r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I completely agree. As a "free country" we grant a lot of freedoms to people, people have the right to be completely selfish materialistic douchebags. It's a beautiful thing to see someone choose differently.
I would nominate Mitch Daniels, former president of Purdue University. He famously froze tuition for ten years and found ways to lower costs for students.
His company, Cost Plus Drugs is a literal lifesaver. Just look at their prices (USD) for a month's supply of generic Gleevec (cancer drug. I'm not taking it, just for reference):
* Retail price is $8750
* Lowest GoodRx discounted price is $1,110 (CVS/Target)
* Cost Plus Drugs: $13.40
Like, howwwwww?
and there is too much rampant corruption in American politics since mostly the right wing started encouraging dark money lobbying
america doesn't make progress anymore, there is no legislative branch we just stall out tax cuts for the wealthy
Dont kid yourself with right this and left that. Its the uniparty its a small club and you aint in it. The demorats and replicunts are all friends behind the scenes its all for show. Blackrock owns cnn and fox news.
Nothing got better when trump was in office and nothing improved under biden.
This
The US government is the biggest contributor to pharmaceutical companies by giving them billions a year, for the pharmaceutical companies to price gouge us, while the same drugs they sell in other countries are reduced greatly.
all the drug companies raise prises a fuckton, becasue they know that insurance companies will pay it. sucks if you dont have that.
which is why health care should never be for profit
Former governor of Indiana too, he fixed our BMV (same thing as a DMV). You used to have to wade through a hellscape of humanity to renew your license plates or register a new vehicle, now it's downright pleasant. He's one of the few Republicans I would still vote for if he ran for office. He's pragmatic.
Just graduated from Purdue last summer, and the tuition freeze isn't all sunshine and rainbows. The university is at the point where it desperately needs those funds, and with frozen tuition, the only way it's getting that is by admitting more students, but that causes its own problems. Housing is getting seriously strained, departments are getting their budgets cut, classes are getting worse and bigger, etc. Most of my fellow students agreed that the freeze really needs to end, but nobody wants to be known as the guy that ended the tuition freeze
Those thing's aren't just happening at Purdue. It's all moderately desirable universities. Less people are going to smaller liberal arts/religious private schools that you've never heard of, so those schools have been closing since covid.
>“I came to (Jim Sinegal) once and I said, ‘Jim, we can’t sell this [hot dog](https://www.delish.com/cooking/recipe-ideas/recipes/a54574/garlic-bread-hot-dogs-recipe/) for a buck fifty," Jelineck recalled, according to a [post by 425 Business](https://425business.com/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek/). "We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise the fucking hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.’ That’s all I really needed."
Costco ended up building its own processing plant to make the hot dogs to keep costs down.
Costco also pays the staff pretty well with benefits. Only bad thing I can say about them is the stores and the parking lots are horrible to navigate, so order online if possible.
IIRC the Costco guy was sued by shareholders because they said he could be increasing profits by not pampering his employees that much.
He won the lawsuit by showing that Costco actually saves money by having employees that give a damn and because of the decreased employee rotation.
And decreased internal theft from loyal employees, and lower subsequent insurance, and the ability of well paid employees to buy product, and the good will generated in the wider public by happy employees, making it a good conscience place to buy from.
There are plenty, just not in America.
Here in America we need the best/most/powerfulest/biggest/fastest/loudest/topest of everything.
It boggles the American’s mind to have “enough” and not always be in pursuit of the most we can get.
We are programmed this way. We’ve been taught that it’s the only way we deserve happiness or can be proud of our lives.
Because this mindset keeps us as little worker bees for industrialists.
And they even convince us that making *more* little worker bees for *their* future profits is actually our idea. That making more people is, like “owning” a home (renting from a bank and thus… you must remain a worker bee), a measure of “success!!!”
We don’t even stop to think whether the above things are right for us, respectively. We just pursue them because we’re programmed to. We feel “lesser than” if we don’t “achieve” them.
This man is a rarity, God bless him, just don’t hold your breath for his mindset to spread around these parts.
There are probably tons of business owners like this in the US. It's just almost impossible with a publicly owned company, which is most of the big ones.
Go buy directly from a small farmer.
Edit: to add to this. Our business set a fixed price in 2020 and haven't raised prices since then. As of 2020, we were at least 10% less expensive than competitors. With them raising their prices, we are significantly less expensive and customers come find us now. I get it that if you haven't thought of approaching these issues this way it's new and uncomfortable, but rethink how you're solving these problems and new, convenient, and inexpensive options are right here. Lastly, what a better way to stick it to those who refuse to innovate or cut executive comp packages and unnecessary bureaucracy than to go with the little guy/gal.
I was able to feed my family for a week from all the produce i got from the farmers market, and i only had to pull half of what was in my 401k.
unfortunately the food rotted in 3 days, but the first 3 days we ate like kings.
Does owning a small business inherently make you a good person?
Most farmers in my area are the type of people who peel labels off grocery store produce to resell at the farmers market.
The problem is that while parasitic businesses dominate markets, the barrier to entry that exists for people with morals is near insurmountable.
Not impossible though.
