundreds or thousands have tried that? They'll get some deal with the bread or chicken or tomato provider for temporarily-cheaper pricing, enough to outlast any small-time competition. They can outlast anyone. Same with Walmart putting out every small shop near it.
I bet 20 years ago, you actually cared about that. But now you're older, richer, and shrug.
I hope to never "mature" that way. It's disgusting.
The current boomers are the most selfish whores to the dollar in human history. Mine mine mine. Fuck the future, because you won't be here for it.
Yes, it's all connected. No, I don't expect you to admit it.
Just keep hording your advantages and delaying progress for the rest of the people. You're good at that.
-
Everyone can quit their bitchin' now.
as long as you get in the final word,sure that ALWAYS WORX ;D
-
Geesh, someone got upset.
-
Geesh, someone got upset.
The denial of reality upsets me, yes.
-
Geesh, someone got upset.
For no reason.
-
Until citizen's united is reversed, none of it matters.
You want to talk about market economics? I'm good.
But cut this crap out. Take it down to A51 if you want to talk politics.
-
I hope to never "mature" that way. It's disgusting.
as Roger Daltrey said, "I hope I die before I get old"
and "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
-
Testify FF Testify,they've got classic materiel. And that was Pete Townsend but he also wrote. "it's the singer not the song that makes the music move along"
-
Undercut Subway? How many hundreds or thousands have tried that? They'll get some deal with the bread or chicken or tomato provider for temporarily-cheaper pricing, enough to outlast any small-time competition. They can outlast anyone. Same with Walmart putting out every small shop near it.
I bet 20 years ago, you actually cared about that. But now you're older, richer, and shrug.
I hope to never "mature" that way. It's disgusting.
BTW I'm 14 years too young to even be at the end of the Boomer generation.
But there's an extent that I *do* care about this. As it relates to fast food? I don't eat it. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're rare.) While I don't eat at restaurants all that often, I eat at independent restaurants FAR more often than I'm going to chains. And when I do go to chains, they're typically not the mega-chain restaurants. I.e. I can't remember the last time I've eaten at an Applebee's, or TGI Fridays, or anything like that.
There are independent restaurants all across the country. Including sandwich shops. The barriers to entry are miniscule. And there are Subway chain competitors as well. According to Google, Subway's market share has declined ~10% since 2019. The two Subway locations that were close to me, in fact, have closed. I know how much you LOVE anecdotal data, so I'll bolster that with the NY Post: Subway locations nationwide declined from a peak over 27,000 in 2016 to under 20,000 at the end of 2024 (https://nypost.com/2025/05/01/business/subway-shrinks-to-less-than-20k-locations-for-first-time-in-decades/).
So although you think that all big corporations are just monoliths that can control everything... Subway is getting their asses kicked.
-
BTW I'm 14 years too young to even be at the end of the Boomer generation.
But there's an extent that I *do* care about this. As it relates to fast food? I don't eat it. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're rare.) While I don't eat at restaurants all that often, I eat at independent restaurants FAR more often than I'm going to chains. And when I do go to chains, they're typically not the mega-chain restaurants. I.e. I can't remember the last time I've eaten at an Applebee's, or TGI Fridays, or anything like that.
There are independent restaurants all across the country. Including sandwich shops. The barriers to entry are miniscule. And there are Subway chain competitors as well. According to Google, Subway's market share has declined ~10% since 2019. The two Subway locations that were close to me, in fact, have closed. I know how much you LOVE anecdotal data, so I'll bolster that with the NY Post: Subway locations nationwide declined from a peak over 27,000 in 2016 to under 20,000 at the end of 2024 (https://nypost.com/2025/05/01/business/subway-shrinks-to-less-than-20k-locations-for-first-time-in-decades/).
So although you think that all big corporations are just monoliths that can control everything... Subway is getting their asses kicked.
Yup. And again I'll rejoin with Markets, how do they WORK????
-
I own a 5% share in a Subway location that does really well. I originally bought in at 1%, when I was 18. By 25 I had the 5%, buying out a couple that was in a rough spot in life (divorce).
I don't want any more share, and I'm certainly not going to complain about the cost of a sub there, because it's cheaper than what you can make it for at home.
I'll sell it one of these days or leave it to the grandkids. Or something.
Should I give it to 'Fro?
:57:
-
Often folks don’t believe me when I point to the reported after tax margins in many businesses. They often are 3-4-5% for areas like grocery and restaurants.
Margins are higher in manufacturing, usually, 20% is a good figure, but they also face downturns where they lose money.
delta Airlines has profit margins that bounce all over the place, recently it was 6.9%. Pfizer? 12%, net. Kaiser Permanente? They are a nonprofit.
Companies are greedy, they are in business to make money, with a few exceptions.
-
Often folks don’t believe me when I point to the reported after tax margins in many businesses. They often are 3-4-5% for areas like grocery and restaurants.
Margins are higher in manufacturing, usually, 20% is a good figure, but they also face downturns where they lose money.
delta Airlines has profit margins that bounce all over the place, recently it was 6.9%. Pfizer? 12%, net. Kaiser Permanente? They are a nonprofit.
Companies are greedy, they are in business to make money, with a few exceptions.
Subways are generally healthy if they can pull 3-3.5% profits. It's the volume that makes the money.
-
BTW I'm 14 years too young to even be at the end of the Boomer generation.
But there's an extent that I *do* care about this. As it relates to fast food? I don't eat it. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're rare.) While I don't eat at restaurants all that often, I eat at independent restaurants FAR more often than I'm going to chains. And when I do go to chains, they're typically not the mega-chain restaurants. I.e. I can't remember the last time I've eaten at an Applebee's, or TGI Fridays, or anything like that.
There are independent restaurants all across the country. Including sandwich shops. The barriers to entry are miniscule. And there are Subway chain competitors as well. According to Google, Subway's market share has declined ~10% since 2019. The two Subway locations that were close to me, in fact, have closed. I know how much you LOVE anecdotal data, so I'll bolster that with the NY Post: Subway locations nationwide declined from a peak over 27,000 in 2016 to under 20,000 at the end of 2024 (https://nypost.com/2025/05/01/business/subway-shrinks-to-less-than-20k-locations-for-first-time-in-decades/).
So although you think that all big corporations are just monoliths that can control everything... Subway is getting their asses kicked.
They also historically didn’t care too much about the success of individual franchises. So they tended to oversaturate.
-
You want to talk about market economics? I'm good.
But cut this crap out. Take it down to A51 if you want to talk politics.
The fact that you think that blaming that ruling for much of what's wrong in this country is "political" is a farce. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
-
BTW I'm 14 years too young to even be at the end of the Boomer generation.
But there's an extent that I *do* care about this. As it relates to fast food? I don't eat it. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're rare.) While I don't eat at restaurants all that often, I eat at independent restaurants FAR more often than I'm going to chains. And when I do go to chains, they're typically not the mega-chain restaurants. I.e. I can't remember the last time I've eaten at an Applebee's, or TGI Fridays, or anything like that.
There are independent restaurants all across the country. Including sandwich shops. The barriers to entry are miniscule. And there are Subway chain competitors as well. According to Google, Subway's market share has declined ~10% since 2019. The two Subway locations that were close to me, in fact, have closed. I know how much you LOVE anecdotal data, so I'll bolster that with the NY Post: Subway locations nationwide declined from a peak over 27,000 in 2016 to under 20,000 at the end of 2024 (https://nypost.com/2025/05/01/business/subway-shrinks-to-less-than-20k-locations-for-first-time-in-decades/).
So although you think that all big corporations are just monoliths that can control everything... Subway is getting their asses kicked.
a - I'm talking about the masses, not oneself. Our individual experiences aren't valid. And if you're not a boomer, then I wasn't referring to you, obviously.
b - Subway can afford to get their asses kicked for a time. But they'll still be here when all of these other, smaller outfits disappear. They're also declining because they expanded too much and too fast. We all know this.
c - the big corporations can afford to figure out how to orchestrate rules/laws/practices to maintain or improve the status quo in which they thrived
The fact that I get any pushback on this is absurd.
-
I have a friend (good Husker fan) that franchised/managed/owned 7 subway shops in the Sewer City area.
My daughter worked for him at several.
He said, (10 years ago) that he averaged about $25K per year on the 7. Some obviously performed better than others - even with the same management
Keeping up with 7 of them was a bit of work.
He then bought the small town bar 3 blocks from me because the doors had been closed for a while and folks begged him to buy it.
He regretted buying and running the bar - sold it after a few years
kept the subway shops - much easier
-
about a 2 hour drive
When I graduated A&M I briefly commuted from Bryan to the outskirts of Austin. About 90 miles one way. Did that about 5 months. Job ended up not working out, so I never moved.
-
First, we had the All-Powerful Egg Lobby. Now we have the Subway Sandwich Mafia.
-
BTW, just so I’m clear on this.
Years ago, about ~2010 or so, I *think* the average foot long subway sandwich cost something on the order of $6-8. I say I think, because I don’t really remember, I didn’t order from there enough to know the price by heart.
Anyways, Subway came out with a deal, $5.00 foot longs about 2015. I don’t remember the exact year, but somewhere in that timeframe. But we all agree that they made their sandwiches cheaper than they had been selling them, by at least several dollars. But, as I recall, it was only on certain ones, not all. And also, it seems like anything added was more. Like it didn’t come with cheese, or maybe limited topping.
But anyway, they had this deal for several years, maybe 3-4 years. Everybody agrees that it was a good deal, even if it was somewhat limited. And myself, I’d usually add stuff to my sandwich that crept the price up here and there. Cheese, extra condiments and whatever. And of course, I’d get the chips, and maybe a cookie, and make that drink a large, because hey, I saved money. So by the time they rang me up, I probably spent just as much on a $5.00 foot long, with the extras, as I spent before they had the special.
