That is why I deleted my first post I wasn't going there

 

I forget the name of the selling practice of that is.
I think it's called a "loss leader"................??

 

I did not intent for it to go political either.

I wanted to state that things are not what you think. In the summers when I was in High School I worked for a soda (soft drink) company. When ingredients ran low they would switch the line over to discount brands and add more water. When the CO2 was low they did the same.

Wm goes to the suppliers and orders low cost items that are lesser quality and people are flocking there thinking that they are getting a bargain and in return putting the suppliers of the better goods out of business.

 

And how does this happen?

Give a guy a job. Tell him his job is to make sure he is successful. Tell him success is increasing profits. He will find a way. He will figure out what he can sell and for how much. If he is big enough to make big purchasers to suppliers, he will be able to get a lot of concessions from them and more or less set the price per unit he is willing to pay. In turn, the guy who works for the supplier has the same exact mission, and he will find a way to get them about what they want for the price. We would all do it. It would be the decision that made sense. Quality will suffer, more or less, now and then, but not not always and not to the point where it won't be seen as "worth it" to the public. Parts and labor sources will change from time to time, wherever the best deal can be had, often to other countries that work cheaper. Companies who can't get this done won't be able to compete on a price basis. They are usually left touting quality or service. If enough people want quality and service, the smaller company will be OK in that niche. If the market for quality and service isn't there for a particular product, then the smaller company is out. (Have you ever been irritated at the price you needed to pay for something because the small shopkeeper knew you didn't have any alternatives?)

But quality doesn't go out the window entirely. People want cheap stuff and will buy cheap stuff if it will do the job. And if they sell something that isn't up to snuff, they will end up with so many returns it will be a big mistake on their part from a profit standpoint. And they have the money to go after, so they know they have to be responsible in those decisions, because they are ultimately responsible financially.

I read a book when I was a kid that proposed that our disposable society was going to kill us all. He wanted us to build and purchase refrigerators and cars (for example) that would last 30 to 50 years so we didn't waste resources. He proposed getting a mortgage on such expensive items. No one wants that. We want new stuff with the new features, and we want improvements as they come along. Imagine how much energy we would be wasting if everyone was stuck paying for old tech items for 30 years. Cheaper, faster, better. I just bought a projector for $2K that would have literally cost $100k ten years ago, as is actually better than that $100K version in every way. Progress hurts those who don't find a way to compete. And there are some areas in which you just can't compete, so you have to find something else to do that will allow you to compete. Change hurts sometimes.

 

BTW thead count is # of threads/sq. inch, and has nothing to do with % of cotton v. % of polyester.

I know this is vitally important, so I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

 

Further to what Joe House was saying - sounds like Emron ??????

 

This is very important to me. I don't sleep on nothing less than 800 count.

 

I guess one theme is that people act differently in groups/organizations than they would alone. I guess that's why there is a field called sociology.

Two guys can egg each other on to a murder or a rape that neither would do alone. Also, there is an authority to a big organization that makes you think that whatever they need/want is OK cause they are like the President or the Pope. Further, there is the anonymity of a big organization, where you figure it won't ever just be your fault and you can hide and get lost in the shuffle. And you probably expect that if you are doing what your job directives/company policies require, that you will be supported by the organization (not thinking that when you cross that (gray/slippery/moving) line they will scapegoat you).

But what's the alternative?

 

3 real good social dilemmons there alright Joe

It depends on the individual and how independent he or she percieves themselves
to be relative to their own set of values and or principals and the basis upon which
their conscience is attached to the aforementioned. In short ....the principles of honesty
& integrity and a persons ability to adhere to them.


In the collective social conscience arena .............these are the first to get
repressed...........and it's all downhill from there.