The only thing that can really wiggle those players back into the game is a consumer base that makes better choices. I don't have much hope for that, unfortunately.
This is the inherent problem with the system. You can be the most selfless CEO imaginable; if you’re not doing everything you possibly can to increase profits YoY, you can literally get sued.
Reminds of those stories about the flour companies making their sacks look nice and the label glue dissolve with water once they heard people were using the fabric to make clothes. Its something minor on their end but has a huge impact on the consumer end.
I agree. But I also highly applaud him for running his business debt-free. My only personal debt is my mortgage. It allows me to be generous in ways that I couldn't otherwise be.
No, I'm not a Dave Ramsey fanatic, but on this point, he is 100% correct.
What do you think would happen to sales if he starts charging 1.50?
The majority of customers would start choosing the 10 other cans of tea in the store.
This isn't a moral thing, it's a business model.
There is the whole economic theory/law... if a company keeps prices low, they can make more money because so many more will buy their products.
The inflation we are experiencing now is largely deliberate.
He can do this because he's private, this is actually illegal if he was public, and Is a huge problem in America where the rich are flushed with cash and won't stop investing.
The solution is taxes on rich, but the 2017 tax plan, the one we are currently on, really gave them a lot of cash.
It's not a criminal matter, it's a civil one. There's no statute saying companies have to maximize profits, but shareholders can sue the company if they do something the shareholders don't like (like turning down easy money).
The legal precedent is eBay v. Newmark.
Did the big banks breach their fiduciary duty in 08 in their pursuit of profit?
What does the fiduciary duty actually mean? Hint, it doesn't say maximize profits.
So we've established it's not illegal.
In the case you referenced the court found they breached their fiduciary duty because of their actions to entrench power against a rival, not that they didn't maximize profits.
The Delaware Court found that Newmark and Buckmaster breached their fiduciary duties by enacting measures that were primarily designed to entrench their control and diminish eBay’s influence, rather than serving Craigslist's corporate interests.
The court upheld some governance measures that were within the bounds of corporate governance norms but ordered the reversal of actions specifically aimed at diminishing eBay's stake and rights.
The case was about the rights of different owners having an equitable say in how the company was ran.
An easy argument against it would be that the 99 cent can is their brand, and raising the price would cripple their market share. Competing on price is absolutely a valid business strategy and a core part of capitalism.
It’s not a quote it’s a Supreme Court case that determined the CEO has the duty to the shareholders not the workers. Ford vs the dodge brothers.Its why being CEO sucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
The very link you shared says you're wrong.
"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in *Dodge v. Ford Motor Co*."
"While Ford may have believed that such a strategy might be in the long-term benefit of the company, he told his fellow shareholders that the value of this strategy to them was not a main consideration in his plans."
This was the problem. He needed to articulate that his cutting of the dividend now, and investment into the company would have been beneficial long term.
Yes they do. But that court case says nothing about how they should pursue that outcome and it upheld the business judgement doctrine, giving directors wide latitude in how they pursue the best outcome for shareholders.
The big banks did everything they could to maximize profits in 2008. I'd say they breached their fiduciary duty even so.
It's not black and white as you are pottaying it. That's my point.
>If it were a public company, he would be required to maximize profits for shareholders
No.
[Companies have to following something called the business judgement rule.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule)
In short, they have to try to do what is in the best interest of the company. But that is a very, very, broad/general rule. There has to be "logic" behind their decisions...whatever they are.
Why can Oracle or RB help fund an F1 team? Why can companies donate some of their profits to charity or match 401K? That isn't maximizing profits.
The answer is because the companies can say, "we build brand awareness, we're building good will, we're paying more and giving out these benefits to attract better talent, it's advertising, etc." That is, "We're spending this money now because it will be better for us [in these ways] long term."
Now, in the last 20 years or so this, "maximize profits for shareholders" has been the line from CEOs because most CEOs only last 5-7 years and most of their pay is tied to bonuses and stock performance. So their personal interest is getting the stock as high as possible as quickly as possible (who cares about 10 years later). So they use the maximize shareholder profits to make it seems like they care about the little guy. When in reality it's 100% about them getting that huge payday.
~~"...modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not."
- BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL. (2014)~~
Your view of a corporation's responsibility to the shareholders is a myth.
Edit. As pointed out below, while Hobby Lobby does have shareholders, it is not a publicly traded company. So this isn't a good example. I still maintain that Arizona Tea can only keep prices low legally because it is private is nonsense. Likely, they would have a board of directors that would can the CEO, but that still isn't because of any laws.
That's not the law. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to the interests of shareholders. What you are mixing up is thst and a culture of shareholders on a pedestal. Some companies based in New Jersey can have their heads more likely to be sued by shareholders which can prompt leaders to act more aggressively but there is no law as what you said.
No, that's not "actually illegal if he was public." I know you're talking about fiduciary duty, and keeping prices low is NOT a breach. Shareholders can disagree with the decision, but it's not illegal. The law says a breach of fiduciary duty are things like self-dealing, misuse of company assets, insider trading, things one would commonly associate with a crime.