But Subway, being in the sandwich mafia, having now cornered the sandwich market, killed this deal only to now only offer these same meal for $12-13. At the exact same time that all fast food joints pretty much did the same thing, raising their prices by 30-40% in 2-3 years.
Hmmm….
-
I get a little bit (ok, a lot) rankled anytime someone starts in about corporate greed and the like. Not because I don’t believe that it happens, it certainly can and does happen. But if you look at most cases, it happens only when the free market either doesn’t exist, or can’t exist.
In my business, I have to explain to customers almost every single day about why things cost what they do, and why we have to charge what we charge. You know how many times they tell me “I can buy the same pump on Amazon for xxx$? “ Usually anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 of my price. I get accused of price gouging pretty often. But they don’t see the insurance costs (currently sitting at about $30,000 a year), the equipment costs, the payroll costs. Everything that you have to have to run a business goes into that cost, including customers who stiff the bill, theft, employees that damage customers property by running into their gate, Taxes levied specifically for small businesses. Fuel. And inventory.
I had a customer just last week that told me they could get the same part for 1/2 our cost. I readily agreed, but I asked them, but can you get it today? And if you could, how much time are you going to spend installing it? How many trips are you going to make to the hardware store because you don’t have all the right fittings, and if something goes wrong, who is going to warranty it?
-
My first commercial flight in 1980 for a job interview in Pittsburg cost about $800, coach of course, from RDU. That $3233 in current dollars.
I’d guess today it might cost $400.
Rohm and Hass?
-
a - I'm talking about the masses, not oneself. Our individual experiences aren't valid. And if you're not a boomer, then I wasn't referring to you, obviously.
b - Subway can afford to get their asses kicked for a time. But they'll still be here when all of these other, smaller outfits disappear. They're also declining because they expanded too much and too fast. We all know this.
c - the big corporations can afford to figure out how to orchestrate rules/laws/practices to maintain or improve the status quo in which they thrived
The fact that I get any pushback on this is absurd.
You spasz that is Nothing like your previous post blaming a whole generation absolutely nothing. It's frightening you somehow passed reading comprehension - that's absurd
-
Rohm and Hass?
It was to PPG. I woke up that morning really sick, I could barely talk, and had to present a seminar. I didn’t get an offer from them, which was ok with me. I found it time consuming to take these trips while I was trying to finish up. So, after I had some decent offers I stopped interviewing.
I was putting in some long hours in those days.
-
Looking back on life can get weird. I of course did some stupid things and manage to scrape by. I certainly had some luck along the way also.
Basically I've been too lazy to get stuff done I should have, but if I somehow got interested in a thing I would tend to go all out.
The problem was getting interested in the first place.
-
Read this one.
Microwaves Through Time: The Cost of Convenience - MicrowavesHub (https://microwaveshub.com/how-much-were-microwaves-when-they-came-out/)
-
BTW, just so I’m clear on this.
Years ago, about ~2010 or so, I *think* the average foot long subway sandwich cost something on the order of $6-8. I say I think, because I don’t really remember, I didn’t order from there enough to know the price by heart.
Anyways, Subway came out with a deal, $5.00 foot longs about 2015. I don’t remember the exact year, but somewhere in that timeframe. But we all agree that they made their sandwiches cheaper than they had been selling them, by at least several dollars. But, as I recall, it was only on certain ones, not all. And also, it seems like anything added was more. Like it didn’t come with cheese, or maybe limited topping.
But anyway, they had this deal for several years, maybe 3-4 years. Everybody agrees that it was a good deal, even if it was somewhat limited. And myself, I’d usually add stuff to my sandwich that crept the price up here and there. Cheese, extra condiments and whatever. And of course, I’d get the chips, and maybe a cookie, and make that drink a large, because hey, I saved money. So by the time they rang me up, I probably spent just as much on a $5.00 foot long, with the extras, as I spent before they had the special.
But Subway, being in the sandwich mafia, having now cornered the sandwich market, killed this deal only to now only offer these same meal for $12-13. At the exact same time that all fast food joints pretty much did the same thing, raising their prices by 30-40% in 2-3 years.
Hmmm….
Toppings were never extra, so you're pulling that directly from your ass.
And the Subway example is....and example. It's one of the many examples out there. But I picked that one. Just like all the other fast-food joints have done, so too, has Subway.
Some of you guys are so busy trying to make fun of me that you turn stupid. It's not about Subway, it's about the larger point (as you're saying).
-
You spasz that is Nothing like your previous post blaming a whole generation absolutely nothing. It's frightening you somehow passed reading comprehension - that's absurd
So I posted about two things and that makes me a spazz? Mkay.
You can look up the generation thing, bud. It's weird, the greatest generation gave birth to the most selfish generation. Exploit every possible loophole and lawyer up while doing whatever is necessary to make an additional penny for the quarterly earnings report.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with being a billionaire. There really shouldn't. But I'll be you 9 out of every 10 got there by fucking 50,000 poor people in the ass. And thus the hate. There's a right way to do it. It may take a little longer, but no. No time for that. Ah shit, I'm now mentioning a 3rd thing. Dammit! What a spazz!
-
I gave you microwaves. And now this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xdRKo2I.png)
-
I gave you microwaves. And now this:
(https://i.imgur.com/xdRKo2I.png)
I'm only 50, and I clearly remember, in the early 80's, a lot of new vehicles didn't have AC. Mostly trucks.
-
Toppings were never extra, so you're pulling that directly from your ass.
And the Subway example is....and example. It's one of the many examples out there. But I picked that one. Just like all the other fast-food joints have done, so too, has Subway.
Some of you guys are so busy trying to make fun of me that you turn stupid. It's not about Subway, it's about the larger point (as you're saying).
We make fun of you because you have a simplistic view of the world. This idea that all of a sudden, business owners discovered greed. That they just all woke up one day recently and said... "Hey, let's all raise prices, for no legitimate reason, because we can!"
-
I think I could make a hobby out of this.
(https://i.imgur.com/sc03S36.png)
-
The TV in my living room:
(https://i.imgur.com/brxs3UV.png)
-
We make fun of you because you have a simplistic view of the world. This idea that all of a sudden, business owners discovered greed. That they just all woke up one day recently and said... "Hey, let's all raise prices, for no legitimate reason, because we can!"
It isn't all of a sudden. Not sure where you go that from. But they've certainly increased it over time by influencing legislation and used covid as an opportunity. They've done the normal selfish thing and cranked it up to 11.
The wealthy realize that Marx was wrong, at least about modern Americans. We're soft little whiners and won't actually DO anything to force change. We adjust too well to a tightening screw...no affordable housing? Tiny homes. Van life. Just giving way over and over at our own expense in order to be bullied by those in the best position to bully.
Do you not see this?
-
It isn't all of a sudden. Not sure where you go that from. But they've certainly increased it over time by influencing legislation and used covid as an opportunity. They've done the normal selfish thing and cranked it up to 11.
The wealthy realize that Marx was wrong, at least about modern Americans. We're soft little whiners and won't actually DO anything to force change. We adjust too well to a tightening screw...no affordable housing? Tiny homes. Van life. Just giving way over and over at our own expense in order to be bullied by those in the best position to bully.
Do you not see this?
Do not speak for me. I'm not part of your "we".
(And I don't give a shit about the ".)
-
It isn't all of a sudden. Not sure where you go that from. But they've certainly increased it over time by influencing legislation and used covid as an opportunity. They've done the normal selfish thing and cranked it up to 11.
The wealthy realize that Marx was wrong, at least about modern Americans. We're soft little whiners and won't actually DO anything to force change. We adjust too well to a tightening screw...no affordable housing? Tiny homes. Van life. Just giving way over and over at our own expense in order to be bullied by those in the best position to bully.
Do you not see this?
I believe that sellers should be able to extract whatever price the market will bear.
But as it relates to fast food, I am doing exactly what's in my power to force change. I believe their price exceeds the value the product provides. So I do what any rational consumer would do... I don't buy it.
I just don't consider myself a victim because Subway raised prices. I haven't bought a Subway sandwich in years.
-
I believe that sellers should be able to extract whatever price the market will bear.
But as it relates to fast food, I am doing exactly what's in my power to force change. I believe their price exceeds the value the product provides. So I do what any rational consumer would do... I don't buy it.
I just don't consider myself a victim because Subway raised prices. I haven't bought a Subway sandwich in years.
Bingo.
it’s also sophomoric because pretty clearly having to raise prices great for the restaurant. The thing that made Subway stand out was that price. Now with price is being more equal, they are a worst choice compared to their higher quality competitors.
That price thing was a long-term albatross.
-
Also....Subways kinda suck now. What's up with that? When I ever-so-rarely go into a Subway, I can't hardly find one that will make a decent meatball sub. Used to be that I could walk into any of them and their subs ranged from good to at-least-pretty-decent. And being more affordable then, I went more.
Now, with the higher prices and crappier quality, I'm much happier finding an alternative.
-
The TV in my living room:
(https://i.imgur.com/brxs3UV.png)
Crazy how much cheaper TVs have gotten over the years.
I was behind the times when it came to upgrading to a flat, widescreen HD tv. I think I bought my first one in 2007. It was about 32" (maybe? not big), only 1080i, which was about the best you could have then, and significantly more expensive than this one here in your picture.
You can get so much more TV now for such a cheaper price.
It'll probably all be over when Samsung wakes up and decides to screw the working class and jack their prices up.
-
Honestly smart TV makers are probably feeling the pinch of high DRAM and NAND pricing right now.
You can point out that Samsung produces both, but they can make a hell of a lot more profit selling externally than shipping their supply inside their own TVs right now.
-
Honestly smart TV makers are probably feeling the pinch of high DRAM and NAND pricing right now.
You can point out that Samsung produces both, but they can make a hell of a lot more profit selling externally than shipping their supply inside their own TVs right now.
Scaler ICs have become super long lead and hela-expensive. High demand and supply has yet to catch up, going on a couple years now.
