3 ms·

Consumers also prefer if they get their shit for free. See how long your business lasts if you do that. Satisfying the consumer's every preference is not evid

Consumers also prefer if they get their shit for free. See how long your business lasts if you do that. Satisfying the consumer's every preference is not evidence the consumer, the employee, or the business will be served in the long run.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago
What on earth does this comment have to do with the post?
- notch656a 4y ago
  "consumers prefer firms that prioritize paying employees over CEO" >Satisfying the consumer's every preference is not evidence the consumer, the employee, or the business will be served in the long run.
  - happytoexplain 4y ago
    You've only quoted the article title and your own post (which seems condescending). You haven't explained why this particular consumer preference is more akin to "getting shit for free" (i.e. not worth consideration) than other consumer preferences, many of course are very much worth considering. Nor have you given some indication of why the opinion you're trying to get out is worthy of such a hostile tone.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >You haven't explained why this particular consumer preference is more akin to "getting shit for free" (i.e. not worth consideration) than other consumer preference) This would be a straw man. I never claimed that this particular preference is the same as 'getting free shit.' I merely show a customer preference isn't evidence of benefit for the employee or company in the long run. The statement was made to present that mere customer preference is not sufficient to show that the employee, customer, or company will be served in the long run. Whatever emotion you feel ('condescending' / 'hostile') you can talk to your therapist about; I'm not going to address your perceptions of hostility.
- nxm 4y ago
  Quite a bit. Some wealthy consumers may be privileged enough to be able to pay more for goods from a company that pays employees more. But I feel most consumers want their product for the least amount of cost (sometimes out of necessity) and don’t have time nor care about internal pay structures at company.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago

What on earth does this comment have to do with the post?

notch656a 4y ago
"consumers prefer firms that prioritize paying employees over CEO" >Satisfying the consumer's every preference is not evidence the consumer, the employee, or the business will be served in the long run.
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  You've only quoted the article title and your own post (which seems condescending). You haven't explained why this particular consumer preference is more akin to "getting shit for free" (i.e. not worth consideration) than other consumer preferences, many of course are very much worth considering. Nor have you given some indication of why the opinion you're trying to get out is worthy of such a hostile tone.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >You haven't explained why this particular consumer preference is more akin to "getting shit for free" (i.e. not worth consideration) than other consumer preference) This would be a straw man. I never claimed that this particular preference is the same as 'getting free shit.' I merely show a customer preference isn't evidence of benefit for the employee or company in the long run. The statement was made to present that mere customer preference is not sufficient to show that the employee, customer, or company will be served in the long run. Whatever emotion you feel ('condescending' / 'hostile') you can talk to your therapist about; I'm not going to address your perceptions of hostility.
nxm 4y ago
Quite a bit. Some wealthy consumers may be privileged enough to be able to pay more for goods from a company that pays employees more. But I feel most consumers want their product for the least amount of cost (sometimes out of necessity) and don’t have time nor care about internal pay structures at company.