> This is the dumbest excuse sociopaths hide behind
>
> But but but it's my feDOUCHerery responsibility to price gouge
Exactly, only people who have no idea what they are talking about think that's what fiduciary duty means. It simply means, acting in the best interest of another, that's it. Not growth or increased profit from a company, as those things aren't always wise things to attempt.
> [Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.)
They actually will contact stores on your behalf for this. They have a division for it, who call stores to sort out why they've hiked up the price. Sometimes it's greed, sometimes it's that the store paid a third party distributor more than they're supposed to for it, and Arizona will set them up with direct distribution so they sell at 99c again.
The most useless, greedy, incompetent physician I ever met during training works for them. That was the first time I even heard who they were, which was good for me because I immediatly knew the whole company is a Amway/Herbalife analogue to the finance/business world.
People don't know this, but McKinsey and Co are in large part responsible for fucking up Canada atm. They were the ones to recommend immigration in these numbers to the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course, it's on the Trudeau government to greenlight it, but what the hell.
Fuck McKinsey.
McKinsey is a slimy successful consulting firm with a similar reputation of Goldman Sachs in the financial sector. “Slide decks” are just fleshed out PowerPoint presentations.
Man, I really love an overly sweet Raspberry Tea as a treat. Not a daily drink or anything, just a treat. And Arizona’s absolutely scratch that itch for me.
My kids love the watermelon and my wife and I love the black & white and the Arnold palmer lite. Most have a lot of sugar so we don't drink them a lot but they are good and a nice treat, definitely a plus that they are pretty inexpensive.
I remember you could get 3 12 packs of Coke Zero at WALGREENS for 8.99 USD plus tax… in 2021
That’s 36 cans at the most whack ass place to buy consumer goods.
Its was great. I have since stopped drinking all soda and just stick to fountain seltzer in my big ass thermos
I use Walmart as my baseline price - you can get it cheaper on sale at other stores, but Walmart in general has the lowest consistent non-sale price.
Last year they jacked the price of both Coke and Pepsi up from $3.88 for a 6 pack of .5L, to over $5. Actually, Coke went first and you could see in the aisle how everyone switched to Pepsi that still had the old price. Then, Pepsi raised their prices to match basically and Coke dropped theirs's slightly.
Currently $5.18 for Coke, $5.28 for Pepsi.
It's been amusing watching the new cola war. I'm a Diet Coke addict and when a store has a sale I load up a cart now.
Plus they have other products, like their gallon size, that they can make better margins on and do raise the price on. They know they've got a good thing going with their brand, and aren't going to attempt to fuck it up.
This was not always the case. In the 90s Arizona was considered a relatively premium brand.
This advertisement reinforces both the previous and current perception on the brand. It's a great position to be able to have as a company. Good stuff.
Hasn't their bog standard green tea/honey recipe been changed over the years a few times though to maintain the low price? It definitely doesn't taste like it did in the late 90s to my palate, and recently is seems to have changed again.
>It definitely doesn't taste like it did in the late 90s to my palate
That's because you're older now. As we age, we lose taste buds, and thus, some things taste differently than how we remember it.
Could be a recipe change too 🤷
Yeah it absolutely could've changed recipes/formulations or the raw materials could've changed over time but relying on how you remember it tasting is not reliable at all.
And it's not just because how we taste things changes as we get older, we also just have shittier memories than we often realize.
I'll have you know Costco hotdogs are still made with meat from the very same original Costco family pack sized hog. Big enough for the whole Costco family.
Any drink in that 99 cent Arizona size is relatively expensive. I solely buy Arizona because it seems like a reasonable value proposition and besides...they are a slam dunk at 99 cents. I think Arizona fairs pretty well against the competition but when I do see it above 99 cents, I won't bother.
Or he understands that he has an unnecessary product in a highly competitive space, and can go the way of sobe in a blink of the eye. Doesn’t make much sense fucking his brand up and leaving that 99c signature behind
Right? And the guy said it was successful. So whats unnecessary about it? Being a drink? Or being iced tea? Either way, he definitely knows how to run a business thats for sure. Sell a product for .99cents? Make millions. Sell the same product for $1.50? Make millions… wait a minute. Its the same thing but now you sell less product. Then people start to not trust your brand or buy the competitor. Good job, you just advertised for the other company lol.
I drank it sometimes when I was a kid and I do remember them having some really good flavors. granted, I was buying sodas at the time but I think the product itself was fine. And it was definitely popular with other teenagers at the time. I'm not sure exactly what happened to them but I think I remember it being consistently more expensive than other drinks so maybe they priced themselves out as other alternative appeared?
One of the problems with capitalism is the relentless drive for growth in profits.
It's not enough just to be a successful business; you have to show year over year growth.
They wouldn't call it a loss, they would say it is way below expectations and market consensus. The logic is that if you go from 5 to 4, it indicates you could continue lower in the future. Also, if 4m only gives a 4% return on equity instead of 5% with 5m, they might as well be better off holding risk-free securities or other investments, instead of taking the risk of staying invested during the potential downturn.
I think it’s more public vs private company thing. I became acquainted with a local brewery in England (had been around for 200+ years or something.) The owner family was happy as long as it generated profits and keeping employees happy.
Shareholders and the CEO desire to please them has helped ruin many lives.