-
The TVs at Costco look amazing to me. My 65” is probably ten years old. Maybe more.
-
Also....Subways kinda suck now. What's up with that? When I ever-so-rarely go into a Subway, I can't hardly find one that will make a decent meatball sub. Used to be that I could walk into any of them and their subs ranged from good to at-least-pretty-decent. And being more affordable then, I went more.
Now, with the higher prices and crappier quality, I'm much happier finding an alternative.
When all of the big chains do this, none of them feels the pinch.
-
When all of the big chains do this, none of them feels the pinch.
Are you sure? I think that one of the reasons Subway has been lagging has been due to the rise of Jersey Mike's, Jimmy John's, and Which Wich. Only the first and third are local for me, but I do find that they offer a more compelling product at similar prices to Subway.
Look at Domino's Pizza. They were largely known as a punchline. They went through a multi-year reinvention to focus on quality and taste. I've heard from others that it's been pretty successful. I wouldn't know as I order pizza from a local mom & pop joint instead of a big chain.
OAM, does your arm get tired always painting with such a broad brush?
-
I paint with a broad brush, yet some of you cling on to the single example I pick out of the lineup like a pitbull, lol.
The larger point isn't that successful corporations are evil for being successful, nor that they never ebb and flow in their successes. It's that once they succeed in a snapshot of time, they want to hit the pause button, give themselves all of the advantages (diving into the political realm - gasp), and set up obstacles for anyone else in their industry to succeed as well. Often unethically. Nothing new there, but they're better at it now and can do it in such volume now, thanks to citizen's united.
I don't bring that up to be political, we can just call it a SCOTUS ruling and leave the politics out of it.
The ruling guaranteed a continuation and greater severity of $$$ = influence.
Nothing can improve without that ruling being overturned. They should rename it Marx's Second Wind.
-
they want to hit the pause button, give themselves all of the advantages (diving into the political realm - gasp), and set up obstacles for anyone else in their industry to succeed as well. Often unethically.
This is one thing unique to us compared to other animals. Beavers don't go gnawing down more trees than they need. They don't hide felled trees from other beavers. They get what they need to survive.
Lions don't kill all the zebras. They don't defend a kill after they've had their fill to deny scavengers a meal. They hunt what they can eat and will keep them alive for a few days.
I'm not going to sit here and say capitalism is wrong or prop up socialism, but unfettered capitalism does yield 0.1% winners and 99.9% victims (on a long-enough timeline).
All I'm suggesting is that we fetter the capitalism. Make it fair. No, life isn't fair, but let's try to make our economic system fair. That's a worthy pursuit. That's my crazy, simplistic idea. Me like fairness. Ooga-booga.
-
Dammit! What a spazz!
Bravo,baby Steps, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery,good on you
-
A good Economic metric is real median income.
-
in your considered opinion
-
I like Subway. It's 0.5 mile from me.
-
I have one choice within 7 miles.
therefore, I like it
-
S
I paint with a broad brush, yet some of you cling on to the single example I pick out of the lineup like a pitbull, lol.
The larger point isn't that successful corporations are evil for being successful, nor that they never ebb and flow in their successes. It's that once they succeed in a snapshot of time, they want to hit the pause button, give themselves all of the advantages (diving into the political realm - gasp), and set up obstacles for anyone else in their industry to succeed as well. Often unethically. Nothing new there, but they're better at it now and can do it in such volume now, thanks to citizen's united.
I don't bring that up to be political, we can just call it a SCOTUS ruling and leave the politics out of it.
The ruling guaranteed a continuation and greater severity of $$$ = influence.
Nothing can improve without that ruling being overturned. They should rename it Marx's Second Wind.
Broad brush indeed.
when the government sticks it nose way too far into the private sector ( businesses)- history tells us it universally causes problems and escalating costs for consumers. Sadly- it is usually a product of political influence
-
Corporate Contributions to Outside Groups • OpenSecrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/corporate-contributions)
This is a pretty good site for tracking corporate contributions to politics. A perusal will note that most publically traded companies don't engage in this tactic. Their employees of course may, but companies don't want to get labeled right or left if they sell to the public, it's bad for business. I'd also note that labor unions are corporations.
At any rate, I consider any topic where 95% of one side thinks it's terrible and 90% of the other side doesn't care of thinks it's fine is political.
-
I have one choice within 7 miles.
therefore, I like it
Bud Fat and Pretzel Rods? :dance:
-
Are you sure? I think that one of the reasons Subway has been lagging has been due to the rise of Jersey Mike's, Jimmy John's, and Which Wich. Only the first and third are local for me, but I do find that they offer a more compelling product at similar prices to Subway.
Quizno's was a good alternative for me for a while. I don't know if there aren't around here, and I haven't been lately, so I don't know if they're still good.
Or open.
-
Yikes....according to Google's AI (sus), there are between 130 and 150 Quiznos nationwide, a sharp decline from their peak in 2007 when they had about 4700 locations nationwide.
-
Subway sucks. So does jimmy Johns.
Firehouse Subs is the best of these sandwich chains, and it's not particularly close.
-
Corporate Contributions to Outside Groups • OpenSecrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/corporate-contributions)
This is a pretty good site for tracking corporate contributions to politics. A perusal will note that most publically traded companies don't engage in this tactic. Their employees of course may, but companies don't want to get labeled right or left if they sell to the public, it's bad for business. I'd also note that labor unions are corporations.
At any rate, I consider any topic where 95% of one side thinks it's terrible and 90% of the other side doesn't care of thinks it's fine is political.
They may not contribute directly to any political cause, but the marketing and advertising is often very political.
See this very month for example.....are all the corporate logos rainbow colored yet? Some of that my be waning lately, not sure.
-
The major sandwich chains I can name that have locations within 10 miles of me are:
Subway, Quizno's, Jersey Mike's, Jimmy John's, Which Wich, Potbelly, Firehouse Subs, Schlotzky's.
I've eaten at all of these at one time or another, though I doubt I've been to any of them within the last year. Maybe Schlotzky's, my son really likes those, but now that he is driving, and working, he can go get that any time he wants all on his own.
I've also heard of Blimpies but there are none in Austin and I've never been to one.
There are two Austin-based sandwich shops that I eat at a lot more regularly, Thundercloud Subs and Delaware Subs. They're much higher quality than the national chains.
-
A company that deals with the public is better off not appearing to have a side.
-
A company that deals with the public is better off not appearing to have a side.
Conventional wisdom says so, but again, there are endless examples of companies operating otherwise.
I don't really care to debate it, but those are the facts.
-
There are two Austin-based sandwich shops that I eat at a lot more regularly, Thundercloud Subs and Delaware Subs. They're much higher quality than the national chains.
I don't know about Delaware Subs but I can tell somebody sumthin' 'bout Thundercloud. @jgvol (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1567) might be right that Firehouse is the best of the chains, but it can't hold Thundercloud's jock strap. I miss that place.
There is a mom-and-pop Italian place not far from me (run by a Chinese family, go figure) that's really good, and I'm a fan of their meatball subs. Probably not Thundercloud good, but incalculably better than Subway.
-
We had a Which Wich walking distance from my office pre-COVID that I'd occasionally frequent for lunch. I thought they were really good, and a lot better than Subway.
Seems COVID killed that location, because once we started doing return to office, I walked over there hungry one day and was disappointed to realize it was gone. It makes sense because that shopping plaza does heavy business from our office park, and I'm sure that dried up hard in 2020. We also lost a pretty good sit-down burger joint in that plaza as well.
-
I've never heard of Which Wich.
We used to have Blimpie --- a bread sandwich. Other bread sandwiches --- Subway, and Jimmy Johns.
Like MDT, at Subway, I always went for the meatball sub, because it was the only offering that I could actually taste something besides bread, and old, wilted shredded lettuce.
-
There is a WW not to far from us, one of the few chains we have, I never tried it. There is a Subway also which seems empty when we pass by (never tried it either). We have a Chipotle and a Panera near us, they are so so, almost never eat there. There is an STK which is a small chain, steak house, it's ... not great IMHO, expensive and just kinda OK.
-
Subway sucks. So does jimmy Johns.
Firehouse Subs is the best of these sandwich chains, and it's not particularly close.
Had lunch at Firehouse yesterday. Like that place👍
-
I think of all the chains I probably like Potbelly and Schlotzky's the best. Schlotzky's isn't a sub, it's a fastfood version of a muffuletta.
But I don't eat any of the chains really. When I'm buying a sandwich out, local places are better and plentiful.
-
Yeah, I avoid chains except when in a hurry, like traveling to get somewhere. I was pondering my guess as to the "best" chain out there of larger size. Some of the midpriced Italian chains are not terrible. I have found sports bars to be, well, overly gimmickey often as not as basically the same food.
The largest one near us closed a year ago, I don't miss it at all.
When I was a junior in HS, I had lunch at Burger King every day, same order, Whopper, fries, large orange, it was 98 cents. I'd go after school so was usually the only one there and the nice lady would put the burger on the grill when she saw me pull up.
-
I think of all the chains I probably like Potbelly and Schlotzky's the best. Schlotzky's isn't a sub, it's a fastfood version of a muffuletta.
But I don't eat any of the chains really. When I'm buying a sandwich out, local places are better and plentiful.
We used to have Schlotsky's here, but they all closed down about 10 years ago.
They were really good, IMO, unique, original, and tasty.
Top Tier Chain Sandwich.
-
We have Waffle House of course, all over. My wife doesn't like them, heh.
-
We have Waffle House of course, all over. My wife doesn't like them, heh.
Dirty, trashy, and you may catch a knuckle sandwich on accident, or on purpose.
Still.....the All Star Breakfast never disappoints.
-
Dirty, trashy, and you may catch a knuckle sandwich on accident, or on purpose.
Still.....the All Star Breakfast never disappoints.
