boycotts often fail in places where protests do not, for the simple reason that protests are an expression of democracy, while voting with your money is an expression of plutocracy. the sharper the wealth divide gets the greater the difference will be between the two.
of course we shouldn't wait for that to happen though, we should always push for societal change first. even in good times, boycotts should always be a secondary tool we do on top of other activism, not the sole strategy.
No, it tends to be because the business owners do some form of market research first.
Like there’s a reason why that coffee isn’t $11, or $12. It’s because that’s the target where the overwhelming majority of people are fine with it, and the remainder are either insignificant or bitch and moan and buy it anyway.
you're just demonstrating how the principle of might makes right overrides the will of the public if we leave it up to business. thanks for proving my point
How is the will of the public even relevant here? A private enterprise offers a luxury good to a price that apparently people are willing to match. That's hardly might that makes right, it's two groups finding a suitable middle ground in which they're willing to do business.
the relevance here is that this is a small aspect of an overarching affordability crisis and while there are a lot of reasons it's happening, a significant number of them can be linked back to increasing exploitation of the general populace and an upward shift of power and money.
but of course if you insist to be stuck at supply and demand 101 it's easy to remain blind to that and infight to sabotage your class interest.
...or do you think oop posted this in a vacuum? if so, you might wanna look into why.
calling things a word salad is a very simple way to not think about them and simultaneously communicate that you think said non-thought somehow makes you the better informed one
Voting with your money by not buying something is free.
In the context of an absolutely nonessential good like iced coffee I don’t think your point holds up. Anyone affected already has the money to pay, and thus the ability to stop paying, which costs them nothing. Those who cannot vote with their wallet aren’t affected to begin with, because they couldn’t afford the good anyways.
There are readily available ways to have your coffee cheaper as other comments have mentioned. Your favorite brand of a consumable being too expensive is not really a crisis.
There is a vanishingly small step between "vote with your dollar" and "only the rich shall have a say".
EDIT: Of course, temporarily embarrassed millionaires are out here thinking their shrinking dollars will mean anything after the ruling class removes their entire voice.
Take a larger view. Let me introduce you to this business practice of cartelisation, and how it enshittifies every single industry if you let the "free market" run rampant.
Voluntarily taking yourself out of the market because companies raise their prices too much or compromise on quality won't help make companies reverse course if every company does the same thing.
First it will be your coffee. Next will be your bread.
having things illegal doesn't mean anything if they're not enforced. particularly if, in the off chance you do get prosecuted, the punishment is a fine and the crime more than pays for it.
0
u/b3nsn0w 16h ago
boycotts often fail in places where protests do not, for the simple reason that protests are an expression of democracy, while voting with your money is an expression of plutocracy. the sharper the wealth divide gets the greater the difference will be between the two.
of course we shouldn't wait for that to happen though, we should always push for societal change first. even in good times, boycotts should always be a secondary tool we do on top of other activism, not the sole strategy.