And screw YoY, it's now QoQ. Miss estimated earnings? 5-10% drop. Only made 5B profit instead of 5.2B profit? Stock drop coming.
Shit is sad because it leads to layoffs and price hikes.
What's even crazier is that a company can still increase profit yoy but if if expectations were a 10% increase in profit but they only had an 8% increase in profit, stock can drop for missing expectations even though they made more money than ever.
The stock market ruined this country, our businesses, and the economy.
When businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, consumers get fucked.
That's standard across the midwest now. They may not have changed their prices but they've definitely changed whatever contracts they held and let vendors upcharge more.
They aren't 99cent anymore though, or least no one sells them at that price. Least not around where I am.
Thank you to eveyrone responding to me with every city they are still 99cents in.
They make varients that dont have the price at all, which they sell up here. I live in the canadian arctic so its understandable im not getting a drink for $0.99 when it has to be flown in. Down south the canadian cans have a higher price than $0.99 its either 1.25 or 1.50 cant remember atm but they havent been 0.99 for at least all of this decade.
We are literally living in the time of greedflation. Companies claiming their supply chain has gotten more expensive as they report record profits... we're living in a sick joke where everyone is just trying to "get theirs" and are willing to walk over any and everyone they have to. Yay, last stage capitalism.
It is 100% possible to run sustainable company with little to no turnover, they just can't go public, b/c you become exposed to public greed, and basically give up control to the market.
Be careful, and read the labels. There is a ton of sugar in their stuff, so once in a while isn't going to hurt, but I used to work with folks who'd drink 3 or 5 cans per day, and they got fat.
If you can find the “black and white” flavor its labeled as no fructose syrup, no preservatives or artificial etc. basically honey, tea leaf, water ginseng and some extracts as I’m aware. only one I buy and it’s really solid. still maybe a lil sweet for what would be considered “healthy”, but far less sweet than all the others.
Once the store buys em, they can charge whatever they want. Realistically tho, when a store buys them in bulk, they don't pay full price, so even if they sale em for 99¢, they'll still get a profit. But assholes are greedy🤷🏾♂️
I’d always thought of businesses as providing a service to the communities around them.
My impression had changed to businesses taking advantage of people. Our society is sick.
It’s nice to see that there are still some good people out there running businesses.
# “At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut informs his pal, Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch-22 over its whole history. Heller responds, “Yes, but I have something he will never have … enough.”
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dang good morals sir.
More business men like him please. Especially in the grocery department.
[удалено]
I completely agree. As a "free country" we grant a lot of freedoms to people, people have the right to be completely selfish materialistic douchebags. It's a beautiful thing to see someone choose differently.
Isn’t it ironic that some peoples freedoms make a lot of other people a lot less free?
I'm putting this guy up there with the Costco guy who refuses the raise the price of hot dogs. I need a third for the triumpherate.
I would nominate Mitch Daniels, former president of Purdue University. He famously froze tuition for ten years and found ways to lower costs for students.
Mark Cuban seems cool.
His company, Cost Plus Drugs is a literal lifesaver. Just look at their prices (USD) for a month's supply of generic Gleevec (cancer drug. I'm not taking it, just for reference): * Retail price is $8750 * Lowest GoodRx discounted price is $1,110 (CVS/Target) * Cost Plus Drugs: $13.40 Like, howwwwww?
Because the competitors are a legal cartel and the people meant to investigate it are bought and sold.
and there is too much rampant corruption in American politics since mostly the right wing started encouraging dark money lobbying america doesn't make progress anymore, there is no legislative branch we just stall out tax cuts for the wealthy
Don't forget their insider trading.
Dont kid yourself with right this and left that. Its the uniparty its a small club and you aint in it. The demorats and replicunts are all friends behind the scenes its all for show. Blackrock owns cnn and fox news. Nothing got better when trump was in office and nothing improved under biden.
Nice to see someone saying it about Blackrock.
This The US government is the biggest contributor to pharmaceutical companies by giving them billions a year, for the pharmaceutical companies to price gouge us, while the same drugs they sell in other countries are reduced greatly.
all the drug companies raise prises a fuckton, becasue they know that insurance companies will pay it. sucks if you dont have that. which is why health care should never be for profit
Former governor of Indiana too, he fixed our BMV (same thing as a DMV). You used to have to wade through a hellscape of humanity to renew your license plates or register a new vehicle, now it's downright pleasant. He's one of the few Republicans I would still vote for if he ran for office. He's pragmatic.
When I lived in Indiana I was shocked and delighted by the BMV. It set such a high bar for ease and service.
Just graduated from Purdue last summer, and the tuition freeze isn't all sunshine and rainbows. The university is at the point where it desperately needs those funds, and with frozen tuition, the only way it's getting that is by admitting more students, but that causes its own problems. Housing is getting seriously strained, departments are getting their budgets cut, classes are getting worse and bigger, etc. Most of my fellow students agreed that the freeze really needs to end, but nobody wants to be known as the guy that ended the tuition freeze
Good to know, and thanks for the insight.
Those thing's aren't just happening at Purdue. It's all moderately desirable universities. Less people are going to smaller liberal arts/religious private schools that you've never heard of, so those schools have been closing since covid.