When I first moved to Austin I couldn't find a Waffle House. Somebody finally pointed me to one on the other end of the city from where I lived. I think it might have been the only one there, and it was new. So we went, and the place was clean, the customers didn't scare me, waitress had all her teeth, and I felt no risk of leaving with an unintended transmissible disease. I told the guy I wasn't sure that counted as a real Waffle House.
-
When I first moved to Austin I couldn't find a Waffle House. Somebody finally pointed me to one on the other end of the city from where I lived. I think it might have been the only one there, and it was new. So we went, and the place was clean, the customers didn't scare me, waitress had all her teeth, and I felt no risk of leaving with an unintended transmissible disease. I told the guy I wasn't sure that counted as a real Waffle House.
Lipstick on a pig.
-
When I first moved to Austin I couldn't find a Waffle House. Somebody finally pointed me to one on the other end of the city from where I lived. I think it might have been the only one there, and it was new. So we went, and the place was clean, the customers didn't scare me, waitress had all her teeth, and I felt no risk of leaving with an unintended transmissible disease. I told the guy I wasn't sure that counted as a real Waffle House.
Apparently there are 3 in the area?
When I was in college there was only 1, down on I35 south of the river, maybe somewhere between Oltorf and Ben White on the northbound side. We went there occasiionally and it wasn't nearly as crusty as what people talk about, so I think you must be right. Austin Waffle Houses aren't real Waffle Houses.
Anyway, there were several IHOPs and Denny's a lot closer, so that's where we usually ended up. Or local places like Kerbey Lane Cafe or Magnolia Cafe or Jim's Diner.
-
When I was in college there was only 1, down on I35 south of the river, maybe somewhere between Oltorf and Ben White on the northbound side. We went there occasiionally and it wasn't nearly as crusty as what people talk about, so I think you must be right.
That's the one.
Of course, when I first moved there, anywhere around Ben White was "way south." I don't think it really was by the time I left, probably certainly not now. When I first started driving down to SM on Sunday mornings, I clearly remember the Onion Creek exit was outside of the city. Just an exit with a road and some fields. By the time I left that place had businesses and apartment complexes everywhere. I reckon now you could make it all the way to Buda/Kyle without realizing you ever left Austin.
-
Lipstick on a pig.
It's true, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a soft spot for that pig over the years.
Waffle Houses have been there for me many times over the years for a late 2 a.m. refill when a gig ran late, or on a trip where I was driving late at night and needed some grub. Or, hell, who am I kidding......just a place to grab some breakfast food during normal hours.
Never been stabbed yet, but I figure my time's coming.
Georgia had something called Huddle House when I lived there for a couple years growing up. Basically the same thing as a Waffle House, far as I can remember.
-
That's the one.
Of course, when I first moved there, anywhere around Ben White was "way south." I don't think it really was by the time I left, probably certainly not now. When I first started driving down to SM on Sunday mornings, I clearly remember the Onion Creek exit was outside of the city. Just an exit with a road and some fields. By the time I left that place had businesses and apartment complexes everywhere. I reckon now you could make it all the way to Buda/Kyle without realizing you ever left Austin.
It's worse, you can make it all the way south of New Braunfels before there's any break in the nonstop big boxery that is the interstate scenery of the suburbs. Then there's a short break with no buildings alongside the highway, maybe 8 miles south of the New Braunfels outlet stores, before you get to Selma and Schertz, which are now just engulfed as part of the northern San Antonio suburbs. It's wild.
Pretty much the same thing to the north of town, almost no break until you get north of Temple. Maybe a little between Jarrell and Salado but not much.
-
It's worse, you can make it all the way south of New Braunfels before there's any break in the nonstop big boxery that is the interstate scenery of the suburbs. Then there's a short break with no buildings alongside the highway, maybe 8 miles south of the New Braunfels outlet stores, before you get to Selma and Schertz, which are now just engulfed as part of the northern San Antonio suburbs. It's wild.
Pretty much the same thing to the north of town, almost no break until you get north of Temple. Maybe a little between Jarrell and Salado but not much.
Do we have an Old Fart thread? Because I'd like to complain about this there, if so.
I loved the country-side of the edge of Hill Country between Austin and Buda, and then Buda/Kyle and San Marcos. You could see the east Texas plains on one side of 35 with its gently rolling hills, and then the real Hill Country proper starting just a half a mile or so from 35 on the other side. Made for nice commutes. The idea of all that being turned into endless buildings and businesses irritates me.
Hell, there was a clear break for miles between San Marcos and New Braunfels. I lived just on the north edge of SM right as you came into town, and I liked the drive up to Austin from there and back home, and all the scenic views in between. Sounds like now it's driving through one giant city.
-
Do we have an Old Fart thread? Because I'd like to complain about this there, if so.
I loved the country-side of the edge of Hill Country between Austin and Buda, and then Buda/Kyle and San Marcos. You could see the east Texas plains on one side of 35 with its gently rolling hills, and then the real Hill Country proper starting just a half a mile or so from 35 on the other side. Made for nice commutes. The idea of all that being turned into endless buildings and businesses irritates me.
Hell, there was a clear break for miles between San Marcos and New Braunfels. I lived just on the north edge of SM right as you came into town, and I liked the drive up to Austin from there and back home, and all the scenic views in between. Sounds like now it's driving through one giant city.
Yup it's sad. And the traffic is awful.
For various band competitions, we've been making numerous trips from the CP down to San Antonio, 6-8 times per year. It's 99 miles from my house to the Alamodome and it can take almost 3 hours sometimes. I started taking 281 instead of I35 because it's often faster and a heck of a lot more pleasant.
-
We don't get the Awful Waffle out here. I think Phoenix might be as far west as I've heard of them going...
-
https://vinepair.com/articles/map-states-waffle-house/
How do states know there was a disaster without having any Waffle Houses?
-
It's true, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a soft spot for that pig over the years.
Waffle Houses have been there for me many times over the years for a late 2 a.m. refill when a gig ran late, or on a trip where I was driving late at night and needed some grub. Or, hell, who am I kidding......just a place to grab some breakfast food during normal hours.
Never been stabbed yet, but I figure my time's coming.
Georgia had something called Huddle House when I lived there for a couple years growing up. Basically the same thing as a Waffle House, far as I can remember.
Back when I lived in the more rural South, huddle house felt worse than Waffle House. But did have Wi-fi, which was occasionally helpful.
-
Yup it's sad. And the traffic is awful.
For various band competitions, we've been making numerous trips from the CP down to San Antonio, 6-8 times per year. It's 99 miles from my house to the Alamodome and it can take almost 3 hours sometimes. I started taking 281 instead of I35 because it's often faster and a heck of a lot more pleasant.
Yeah, 281 was a pleasant drive, or at least it used to be. Though it's not the first thing that springs to mind if I'm in the CP and want to head directly south. Kinda sucks to be forced to get all the way over to 281 in the first place.
-
Back when I lived in the more rural South, huddle house felt worse than Waffle House. But did have Wi-fi, which was occasionally helpful.
Ah, well, your experience is more recent than mine, and thus more reliable. No such thing as wi-fi for quite a few years to come when I ate at those things. And, I only ever went to ones in Macon, GA. I didn't have a big sample of their locations like I have Waffle Houses.
-
https://vinepair.com/articles/map-states-waffle-house/
How do states know there was a disaster without having any Waffle Houses?
What the hell is up with Georgia and Waffle Houses? That state is like a breeding ground for them. 433?!??!
-
What the hell is up with Georgia and Waffle Houses? That state is like a breeding ground for them. 433?!??!
It started in Georgia so, yes, that would be exactly right.
-
Ah, well, your experience is more recent than mine, and thus more reliable. No such thing as wi-fi for quite a few years to come when I ate at those things. And, I only ever went to ones in Macon, GA. I didn't have a big sample of their locations like I have Waffle Houses.
Apparently they go out as far west as Odessa, Texas.
-
Glendale, AZ is the westernmost WH.
-
hash brown at McDonald's is like $3....used to be under $1. how did this happen?
-
Subway sucks. So does jimmy Johns.
Firehouse Subs is the best of these sandwich chains, and it's not particularly close.
they all suck imo. in terms of huge national chains, Jersey Mike's used to be the best chain imo. that is until private equity bought them and diluted the product.
-
hash brown at McDonald's is like $3....used to be under $1. how did this happen?
Jacked up tater prices. Big Farma, you might say.
-
The torches at the place next door went from $10 to $16 over 2 years. The chef told me potato prices had gone way up.
Their tochos are not for the unhungry.
-
https://theskinnyishdish.com/totchos-loaded-tater-tot-nachos/
The word totcho is a portmanteau. I guess it must be French.
I don’t think any other country has our huge variety of food items.
-
hash brown at McDonald's is like $3....used to be under $1. how did this happen?
Evil corporate greed
-
Evil corporate greed
Definitely corporate greed. Potato burglars!
Or, alternatively, this...
(https://i.imgur.com/Ti4rhkY.png)
-
I made beef stew for dinner, really tasty.
-
Evil corporate greed
More likely than potatoes tripling in price.
-
Definitely corporate greed. Potato burglars!
Or, alternatively, this...
(https://i.imgur.com/Ti4rhkY.png)
If only your graph reflected McD hash brown pricing.....
(https://i.imgur.com/AmC90Zj.jpeg)
Tripling in 7 years is NOT corporate greed. Keeping the price high after supply chain issues have long been fixed is NOT corporate greed! Ignore the man behind the curtain!
-
If only your graph reflected McD hash brown pricing.....
(https://i.imgur.com/AmC90Zj.jpeg)
Tripling in 7 years is NOT corporate greed. Keeping the price high after supply chain issues have long been fixed is NOT corporate greed! Ignore the man behind the curtain!
What do you call something that is priced artificially low for decades and dosesn't track the rising cost of the manufacturing inputs?
More likely than potatoes tripling in price.
I mean, those are your exact words, and yet that's what happened.
