• Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    See you’re assuming they wouldn’t jack up the prices even without theft, as someone who studied business it’s literally taught to see how far you can push before the breaking point. line go up. It does suck in undeserved communities but there’s not much we can do, people in those communities often vote against their best interest.

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      The breaking point, though, is the point when consumers will look to alternatives, e.g. a different store. As long as there are other options available, competition does usually do a decent job of keeping prices down.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        And companies in a free market would never, ever collude to keep prices high in the face of that very competition you think will keep prices down, right? In fact that’s exactly what we’re seeing right now, is prices being kept down by the absolutely healthy competition in the Canadian grocery market, right?

        • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Look collusion is a thing, but it’s illegal. Grocery stores, even the big chains in the US anyways are pretty cutthroat, they aren’t making huge profits they’re fighting to survive vs Amazon and the like. Anyways my point is that the claim that costs don’t affect prices (and therefore losses from theft don’t affect prices) is just silly.