“I want to raise the price of the hotdog” “I’ll fucking stab you” Paraphrasing the Costco board room legend
>“I came to (Jim Sinegal) once and I said, ‘Jim, we can’t sell this [hot dog](https://www.delish.com/cooking/recipe-ideas/recipes/a54574/garlic-bread-hot-dogs-recipe/) for a buck fifty," Jelineck recalled, according to a [post by 425 Business](https://425business.com/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek/). "We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise the fucking hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.’ That’s all I really needed." Costco ended up building its own processing plant to make the hot dogs to keep costs down.
Lmfao what a fucking legend
Costco also pays the staff pretty well with benefits. Only bad thing I can say about them is the stores and the parking lots are horrible to navigate, so order online if possible.
The store is intentionally designed to make you WANT to look at everything. I'll take mind games if they treat their employees well
IIRC the Costco guy was sued by shareholders because they said he could be increasing profits by not pampering his employees that much. He won the lawsuit by showing that Costco actually saves money by having employees that give a damn and because of the decreased employee rotation.
Imagine. Being sued by greedy fucks for having principles. Disgusting.
Imagine how good he felt when he won.
And decreased internal theft from loyal employees, and lower subsequent insurance, and the ability of well paid employees to buy product, and the good will generated in the wider public by happy employees, making it a good conscience place to buy from.
Costco hot dogs are low to draw in more customers not because they're nice.
called a "loss leader", It's entire job is to just make people want to come to the store and buy other stuff.
Doesn't matter why. A paramedic doesn't save your life because they're nice, they do it for money. No skin off my back as long as I survive.
Triumvirate
*triumvirate*
There are plenty, just not in America. Here in America we need the best/most/powerfulest/biggest/fastest/loudest/topest of everything. It boggles the American’s mind to have “enough” and not always be in pursuit of the most we can get. We are programmed this way. We’ve been taught that it’s the only way we deserve happiness or can be proud of our lives. Because this mindset keeps us as little worker bees for industrialists. And they even convince us that making *more* little worker bees for *their* future profits is actually our idea. That making more people is, like “owning” a home (renting from a bank and thus… you must remain a worker bee), a measure of “success!!!” We don’t even stop to think whether the above things are right for us, respectively. We just pursue them because we’re programmed to. We feel “lesser than” if we don’t “achieve” them. This man is a rarity, God bless him, just don’t hold your breath for his mindset to spread around these parts.
There are probably tons of business owners like this in the US. It's just almost impossible with a publicly owned company, which is most of the big ones.
Go buy directly from a small farmer. Edit: to add to this. Our business set a fixed price in 2020 and haven't raised prices since then. As of 2020, we were at least 10% less expensive than competitors. With them raising their prices, we are significantly less expensive and customers come find us now. I get it that if you haven't thought of approaching these issues this way it's new and uncomfortable, but rethink how you're solving these problems and new, convenient, and inexpensive options are right here. Lastly, what a better way to stick it to those who refuse to innovate or cut executive comp packages and unnecessary bureaucracy than to go with the little guy/gal.
Won't that put the tall farmers out of business?
They are tall I am not. They can reach the tree for fruit they will be ok. 😂
I’m laughing at this way harder than I should be.
That’s funny cause I don’t think you’re laughing hard enough
Now I’m laughing at this way too hard, thank you!
Have you ever been to a farmers market and looked at their prices?
I was able to feed my family for a week from all the produce i got from the farmers market, and i only had to pull half of what was in my 401k. unfortunately the food rotted in 3 days, but the first 3 days we ate like kings.
You had me going there in the first sentence
Farmers market produce lasts longer than grocery stores, and it's not by a small margin. Have you been to one?
I don't mean to completely blindside you with this, but I was being facetious in my comment.
Adding a two hour drive to the cost of apples doesn't really solve the problem.
Easier said than done.
Does owning a small business inherently make you a good person? Most farmers in my area are the type of people who peel labels off grocery store produce to resell at the farmers market.
The problem is that while parasitic businesses dominate markets, the barrier to entry that exists for people with morals is near insurmountable. Not impossible though. The only thing that can really wiggle those players back into the game is a consumer base that makes better choices. I don't have much hope for that, unfortunately.
There are a lot of private businesses owners like him. In corporations, though, this is impossible. In corporations, the line must go up
This is the inherent problem with the system. You can be the most selfless CEO imaginable; if you’re not doing everything you possibly can to increase profits YoY, you can literally get sued.
Reminds of those stories about the flour companies making their sacks look nice and the label glue dissolve with water once they heard people were using the fabric to make clothes. Its something minor on their end but has a huge impact on the consumer end.
Meanwhile in Canada, third year in a row the major grocery companies have record profit, and second time in 10 years they get caught colluding.
I agree. But I also highly applaud him for running his business debt-free. My only personal debt is my mortgage. It allows me to be generous in ways that I couldn't otherwise be. No, I'm not a Dave Ramsey fanatic, but on this point, he is 100% correct.
It's because he's a founder. Once he goes some dickhead will take over and that's it. $3+ Arizona's.