-
One could see if the stock price of MCD did anything extraordinary during the period.
https://www.alphaspread.com/comparison/nyse/mcd/vs/indx/gspc
Over the last decade, it seems to track SPX pretty closely. So, perhaps average corporate greed. I agree there is such a thing, this is a for profit corporation, they exist to maximize earnings.
So long as there is real competition, I don’t see a problem.
-
Problem is IMHO when gas prices come down will food prices follow? If congress doesn't start holding these corporate pirates legally accountable(instead of catering to party interests) things just may go unretrievably sideways. Not good,not good
-
if/when the oil companies report record profits at the end of the year, I won't be happy.
I'll be a grumpy old man!
-
Look who is buying the farmland.
-
Problem is IMHO when gas prices come down will food prices follow? If congress doesn't start holding these corporate pirates legally accountable(instead of catering to party interests) things just may go unretrievably sideways. Not good,not good
Fertilizer depends on natural gas, rather heavily, so farmers have had to pay more for fertilizer. That price might ease some if overall petroleum/NG prices drop, but the increased cost is "in the ground" now. I'm not sure what Congress can do specifically.
None of us like higher prices, and "we" want to blame someone for them, the origins quite often are multiple and rather more complex than just saying "corporate greed". The "cure" in my view is efffective competition. which I grant we don't always have sufficiently. The FTC is supposed to keep an eye on things like monopolistic practices, but the last time I saw any action of that sort, breaking up a monopoly, etc., was ... well, I can't recall.
-
Fertilizer depends on natural gas, rather heavily, so farmers have had to pay more for fertilizer. That price might ease some if overall petroleum/NG prices drop, but the increased cost is "in the ground" now. I'm not sure what Congress can do specifically.
None of us like higher prices, and "we" want to blame someone for them, the origins quite often are multiple and rather more complex than just saying "corporate greed". The "cure" in my view is efffective competition. which I grant we don't always have sufficiently. The FTC is supposed to keep an eye on things like monopolistic practices, but the last time I saw any action of that sort, breaking up a monopoly, etc., was ... well, I can't recall.
Ma Bell, I think.
Both Intel and Microsoft have faced heavy government scrutiny over the years. The existence of Apple and AMD has saved them from severe government interference. Government economists use various tools to analyze markets, the Herfindahl Index being one of the primary ones which measures the concentration of firms in an industry.
-
One huge change in our lives was the Haber process, a way to generate fertilizer from air (and explosives as well). Before this, fertilizer was "harvested" from bird populated islands. The green revolution hinges on this change. Fertilizer is critical to farming (duh).
I've read concerns that we're using up sources of phosphorus readily available for use in fertilized. While not as critical as N, it's still needed by plants. Potassium is easier to come by.
-
What do you call something that is priced artificially low for decades and dosesn't track the rising cost of the manufacturing inputs?
Loss leader?
I think we'd also want to look at other factors, like minimum wage and others that affect how a business like McDonald's prices their menu. I don't know a ton about the fast-food industry, but I know there are usually a number of things that set the price point, only one of which is corporate greed.
My contribution to the "problem"--as with Subway--is I quit eating at McDonald's decades ago. Not really for any statement or voting with my dollars....mostly 'cuz the food sucks.
-
One could see if the stock price of MCD did anything extraordinary during the period.
https://www.alphaspread.com/comparison/nyse/mcd/vs/indx/gspc
Over the last decade, it seems to track SPX pretty closely. So, perhaps average corporate greed. I agree there is such a thing, this is a for profit corporation, they exist to maximize earnings.
So long as there is real competition, I don’t see a problem.
Share price isn't the only story... Look at EPS: https://companiesmarketcap.com/mcdonald/eps/
2019 and prior, they never had EPS higher than $8. 2021 and beyond, they never had EPS lower than $8, and only one year below $10. 2025 EPS was 50% higher than 2019.
Their quarterly dividend has risen 44% in the last 5 years along with EPS, which partially restrains share price appreciation--they're giving more profits back to their shareholders every quarter. Quarterly dividend has nearly doubled over a 10 year period.
Now, I don't know that they did anything "extraordinary", but if they were able to reap some additional profits by pricing for higher margin and that ended up being reflected in dividends rather than share price appreciation, it invalidates the thesis of looking at the stock price as a primary measure.
-
Share price isn't the only story... Look at EPS: https://companiesmarketcap.com/mcdonald/eps/
2019 and prior, they never had EPS higher than $8. 2021 and beyond, they never had EPS lower than $8, and only one year below $10. 2025 EPS was 50% higher than 2019.
Their quarterly dividend has risen 44% in the last 5 years along with EPS, which partially restrains share price appreciation--they're giving more profits back to their shareholders every quarter. Quarterly dividend has nearly doubled over a 10 year period.
Now, I don't know that they did anything "extraordinary", but if they were able to reap some additional profits by pricing for higher margin and that ended up being reflected in dividends rather than share price appreciation, it invalidates the thesis of looking at the stock price as a primary measure.
COVID set them up
-
Stock price is far from the only measure, but what metric should be used to indicate corporate greed?
-
The OA Meter.
-
Consumer demand generally drives prices in the simple areas.
"Value meals" got to $15. No buy.
Back down to $8-9? Buy.
Corporate greed is driving gas prices. And taxes.
87 Gas here in Crook County is $5.15/gallon based on a few places I saw.
87 Gas where I live was $3.79 yesterday.
-
Ma Bell, I think.
Both Intel and Microsoft have faced heavy government scrutiny over the years. The existence of Apple and AMD has saved them from severe government interference. Government economists use various tools to analyze markets, the Herfindahl Index being one of the primary ones which measures the concentration of firms in an industry.
Antitrust enforcement has definitely slowed in recent years. Nonetheless, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google have all had to defend themselves from the Feds. The thinking on antitrust for a long time (since the 80s) has strongly favored low pricing instead of numbers of competitors, which effectively encourages oligopoly. Price controls are quite different than antitrust enforcement, and our political culture will have to dramatically change before price controls become palatable on a widescale basis--I doubt that will happen in our lifetimes.
-
Antitrust enforcement has definitely slowed in recent years. Nonetheless, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google have all had to defend themselves from the Feds. The thinking on antitrust for a long time (since the 80s) has strongly favored low pricing instead of numbers of competitors, which effectively encourages oligopoly. Price controls are quite different than antitrust enforcement, and our political culture will have to dramatically change before price controls become palatable on a widescale basis--I doubt that will happen in our lifetimes.
Yeah. I get really nervous when the government starts trying to interfere with market competition. For example, due to massive barriers to entry, there are only a handful of manufacturers that can design, create, and produce CPUs for computers. And the market share is heavily concentrated within just two of them. Some oversight here is understandable to help prevent anti-compettitive behaviors, but civil litigation takes care of a lot of that, and there's just no way to insist that this specific industry should have a dozen competitors. That would be wildly unrealsitic.
-
How about football tickets? I remember face values at about 40 bucks. And nearly having a heart attack at having to pay a Franklin for scalped tickets on the strip before game time.
SEC -- It just costs more!
(https://i.imgur.com/kTGPPbc.png)
-
Those prices are in the secondary market set by supply and demand.
-
Those prices are in the secondary market set by supply and demand.
The secondary market used walk the sidewalk in front of the stadium -- yelling, Tickets! Tickets!
(But that was deemed illegal. The new rapists are legal!)
-
I remember paying $3.50 to see RUSH.
-
The secondary market used walk the sidewalk in front of the stadium -- yelling, Tickets! Tickets!
(But that was deemed illegal. The new rapists are legal!)
When people stop paying the high prices, then the universities will stop increasing them. I dropped my season tickets 9 years ago because the cost was just too much for me and I had other priorities. But apparently there were plenty of people lined up behind me.
-
Seat Geek doesn’t set prices, only their take.
-
When people stop paying the high prices, then the universities will stop increasing them. I dropped my season tickets 9 years ago because the cost was just too much for me and I had other priorities. But apparently there were plenty of people lined up behind me.
Supposedly there is a 20K + waiting list for Tennessee season tickets. I find that hard to believe, but who knows. Apparently there is more than 1 sucker born every minute.
We used to make at least one sojourn across the state every year, sometimes twice, to catch a game in Neyland. For the past 2 years, we have foregone that treat solely due to the price of doing business.
We take a second week long beach trip instead --- for the same price!
-
Antitrust enforcement has definitely slowed in recent years. Nonetheless, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google have all had to defend themselves from the Feds. The thinking on antitrust for a long time (since the 80s) has strongly favored low pricing instead of numbers of competitors, which effectively encourages oligopoly. Price controls are quite different than antitrust enforcement, and our political culture will have to dramatically change before price controls become palatable on a widescale basis--I doubt that will happen in our lifetimes.
Can you expound a little bit to clarify what you mean when you say antitrust has favored low pricing and then say price control is not the norm and will not be the norm under the current culture? Are you saying low-price-oriented antitrust hearings are not really enacting price control mechanisms, or that the price control uses have been limited to those few companies and it won't be widespread any time soon, or something else entirely? I didn't follow your response.
As an aside, count me in the camp who sure hopes we don't see widescale price controls in my lifetime.....or ever. I don't know much about law, but I'm not a noob in economics, and I have no reason to be a fan of governments setting prices.
-
Companies can point to lower pricing as a defense against antitrust actions. The idea is to avoid having the FTC come in and break you up.
As a result, we have some effective duopolies in businesses that are capital intensive. How many major commercial aircraft companies exist today? We have three major aircraft engine makers that I know of, and the defense industry? Lockheed Martin, Boeing, GD, Northrup Grumman, but these tend to be in specific sectors. Amazon's competition is brick and mortar mostly, which is losing. But for now Amazon offers attractive pricing.
At the core, we have the option between the "invisible hand" and "central control of the economy". In practice, things everywhere are mixed.
I completely agree that for profit companies are "greedy". That is inherent.
