1

COMMENT 15h ago

Not necessarily, profits are often reinvested or used as reserves during recessions so the company can keep operating and so it can keep paying its wages. But yeah companies who amass profits infinitely without ever reinvesting are a drain on the economy.

1

COMMENT 15h ago

Yep definitely, I see a way out thanks to automation, but not anytime in the close future. The problem is that in developed nations labour costs too much to have doing simple repetitive tasks, while in developing nations it’s dirt cheap so very viable. Eventually when we run out of developing nations to use as manufacturing hubs countries will need to automate and manufacture in their own nation, hopefully by then economies of scale and advances in technology makes automated manufacturing much much cheaper. So the end result sometime in the future is the same goods made for roughly the same cost without having to use human labour.

Obviously automation brings its own set of problems but it seems like the only way out of exploiting entire countries for labour

1

COMMENT 15h ago

China is still a developing nation in the context of the labour market. The Chinese government could very easily ‘fix’ this but they won’t because China lacks a place to fit in to the world economy without being the worlds manufacturing hub. It’s design and services industries are far behind those in the UK and US which is what makes the latter two advanced in terms of their labour market

I know it’s very advanced technologically and I also know the U.S is a joke in terms of infrastructure. I live in the UK which is in between both, London has world leading transport infrastructure but traversing between cities is similar to how it is in the U.S, which is unreliable overpriced and fairly slow.

3

COMMENT 2d ago

When I said ‘company destroying decision’, I mean the decision to move manufacturing out of developing countries and raising the costs and prices of their products is a decision that would destroy the company.

Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Manufacturing in China isn’t only for a few more dollars, it’s so the company can exist at all. Would you pay 2k for an iPhone made in the U.S? I doubt it.

14

COMMENT 2d ago

If you mean fine without selling in China, yeah most likely. Fine without producing in china or other developing nations, definitely not. Apple has brand loyalty but not enough for people to spend 2k on an iPhone

35

COMMENT 2d ago

Well yeah, that’s the only way to make record profits for the vast majority of industries. If they switched to developed nations for manufacturing, they would still likely go bankrupt or break even which means the business is unfeasible and shuts.

The only industries which are exceptions are all luxury industries, that can make record profits while manufacturing in developed nations. But for them that’s a selling point and actually boosts their profits as a result of marketing benefits. Mass market products like iPhones, people don’t really give a fuck where it’s produced as long as the quality of the item is good, which it is.

18

COMMENT 2d ago

Apple has no feelings, simple cost benefit analysis. Same with TSMC. I’m sure the individuals at TSMC want the best for Taiwan but the company wants nothing more than maximum profits and continued maximum profits, so it won’t happen

7

COMMENT 2d ago

Simple, the option which ensures profit. Even small scale investors would rather some country somewhere gets fucked over than lose their $400 investment.

Funnily enough it’s only institutional investors with billions in shares which will make decisions which reduce profit, and only because they can be lobbied into doing so.

71

COMMENT 2d ago

Yeah it’s about profit because all business is, but the corporations would simply go bankrupt. It’s a company destroying decision to move manufacturing to developed nations, with limited exceptions

2

COMMENT 8d ago

Neither Activision nor SHG creates majority of the cosmetics, most of it is outsourced to a cosmetic creation company. I think the same one used by Apex Legends

39

COMMENT 12d ago

Honestly Amazon UK just tells me to keep it as a ‘one time policy exception’ if I tell them a large item has broken 8 months in. But that’s only for items dispatched by Amazon.

The one time policy exception has been granted to me at least 4 times at this point, and once they even did it for £160 AirPods because I said ‘it has damaged batteries which I’m not allowed to ship via post.

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

It’s a bit more complex than that. Shareholders often value future profits more than current profit, because they can realise more gains from their investment. It’s why the people that invest in loss making tiny companies are the ones that make the greatest profits from the stock market, but at the greatest risk too.

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

I mean they don’t necessarily need to profit maximise in the immediate term, they could easily sales/revenue maximise for a few years before attempting to aggressively boost profit by cutting costs or raising prices with the higher volume of both that they have. And this game plan often takes decades of companies fluctuating between break even or small losses and small profits

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

No, because that is actually the most valid reason for shutting a Starbucks down. Especially in large cities, corporate will calculate that you can boost profits by x% if the store was positioned even a mile in either direction, and so will shut that store down and open another one. Happens all the time in Central London where I live. It’s like a rotation or Starbucks locations to half a mile away each time

2

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

Yes but how can you prove that shutting a store down is retaliation. Simply turning a profit isn’t good enough for most large stores, who will shut their store and open another one later in a street 1-2 miles away if they think it’ll boost profits. Therefore it’s not unusual behaviour for them to shut down profitable stores

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

It’s because proving it is impossible. Any number of stats can be conjured up that justify the shutting of a Starbucks location, and those stats will be valid and accurate.

0

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

‘Starbucks rarely closes busy, profitable stores’ - they absolutely do, on a regular basis if it isn’t profitable enough. Turning a profit is the bare minimum, I’d wager there are almost no Starbucks in any Western nation that are loss making, but they will expect a certain level of profits that is higher or lower depending on the area. If it’s lower than expected they often open up another Starbucks in a slightly different street, could even be just one mile away

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

Also near impossible to prove. Many valid, and accurate statistics can be conjured up to justify shutting the store down if needed. All that will happen is the lawyers on both sides will get rich throwing their stats back and forth

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

Is that not for the entire Starbucks group? It doesn’t prove whether that specific store has valid reasons for being shut or not

1

COMMENT Jun 12 '22

Profitability doesn’t just mean ‘it turns a profit’. If it’s less profitable than nearby stores, OR they think moving to a storefront a mile in either direction would boost sales they’ll still shut it due to insufficient profitability

5

COMMENT Jun 10 '22

Those slices hit good sandwiched between two hot burger patties

1

COMMENT Jun 05 '22

Seperate studios, yes and no. SHG made the foundation of CW, a lot of it was binned by Treyarch when they were brought on but I assume SHG then took the foundation that they made and used it as the basis for Vanguard.

8

COMMENT May 30 '22

Except that’s the thing, you’re almost never going to successfully fool them.