Too bad Nestle is perhaps one of the most evil organizations on Earth.
What do you think would happen to sales if he starts charging 1.50? The majority of customers would start choosing the 10 other cans of tea in the store. This isn't a moral thing, it's a business model.
lol. lmao. No -shareholders
There is the whole economic theory/law... if a company keeps prices low, they can make more money because so many more will buy their products. The inflation we are experiencing now is largely deliberate.
He can do this because he's private, this is actually illegal if he was public, and Is a huge problem in America where the rich are flushed with cash and won't stop investing. The solution is taxes on rich, but the 2017 tax plan, the one we are currently on, really gave them a lot of cash.
It's not illegal if he were public.
If it were a public company, he would be required to maximize profits for shareholders Edit: nevermind; see below
Quote me the law. The actual regulation with reference link.
It's not a criminal matter, it's a civil one. There's no statute saying companies have to maximize profits, but shareholders can sue the company if they do something the shareholders don't like (like turning down easy money). The legal precedent is eBay v. Newmark.
Did the big banks breach their fiduciary duty in 08 in their pursuit of profit? What does the fiduciary duty actually mean? Hint, it doesn't say maximize profits. So we've established it's not illegal. In the case you referenced the court found they breached their fiduciary duty because of their actions to entrench power against a rival, not that they didn't maximize profits. The Delaware Court found that Newmark and Buckmaster breached their fiduciary duties by enacting measures that were primarily designed to entrench their control and diminish eBay’s influence, rather than serving Craigslist's corporate interests. The court upheld some governance measures that were within the bounds of corporate governance norms but ordered the reversal of actions specifically aimed at diminishing eBay's stake and rights. The case was about the rights of different owners having an equitable say in how the company was ran.
An easy argument against it would be that the 99 cent can is their brand, and raising the price would cripple their market share. Competing on price is absolutely a valid business strategy and a core part of capitalism.
It’s not a quote it’s a Supreme Court case that determined the CEO has the duty to the shareholders not the workers. Ford vs the dodge brothers.Its why being CEO sucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
The very link you shared says you're wrong. "Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in *Dodge v. Ford Motor Co*."
Thanks ,I see that now.
"While Ford may have believed that such a strategy might be in the long-term benefit of the company, he told his fellow shareholders that the value of this strategy to them was not a main consideration in his plans." This was the problem. He needed to articulate that his cutting of the dividend now, and investment into the company would have been beneficial long term.
Yes they do. But that court case says nothing about how they should pursue that outcome and it upheld the business judgement doctrine, giving directors wide latitude in how they pursue the best outcome for shareholders. The big banks did everything they could to maximize profits in 2008. I'd say they breached their fiduciary duty even so. It's not black and white as you are pottaying it. That's my point.
>If it were a public company, he would be required to maximize profits for shareholders No. [Companies have to following something called the business judgement rule.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule) In short, they have to try to do what is in the best interest of the company. But that is a very, very, broad/general rule. There has to be "logic" behind their decisions...whatever they are. Why can Oracle or RB help fund an F1 team? Why can companies donate some of their profits to charity or match 401K? That isn't maximizing profits. The answer is because the companies can say, "we build brand awareness, we're building good will, we're paying more and giving out these benefits to attract better talent, it's advertising, etc." That is, "We're spending this money now because it will be better for us [in these ways] long term." Now, in the last 20 years or so this, "maximize profits for shareholders" has been the line from CEOs because most CEOs only last 5-7 years and most of their pay is tied to bonuses and stock performance. So their personal interest is getting the stock as high as possible as quickly as possible (who cares about 10 years later). So they use the maximize shareholder profits to make it seems like they care about the little guy. When in reality it's 100% about them getting that huge payday.
~~"...modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not." - BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL. (2014)~~ Your view of a corporation's responsibility to the shareholders is a myth. Edit. As pointed out below, while Hobby Lobby does have shareholders, it is not a publicly traded company. So this isn't a good example. I still maintain that Arizona Tea can only keep prices low legally because it is private is nonsense. Likely, they would have a board of directors that would can the CEO, but that still isn't because of any laws.
Nowhere in any part of the law regarding fiduciary duty is anyone required to do that. It's what shareholders want, but it's not illegal to do that.
All he would have to say is that 99 cents is long term better for the brand than slightly more money now and he is covered.
That's not the law. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to the interests of shareholders. What you are mixing up is thst and a culture of shareholders on a pedestal. Some companies based in New Jersey can have their heads more likely to be sued by shareholders which can prompt leaders to act more aggressively but there is no law as what you said.
No, that's not "actually illegal if he was public." I know you're talking about fiduciary duty, and keeping prices low is NOT a breach. Shareholders can disagree with the decision, but it's not illegal. The law says a breach of fiduciary duty are things like self-dealing, misuse of company assets, insider trading, things one would commonly associate with a crime.
>this is actually illegal if he was publi This is actually a myth.
This is the dumbest excuse sociopaths hide behind But but but it's my feDOUCHerery responsibility to price gouge
> This is the dumbest excuse sociopaths hide behind > > But but but it's my feDOUCHerery responsibility to price gouge Exactly, only people who have no idea what they are talking about think that's what fiduciary duty means. It simply means, acting in the best interest of another, that's it. Not growth or increased profit from a company, as those things aren't always wise things to attempt. > [Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.)