-
The Fed DOJ's antitrust division--the primary antitrust enforcement arm--brings antitrust lawsuits when it believes that a company has too much market power. In short, a business without much market power can perform "anticompetitive" acts (you may only buy my widget if you also buy my thingy), but a business with lots of market power cannot (I am the world's preeminent widget supplier, so I cannot force you to buy my thingy along with my widget).
For the first 80 or so years of the Sherman Antitrust Act (and the associated antitrust laws that followed), the antitrust division relied heavily on how many actors existed in a market to determine whether to challenge a merger or bring an antitrust lawsuit. Example: there are only 8 companies that sell a widget in this geographic area, so my company cannot (a) merge with one of the other 7, or (b) perform some anticompetitive act (forcing my customers to also buy thingies from me).
In the 1980s, the antitrust division adopted the "Chicago School" view of market power, which changed the calculus from how many competitors there were to how much ability does any one company have to impact the market price of an item. This was a big deal because instead of protecting the other 7 widget suppliers, the antitrust division essentially said that as long as there is still significant price competition for a widget, you can do what you want regarding the sale of thingies, and your widget suppliers can merge to your heart's content. As long as there are two or three widget competitors who are big enough, I won't be able to control the price of widgets myself. Many people argue--and I'm not well enough versed to know--that this resulted in the collapse of "Main Street" businesses, leading to consolidation and oligopolies.
None of that is price controlling; the theory is that as long as there is robust price competition, prices will remain low. So Lowes and Home Depot have cornered most of the traditional hardware store market in many places, running all of the small hardware stores out of business, but because prices are still low, DOJ approves. (That's simplistic, but demonstrative.) Markets are still subject to price fixing (another big no no), which raises prices, but is rare in the traditional sense of all four remaining widget suppliers getting together and agreeing what to charge for a widget.
However, in an oligopoly, conscious parallelism--realizing that your competitors are setting a higher price that all of you widget suppliers think the market will bear, and setting your price to match--is easier to pull off, and similarly results in higher prices. Because there is no "agreement," there is no antitrust violation. Gasoline and airline prices are good examples of this in action. The fewer the market participants, the easier conscious parallelism is.
So what am I saying. Not entirely sure--basically spewing random stuff on a message board, but maybe:
When people talk about gouging, they are basically talking about whether companies are taking advantage of too much market power, essentially antitrust concerns. Pricing for what the market will bear--CAPITALISM (writ large)--is not gouging, as long as there is true market price competition. However, in markets that are closer to oligopolies, conscious parallelism starts to look a lot like gouging, but isn't considered an antitrust violation because it doesn't require actual agreement. AND under the old fashioned way of looking at market competition (how many competitors are there), maybe it would have been harder to do.
-
All of that said, the old fashioned way of looking at things probably would have meant that prices wouldn't have been as low to begin with...
And that antitrust ship sailed a long time ago, so it's all just message board fluff from me anyway.
-
The opposite of conscious parallelism that results in tacit collusion for price fixing, is the race to the bottom. And it happens all of the time in industry.
-
When people talk about gouging, they are basically talking about whether companies are taking advantage of too much market power, essentially antitrust concerns. Pricing for what the market will bear--CAPITALISM (writ large)--is not gouging, as long as there is true market price competition. However, in markets that are closer to oligopolies, conscious parallelism starts to look a lot like gouging, but isn't considered an antitrust violation because it doesn't require actual agreement. AND under the old fashioned way of looking at market competition (how many competitors are there), maybe it would have been harder to do.
And I suspect that OAM is suggesting that the run-up in, say, fast food pricing, is conscious parallelism.
However, I don't think the restaurant market is anywhere NEAR close enough to an oligopoly that the claim would make any sense.
Especially, since fast food is a discretionary item that also has tremendous out-of-sector competition. Such as cooking at home for yourself, or ready-made supermarket food, or [for many fast food customers] convenience store food, etc...
I got into it in ~2006 with a neighbor about the proposed Sirius & XMRadio merger. He claimed it should be stopped because it would create a monopoly in satellite radio--which it did. I claimed it was fine because while it might be a monopoly in satellite radio, there is enough out-of-sector competition that it would be relatively difficult for the merger to cause consumer harm.
20 years later, SiriusXM subscriptions are cheaper than I recall paying for XMRadio at the time. Ultimately the fact that the single satellite radio player in the market has to compete with "free"--i.e. AM/FM and/or streaming services you already carry in your pocket--they don't have monopoly pricing power.
-
When people stop paying the high prices, then the universities will stop increasing them. I dropped my season tickets 9 years ago because the cost was just too much for me and I had other priorities. But apparently there were plenty of people lined up behind me.
This touches on my outlook for college sports. When schools and such decide to stop paying so much for coaches and players, the market will say we’re at a stable point.
But somehow we’re not there yet.
-
This touches on my outlook for college sports. When schools and such decide to stop paying so much for coaches and players, the market will say we’re at a stable point.
But somehow we’re not there yet.
I think we're getting close.
It's going to take a few more, but the more busts we see like ickell, Harsin, Frost, Venables, Muleshoe, (insert UF coach here), etc. things will start to change.
How much did Michigan pay for Underwood? Nebraska for Raiola? How much has I'm a Leavin' made so far, only to suck?
People will wise up - especially as attendance continues to be in question.
-
The Fed DOJ's antitrust division--the primary antitrust enforcement arm--brings antitrust lawsuits when it believes that a company has too much market power. In short, a business without much market power can perform "anticompetitive" acts (you may only buy my widget if you also buy my thingy), but a business with lots of market power cannot (I am the world's preeminent widget supplier, so I cannot force you to buy my thingy along with my widget).
For the first 80 or so years of the Sherman Antitrust Act (and the associated antitrust laws that followed), the antitrust division relied heavily on how many actors existed in a market to determine whether to challenge a merger or bring an antitrust lawsuit. Example: there are only 8 companies that sell a widget in this geographic area, so my company cannot (a) merge with one of the other 7, or (b) perform some anticompetitive act (forcing my customers to also buy thingies from me).
In the 1980s, the antitrust division adopted the "Chicago School" view of market power, which changed the calculus from how many competitors there were to how much ability does any one company have to impact the market price of an item. This was a big deal because instead of protecting the other 7 widget suppliers, the antitrust division essentially said that as long as there is still significant price competition for a widget, you can do what you want regarding the sale of thingies, and your widget suppliers can merge to your heart's content. As long as there are two or three widget competitors who are big enough, I won't be able to control the price of widgets myself. Many people argue--and I'm not well enough versed to know--that this resulted in the collapse of "Main Street" businesses, leading to consolidation and oligopolies.
None of that is price controlling; the theory is that as long as there is robust price competition, prices will remain low. So Lowes and Home Depot have cornered most of the traditional hardware store market in many places, running all of the small hardware stores out of business, but because prices are still low, DOJ approves. (That's simplistic, but demonstrative.) Markets are still subject to price fixing (another big no no), which raises prices, but is rare in the traditional sense of all four remaining widget suppliers getting together and agreeing what to charge for a widget.
However, in an oligopoly, conscious parallelism--realizing that your competitors are setting a higher price that all of you widget suppliers think the market will bear, and setting your price to match--is easier to pull off, and similarly results in higher prices. Because there is no "agreement," there is no antitrust violation. Gasoline and airline prices are good examples of this in action. The fewer the market participants, the easier conscious parallelism is.
So what am I saying. Not entirely sure--basically spewing random stuff on a message board, but maybe:
When people talk about gouging, they are basically talking about whether companies are taking advantage of too much market power, essentially antitrust concerns. Pricing for what the market will bear--CAPITALISM (writ large)--is not gouging, as long as there is true market price competition. However, in markets that are closer to oligopolies, conscious parallelism starts to look a lot like gouging, but isn't considered an antitrust violation because it doesn't require actual agreement. AND under the old fashioned way of looking at market competition (how many competitors are there), maybe it would have been harder to do.
Thanks for writing all that! Very helpful. Copying and saving for future reference.
Now I have to go read up on the Chicago School and the Harvard School of thought on antitrust.
-
MDT: beware of my oversimplification...
Also, THE thing in antitrust work (ok, one of the most important things) is defining the appropriate market. Is the market satellite radio, or is it radio? Is it grocery stores, or is it big-box grocery stores? And what's the geographic area?
-
I got into it in ~2006 with a neighbor about the proposed Sirius & XMRadio merger. He claimed it should be stopped because it would create a monopoly in satellite radio--which it did. I claimed it was fine because while it might be a monopoly in satellite radio, there is enough out-of-sector competition that it would be relatively difficult for the merger to cause consumer harm.
20 years later, SiriusXM subscriptions are cheaper than I recall paying for XMRadio at the time. Ultimately the fact that the single satellite radio player in the market has to compete with "free"--i.e. AM/FM and/or streaming services you already carry in your pocket--they don't have monopoly pricing power.
There's at least a part of me that thinks the other side of that coin is innovation. Satellite radio may not be a good example (I don't know much about it, but it's the example you used, so I'm sticking with it), but regardless of price and customer satisfaction with price, how much innovation are we not getting due to lack of competition? We can never assert counterfactuals with perfect confidence, but competition is a reliable and tested driver of innovation. Regardless of price, would we have cooler satellite radio without SiriusXM?
-
MDT: beware of my oversimplification...
Also, THE thing in antitrust work (ok, one of the most important things) is defining the appropriate market. Is the market satellite radio, or is it radio? Is it grocery stores, or is it big-box grocery stores? And what's the geographic area?
Will do.
But when learning about something new, I kind of have to simplify first and get solid on core, possibly theoretical, concepts, before I can bring nuance and real-world messiness into it. Kinda like in econ 101 when they drill you with the supply and demand curves.....nobody, nowhere is governed by the overly simplistic picture they paint. But it's still a good idea to teach it to students starting out.
-
I think we're getting close.
It's going to take a few more, but the more busts we see like ickell, Harsin, Frost, Venables, Muleshoe, (insert UF coach here), etc. things will start to change.
How much did Michigan pay for Underwood? Nebraska for Raiola? How much has I'm a Leavin' made so far, only to suck?
People will wise up - especially as attendance continues to be in question.
I thought it would eventually happen with coaches, but people are addicted to getting Hype about them. And to a form of financial virtue signaling.
But hopefully it at least slows soon.
-
There's a flip side of that innovation issue: when you innovate, you naturally create a market that you necessarily dominate. Amazon innovated the online book market, which morphed into online retail of everything. One of the reasons it is the dominant player is because it essentially created the market. Being innovative and successful is not "anticompetitive." To the contrary, it is as pro competitive as you can get. One of the difficult things in antitrust law has always been determining how a successful innovator can wield its newfound market power. A friend of mine is currently neck deep in an antitrust case between Yelp--a highly successful innovator--and Google--another even more successful innovator. The problem, as I understand it at a superficial level, is that Google used its domination in the search engine market to bury Yelp's online rating platform. I'm sure Google argues that its online ratings are winning now because Google is really good at what it does. Yelp thinks that Google has used its dominance in something else (search engines) to bury Yelp's rating platform. Kind of like Microsoft bundling internet explorer with its Windows operating system to make sure that every operating system user already has access to it (you can only buy my widget if you also get my thingy), even though Firefox was a superior web browser. That may be an ironic example because the Microsoft antitrust liability around Internet Explorer essentially created the opportunity for Google to flourish.
-
There's at least a part of me that thinks the other side of that coin is innovation. Satellite radio may not be a good example (I don't know much about it, but it's the example you used, so I'm sticking with it), but regardless of price and customer satisfaction with price, how much innovation are we not getting due to lack of competition? We can never assert counterfactuals with perfect confidence, but competition is a reliable and tested driver of innovation. Regardless of price, would we have cooler satellite radio without SiriusXM?
What's more likely is that in a split market where you had two competitors for a limited demand product, they simply wouldn't have both been able to survive. So you can allow them to merge and be a monopoly, or they can battle it out for 5 years, one go bankrupt while the other absorbs their subscriber base, and then you have... A monopoly.
And remember, SiriusXM *does* have competitors. Their competitors are terrestrial radio, streaming, podcasting, audiobooks, MP3/CDs, etc. They need to innovate to try to entice customers to pay for something when many of their competitors are free services.
So it's not right to act like there isn't a competitive market...
-
Will do.
But when learning about something new, I kind of have to simplify first and get solid on core, possibly theoretical, concepts, before I can bring nuance and real-world messiness into it. Kinda like in econ 101 when they drill you with the supply and demand curves.....nobody, nowhere is governed by the overly simplistic picture they paint. But it's still a good idea to teach it to students starting out.
And yet, so many of the things that people try to overcomplicate can be adequately explained with a simple supply & demand curve.
-
When people stop paying the high prices, then the universities will stop increasing them. I dropped my season tickets 9 years ago because the cost was just too much for me and I had other priorities. But apparently there were plenty of people lined up behind me.
This is one, tiny reason the non-wealthy don't like the wealthy.
They always pay the high prices. A tiny percentage of the group makes it so the much larger percentage of the group do not have access.
And that can be frustrating.
-
Stock price is far from the only measure, but what metric should be used to indicate corporate greed?
(https://i.imgur.com/eW7Fyua.jpeg)
Stuff like this.
You could have deemed it all predictable.
These companies are simply getting better at sharpening their swords.
They really take advantage of people's habits/being lazy.
.
I comically just wish they'd value stakeholders over shareholders. The funny things is they don't have to choose one or the other. But they have. They really have.
And for all of the ideas to knock billionaires down a peg.....they'd still be billionaires. Maybe more slowly, but they'd still be at the top of the mountain. That's the thing. None of them would actually feel it. They wouldn't have to deny themselves another car or house or yacht.
I mean damn.
-
Folks often invest in a thing and become part owners hoping to earn money. If an investment doesn’t pay me a reasonable mount I don’t buy, or sell if I did.
-
These companies are simply getting better at sharpening their swords.
They really take advantage of people's habits/being lazy.
I mean damn.
educate/teach people to learn better habits - don't be lazy
there are better choices than the drive-thru at McDonalds
-
Since 2000 I doubt I've stopped at McDonalds more than 4X for myself and that was usually when pressed for time and needed coffee and a quick filler for breakfast.Stop there maybe 2X a year for Cindy
-
Look who is buying the farmland.
In late April, one of the largest farming businesses in North America filed for financial protection and restructuring. With a court document released on June 1, we’re getting a first look at those next steps for The Monette Group to satisfy its creditors.
From the April filing, it is stated Monette Group held a $950 million secured credit facility dated December 5, 2018, which matured on April 15, 2026. The company is currently under CCAA protection, which is a legal process for insolvent corporations to restructure or sell assets to pay off debts.
What’s new since June 1 is the group is pursuing a Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) for four types of transactions:
Since late April, Monette Group has liquidated its cattle inventory to repay Farm Credit Canada (FCC). With ranches in Alberta and Saskatchewan, cattle ranching accounted for approximately 10% of the business’s revenue in 2024 and 17% in 2025.
The Monette Group has proposed a process for court approval to sell all of its land. This includes a request for a streamlined Sale Approval and Vesting Order (SAVO) process for Canadian land sales with an aggregate purchase price of $30 million or less. This is intended to reduce legal costs and administrative burdens by using “desk applications” instead of oral hearings.
Currently, the group owns more than 274,000 acres in Alberta, Saskatchewan (129,000 acres), Manitoba (49,000 acres), British Columbia, Montana, Colorado, and Arizona. Specifically in the U.S. Monette owns 61,700 acres.
-
And yet, so many of the things that people try to overcomplicate can be adequately explained with a simple supply & demand curve.
Oh, I didn't mean they're useless, or have no explanatory power. Quite the contrary.
What I mean is, they're just models. Like a linear regression line is a predictive model for a population. Supply and demand curves show us what would be without any exterior factors....noise, as the stats nerds call it. There are government regulations, a variety of categories of barriers to both consumers and suppliers, and things that we don't have a good explanation for. Those are added to the fact that a real, unfettered, capitalist market is slow, takes time to adjust and settle, but never quite settles, because it's always changing....evolving. In that regard, the theoretical equilibrium point where the supply and demand curves intersect, is a bit of a myth.
BUT. That doesn't mean those curves aren't good models. I only meant that they have some margin of error; sometimes narrow, sometimes wide, sometimes for a prolonged period of time, sometimes for a short period of time. But we should mostly think in those terms, because good models are the best predictors we have. When I say no market or the people in it are actually governed by them, I mean that the supply/demand curves have some impreciseness that introductory lessons on Economics (in my experience) don't tend to inform you about, which changes the real-world usefulness a little bit. But I'm adamant that the concepts are foundational, and have to be taught first, before digging into other things that complicate the models.
-
Ahh, Mike, gotcha. Yeah, simple "curves" are rudimentary. The real world is far more messy.
I think I was more riffing on people who blame corporate greed or shadowy conspiracies for why things are happening, when simple economic concepts are more than adequate.
-
Yeah, and really, things like corporate greed are just part of the supply curve in a fair market. So I don't even view them as mutually exclusive. The demand curve still has a major impact on equilibrium price, regardless of corporate greed. Again, in a fair market.
Grumpy side tangent: job requirements are one thing that screw that up a little bit. Effectively, I have to have a smart phone for my position. Even though it's not explicitly stated, there's things I need to be able to do in certain situations that I couldn't otherwise do (and unfortunately the state does not pay for our smart phones, even though we kinda have to have them). A few years ago I realized I was sick of smart phones and would go back to a flip-phone if I could. I seldom use any "smart" functionality, and I'm a prime example of the studies which show that people who use them less are happier, less depressed, etc. When I realized that, it drove down my usage even that much more. And, frankly, I don't like what has become of social settings with everyone's face buried in their phones. So someone like me, in a free(r) market, might just say "no thanks" and once there's enough of us, the price of the damn things is bound to come down. But I (we) can't. The market has at least a small portion of it artificially propped up because real demand is not reflected in situations like mine. There might not be nearly enough people like me in the same position for it to matter. But the potential is one of the real-world things I'm pointing to.
-
My phone is set so that anyone calling not in my registry doesn't ring. Sometimes they leave a message which I pick up in text, and delete. Hardly ever does anyone I know call me. We used whatsap in the family group.
At one time at work, we were not allowed to have cameras, except after getting written approval.
-
So someone like me, in a free(r) market, might just say "no thanks" and once there's enough of us, the price of the damn things is bound to come down. But I (we) can't. The market has at least a small portion of it artificially propped up because real demand is not reflected in situations like mine. There might not be nearly enough people like me in the same position for it to matter. But the potential is one of the real-world things I'm pointing to.
That said, I'd argue your smartphone demand is still real demand. It's not entirely freely chosen by you--rather it's imposed on you by circumstances that make it necessary--but it's real demand.
It's like the demand for gasoline. I'd prefer not to use as much gasoline as I do. I'd prefer to WFH all 5 days a week in which case I wouldn't need to consume nearly as much. But I make the choice of going in 3 days a week as my company now demands, which increases my overall fuel demand. But I much prefer working 3 days a week in the office to being unemployed and not earning a salary, so I have to buy that gas. It's real demand even if I would prefer it not be.
-
educate/teach people to learn better habits - don't be lazy
there are better choices than the drive-thru at McDonalds
Sure, but that's why I said they really make it hard to do so. It's your kids' favorite place, it's convenient, blah blah blah. They scientifically make it tick every taste box.
Learning a better habit and "just don't be lazy" aren't very high-percentage actions, lol.
-
Sure, there is a lot of demand for fast food. I'm always still surprised how many McDs I see in Europe and Asia.