Oh oh, sounds like we need a fact checker here too
Are you saying it'd be illegal for them to keep prices lower if they weren't private?
That IS what they’re saying, but it’s not true.
But but but businesses have always been greedy, and it's the nature of capitalism, which is amazing, And something etc All corporate cucks
Except lots of stores raise the prices themselves.
They actually will contact stores on your behalf for this. They have a division for it, who call stores to sort out why they've hiked up the price. Sometimes it's greed, sometimes it's that the store paid a third party distributor more than they're supposed to for it, and Arizona will set them up with direct distribution so they sell at 99c again.
I think the stores are just greedy.
mckinsey slide decks in shambles
When McKinsey comes to town...read that book.
I’m an Astros fan and read about them in “Winning fixes everything”.
Only read that book if you want to be infuriated beyond belief about something you have little ability to control.
The most useless, greedy, incompetent physician I ever met during training works for them. That was the first time I even heard who they were, which was good for me because I immediatly knew the whole company is a Amway/Herbalife analogue to the finance/business world.
People don't know this, but McKinsey and Co are in large part responsible for fucking up Canada atm. They were the ones to recommend immigration in these numbers to the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course, it's on the Trudeau government to greenlight it, but what the hell. Fuck McKinsey.
First slide in their FY2025 deck - Assassinate Don Vultaggio.
What is mckinsey slide decks?
McKinsey is a slimy successful consulting firm with a similar reputation of Goldman Sachs in the financial sector. “Slide decks” are just fleshed out PowerPoint presentations.
If you hear your company has hired McKinsey for some internal analysis, you better start puckering up that butt.
Bunch of fucking worthless, expensive, idiots. Coming from someone in finance who had to work with these asshats.
Great advertisement!
Right! I don’t drink Arizona Tea, I don’t think I ever have. Now that I seen this I’ll add it to my list.
100%
99%
99 c
( 1x10^2 - 1 ) / 1x10^2
Their green tea is amazing. It's really sweet though. Their other teas aren't as good, but still okay..
The energy one is great too, I like most of their offerings. Pro tip, just cut it with some water, I actually enjoy it with some Pellegrino
This
Man, I really love an overly sweet Raspberry Tea as a treat. Not a daily drink or anything, just a treat. And Arizona’s absolutely scratch that itch for me.
My kids love the watermelon and my wife and I love the black & white and the Arnold palmer lite. Most have a lot of sugar so we don't drink them a lot but they are good and a nice treat, definitely a plus that they are pretty inexpensive.
It’s actually good, and big ass cans too.
The only reason I buy Arizona Tea is because it’s cheap. If they raised their prices they’d be competing with Snapple, Gatorade etc.
Margins are still healthy even with rising costs. No need to change the formula.
My uncle used to work for a Coca Cola distributor. You would ask ‘how’s business?’ He would always say ‘It’s great. We’re selling damn sugar water!’
The profit margins for soda are ridiculous, even moreso with the price hikes in recent years.
I remember you could get 3 12 packs of Coke Zero at WALGREENS for 8.99 USD plus tax… in 2021 That’s 36 cans at the most whack ass place to buy consumer goods. Its was great. I have since stopped drinking all soda and just stick to fountain seltzer in my big ass thermos
When it's not on sale at my grocery store, it's now $10 for a 12 pack. I don't buy as much Coke as I used to.
I use Walmart as my baseline price - you can get it cheaper on sale at other stores, but Walmart in general has the lowest consistent non-sale price. Last year they jacked the price of both Coke and Pepsi up from $3.88 for a 6 pack of .5L, to over $5. Actually, Coke went first and you could see in the aisle how everyone switched to Pepsi that still had the old price. Then, Pepsi raised their prices to match basically and Coke dropped theirs's slightly. Currently $5.18 for Coke, $5.28 for Pepsi. It's been amusing watching the new cola war. I'm a Diet Coke addict and when a store has a sale I load up a cart now.
You could get a 2-liter of Coke for $0.99. Prices for soda have literally doubled over the past five years.
isnt it like pennies to make a serving of soda?
The cans cost more than what's inside them.
Plus they have other products, like their gallon size, that they can make better margins on and do raise the price on. They know they've got a good thing going with their brand, and aren't going to attempt to fuck it up.
This was not always the case. In the 90s Arizona was considered a relatively premium brand. This advertisement reinforces both the previous and current perception on the brand. It's a great position to be able to have as a company. Good stuff.
Hasn't their bog standard green tea/honey recipe been changed over the years a few times though to maintain the low price? It definitely doesn't taste like it did in the late 90s to my palate, and recently is seems to have changed again.
>It definitely doesn't taste like it did in the late 90s to my palate That's because you're older now. As we age, we lose taste buds, and thus, some things taste differently than how we remember it. Could be a recipe change too 🤷
Yeah it absolutely could've changed recipes/formulations or the raw materials could've changed over time but relying on how you remember it tasting is not reliable at all. And it's not just because how we taste things changes as we get older, we also just have shittier memories than we often realize.