When my kids were smaller, I tried to avoid FF to the extent possible, but we'd fairly often be in a rush. That Arny's Five for Five deal was a savior. My son would scarf down 2 before we got home a mile away.
We'll often have breakfast at McDs when on the road.
If I could educate more people on one thing, it might be credit card use.
-
Sure, but that's why I said they really make it hard to do so. It's your kids' favorite place, it's convenient, blah blah blah. They scientifically make it tick every taste box.
Learning a better habit and "just don't be lazy" aren't very high-percentage actions, lol.
yup, similar to many poor choices made by the masses every single day
cigarettes, vapes, credit card debit, sugary sodas, illegal drugs, other illegal activities, gambling, the list is endless
-
Supply & demand does explain a lot, simply. But it's more than that.
Swaths of people, especially poor people, can be cajoled into demand for things that aren't good for them, are addictive, are extremely convenient, etc.
That's why we can't simply look at the ebb and flow and just shrug, as if nothing can be done. That's BS and I give everyone here enough credit to know it.
Maybe their plight hasn't been fully considered by some of you. And that's fine. But shrugging and saying 'supply and demand' as if that solves anything is silly.
It's herding cattle into the pen they want, then you telling the cattle to think more strategically. Not mean to be insulting, but you get the idea.
-
What can be done?
-
Supply & demand does explain a lot, simply. But it's more than that.
Swaths of people, especially poor people, can be cajoled into demand for things that aren't good for them, are addictive, are extremely convenient, etc.
That's why we can't simply look at the ebb and flow and just shrug, as if nothing can be done. That's BS and I give everyone here enough credit to know it.
Maybe their plight hasn't been fully considered by some of you. And that's fine. But shrugging and saying 'supply and demand' as if that solves anything is silly.
It's herding cattle into the pen they want, then you telling the cattle to think more strategically. Not mean to be insulting, but you get the idea.
Hey, smart/rich people make bad choices too. A lot of people who make a lot more money than you'd think live paycheck to paycheck and are up to their eyeballs in debt. I know, because I was one of them up until the point I divorced my spendthrift wife 10 years ago. So I might have been smart and high income, but I sure acted long-term irrationally until my mid-late 30s.
Plenty of smart/rich people are fat and don't exercise. Do you think it's because they don't know that they should eat better and lose weight? Of course not. It's that doing the thing that benefits you 5 years down the road vs the thing that makes you happy today is really hard. I think you've talked about being overweight, right? I'm sure it's not because you don't know what causes it.
Plenty of smart/rich people are smokers, or addicted to various substances, or are addicted to certain other negative behaviors like gambling... It's not because they don't know better. Everyone knows cigs/drugs/casinos aren't good for you. But they do it anyway.
It's humanity. Preferring instant gratification vs delayed benefit is kinda hard-wired into our DNA. They herd themselves into the pen.
-
That said, I'd argue your smartphone demand is still real demand. It's not entirely freely chosen by you--rather it's imposed on you by circumstances that make it necessary--but it's real demand.
It's like the demand for gasoline. I'd prefer not to use as much gasoline as I do. I'd prefer to WFH all 5 days a week in which case I wouldn't need to consume nearly as much. But I make the choice of going in 3 days a week as my company now demands, which increases my overall fuel demand. But I much prefer working 3 days a week in the office to being unemployed and not earning a salary, so I have to buy that gas. It's real demand even if I would prefer it not be.
I don't think that's how free-market economists would define "demand." What we're talking about here is closer to the kind of interference they complain about, which creates artificial price points. Demand is usually conceptually structured around easily accessible alternatives within discretionary income. There's a lot of things--even things generally considered necessities which could arguably still be construed as demand, in that if we really don't like the price per kwh from our electric company, we don't have to have it*--that we could do without. I see what you're saying here, but I don't think most would count leaving our jobs and getting another one as the kind of readily available choice that they're outlining when they teach the demand curve. In other words, how we spend income on the scale of our discretionary-to-essential spending is one thing; messing with that income we choose to buy things with is a different thing.
It'd be like saying that government regulations/interference is not really messing with the supply curve, those companies are choosing to be in that business when they don't have to be. They could fold up shop and do something else. It's not that you're not pointing to a real thing, it's that it's not how an economist would typically categorize it.
-
I don't think that's how free-market economists would define "demand." What we're talking about here is closer to the kind of interference they complain about, which creates artificial price points. Demand is usually conceptually structured around easily accessible alternatives within discretionary income. There's a lot of things--even things generally considered necessities which could arguably still be construed as demand, in that if we really don't like the price per kwh from our electric company, we don't have to have it*--that we could do without. I see what you're saying here, but I don't think most would count leaving our jobs and getting another one as the kind of readily available choice that they're outlining when they teach the demand curve. In other words, how we spend income on the scale of our discretionary-to-essential spending is one thing; messing with that income we choose to buy things with is a different thing.
It'd be like saying that government regulations/interference is not really messing with the supply curve, those companies are choosing to be in that business when they don't have to be. They could fold up shop and do something else. It's not that you're not pointing to a real thing, it's that it's not how an economist would typically categorize it.
Well, my point is that the market can't always tell the difference between "necessary" and "discretionary" demand. The market doesn't know if I'm filling my gas tank because I have to drive to work vs being unemployed, or whether I'm filling my gas tank because my wife and I are going on a road trip vacation.
Where that usually comes up is in things like elasticity of demand.
- Gasoline has a portion that is very inelastic (the amount of gas needed for the average worker to get to their jobs, to take kids to/from school, to run necessary errands). But it also has a portion that can be quite elastic, such as said road trip vacation.
- Paying for power to your house is something that we all, in a modern society, need. So electricity service is inelastic. However for me, having a very inefficient A/C unit and a drafty house, means that my demand for A/C is a lot more elastic--I don't run the A/C until we get to the hot part of the year where my house would be 85+ degrees without it.
- Likewise, your need to have a smartphone for work is inelastic demand. But your determination whether you're going to keep a smartphone 5+ years and run it into the ground before replacement, or whether you're going to keep up with the Joneses and always be on the latest tech, is elastic demand.
- Demand for Ruth's Chris Steak House--a luxury good--is highly elastic. But demand for food--for enough calories to sustain oneself and not starve to death--is highly inelastic.
In most markets, the balance between elastic and inelastic demand applies constraints on how a supply/demand curve acts, but it doesn't invalidate the theory.
-
It's humanity. Preferring instant gratification vs delayed benefit is kinda hard-wired into our DNA. They herd themselves into the pen.
Sure, but billions of dollars are still spent every year on herding those people into the pens. It's never enough.
-
What can be done?
Getting money out of politics, at least how it is after C.U.
Capital gains taxes. Just a known % every year.
A steep inheritance tax.
Probably dozens of other things.
Or, you know, just shrug. Shrugging works well.
-
Well we have capital gains taxes. I’m not sure how to get money out of politics and have free speech or how that impacts McDs.
-
Well we have capital gains taxes. I’m not sure how to get money out of politics and have free speech or how that impacts McDs.
Corporations aren't people. Simple.
And if you're going to sit there and pretend major corporations don't influence policy, then I got a whole lot of beachfront property here in AZ.
This is where you're your smallest. It's unfortunate. Expert at shrugging.
-
Corporations mostly influence policy by lobbying, not political donations (except labor unions).
Open Secrets has the list.
McDonald’s
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/mcdonald-s-corp/summary?id=D000000373
-
Well, my point is that the market can't always tell the difference between "necessary" and "discretionary" demand. The market doesn't know if I'm filling my gas tank because I have to drive to work vs being unemployed, or whether I'm filling my gas tank because my wife and I are going on a road trip vacation.
Where that usually comes up is in things like elasticity of demand.
- Gasoline has a portion that is very inelastic (the amount of gas needed for the average worker to get to their jobs, to take kids to/from school, to run necessary errands). But it also has a portion that can be quite elastic, such as said road trip vacation.
- Paying for power to your house is something that we all, in a modern society, need. So electricity service is inelastic. However for me, having a very inefficient A/C unit and a drafty house, means that my demand for A/C is a lot more elastic--I don't run the A/C until we get to the hot part of the year where my house would be 85+ degrees without it.
- Likewise, your need to have a smartphone for work is inelastic demand. But your determination whether you're going to keep a smartphone 5+ years and run it into the ground before replacement, or whether you're going to keep up with the Joneses and always be on the latest tech, is elastic demand.
- Demand for Ruth's Chris Steak House--a luxury good--is highly elastic. But demand for food--for enough calories to sustain oneself and not starve to death--is highly inelastic.
In most markets, the balance between elastic and inelastic demand applies constraints on how a supply/demand curve acts, but it doesn't invalidate the theory.
I see what you're saying, and it goes to my earlier point. You're moving beyond the simplistic models of "Econ 101" into some real-world messiness. When I actually took Econ 101 (approximately 643 years ago), there was about 5 categories a piece for the supply and demand curves that outlined reasons why price would move up/down along it, according to contemporary economic theory. I don't pretend to remember what any of them are. I just have a vague notion now that they sort of assumed perfect and complete free will. Because you need to be able to think like that before you ever have to start layering in the nuances you're getting to.
What I'm saying is, I don't think job constraints placed on us falls into one of the categories that moves the price point on the demand curve in the basic, simplistic models which I previously claimed nobody is actually governed by.
-
When I actually took Econ 101 (approximately 643 years ago)
Ya well in another life I used an abacus but now I've spliced that in with what I've learned from handicapping the ponies. And ya know things still aren't adding up :017:
-
Corporations mostly influence policy by lobbying, not political donations (except labor unions).
Open Secrets has the list.
McDonald’s
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/mcdonald-s-corp/summary?id=D000000373
Contributing to campaigns influences who wins, and who wins helps dictate policy. And what you said.
Outspend.
Get what you want.
Legislate to keep the status quo.
Bastardizing the system. Your pushback is unfortunate. Revealing. Sad.