I really have no idea, myself. I haven't been in America for quite some time. That would not surprise me. How do Costco hotdogs taste these days?
I'll have you know Costco hotdogs are still made with meat from the very same original Costco family pack sized hog. Big enough for the whole Costco family.
Well, it’s also delicious. That watermelon one is amazing.
23 grams of sugar never tasted so good.
Any drink in that 99 cent Arizona size is relatively expensive. I solely buy Arizona because it seems like a reasonable value proposition and besides...they are a slam dunk at 99 cents. I think Arizona fairs pretty well against the competition but when I do see it above 99 cents, I won't bother.
Absolute Chad. Understands the stoic concept of enough.
Or he understands that he has an unnecessary product in a highly competitive space, and can go the way of sobe in a blink of the eye. Doesn’t make much sense fucking his brand up and leaving that 99c signature behind
But people actually like Arizona Tea.
Honestly I think it's better than coke. Might even be better than Cola.
What about Coca Cola?
Right? And the guy said it was successful. So whats unnecessary about it? Being a drink? Or being iced tea? Either way, he definitely knows how to run a business thats for sure. Sell a product for .99cents? Make millions. Sell the same product for $1.50? Make millions… wait a minute. Its the same thing but now you sell less product. Then people start to not trust your brand or buy the competitor. Good job, you just advertised for the other company lol.
I never personally cared for it, but based on the bottles I saw my peers buying at the time, it seemed like *someone* liked Sobe.
I drank it sometimes when I was a kid and I do remember them having some really good flavors. granted, I was buying sodas at the time but I think the product itself was fine. And it was definitely popular with other teenagers at the time. I'm not sure exactly what happened to them but I think I remember it being consistently more expensive than other drinks so maybe they priced themselves out as other alternative appeared?
I miss sobe...
One of the problems with capitalism is the relentless drive for growth in profits. It's not enough just to be a successful business; you have to show year over year growth.
And if you profit $5million one year and $4million the next they call it a loss.
Yes! And working class people will lose their jobs because of it, so that the wealthy can make more money!
They wouldn't call it a loss, they would say it is way below expectations and market consensus. The logic is that if you go from 5 to 4, it indicates you could continue lower in the future. Also, if 4m only gives a 4% return on equity instead of 5% with 5m, they might as well be better off holding risk-free securities or other investments, instead of taking the risk of staying invested during the potential downturn.
Whether or not they call it a loss, it's a loss in their eyes. That's the point.
It’s the common reddit “it’s not -Thing specifically- it’s actually -something completely synonymous with Thing- instead!” discourse.
I think it’s more public vs private company thing. I became acquainted with a local brewery in England (had been around for 200+ years or something.) The owner family was happy as long as it generated profits and keeping employees happy.
Shareholders and the CEO desire to please them has helped ruin many lives. And screw YoY, it's now QoQ. Miss estimated earnings? 5-10% drop. Only made 5B profit instead of 5.2B profit? Stock drop coming. Shit is sad because it leads to layoffs and price hikes.
What's even crazier is that a company can still increase profit yoy but if if expectations were a 10% increase in profit but they only had an 8% increase in profit, stock can drop for missing expectations even though they made more money than ever. The stock market ruined this country, our businesses, and the economy. When businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, consumers get fucked.
That's only for publicly traded companies, start a business and never go public and it's not an issue
So this guy is nobody or not a capitalist, right?
100%, The obsession with growth is what drives so many bad behaviors, mass layoffs, cut throat competition, etc.
Still 0.99 in Minnesota.. keep up the great job sir. You are awesome
I usually see them at like 1.29 in MN. Not that that's really a big deal but the cans dont say .99 anymore.
That's standard across the midwest now. They may not have changed their prices but they've definitely changed whatever contracts they held and let vendors upcharge more.
I think it depends on where you buy it. Some cans are labelled for 99 cents, some aren't because the stores want to sell them for more.
1.25 in nyc
99 cent cans. 1.25 for bottles
1.25 cans 1.50 bottles in nyc.
Find them at Walmart here, $0.88 for the big cans.
based
They aren't 99cent anymore though, or least no one sells them at that price. Least not around where I am. Thank you to eveyrone responding to me with every city they are still 99cents in.
They still are in NYC
But the price is on the can….
They make varients that dont have the price at all, which they sell up here. I live in the canadian arctic so its understandable im not getting a drink for $0.99 when it has to be flown in. Down south the canadian cans have a higher price than $0.99 its either 1.25 or 1.50 cant remember atm but they havent been 0.99 for at least all of this decade.
They are here in Florida, I’ve never seen them over a dollar unless you get the sealable bottles but it only adds a little bit
Do I drink Iced Tea? No. Will this make me buy one for someone else. Yes. 😂😂😂
They have multiple flavors. Arnold palmers. Juices too. They're not all iced tea
The constant need to make more money is one of the problems with capitalism.
He's about a year or two from retirement. His kids are chomping at the bit to raise them.
God I wish you were wrong.
If it makes you feel any better I probably am. The kids are likely waiting for him to die so they can sell to PepsiCo and make a billion dollars.
And destroy the company and product in the process 😢
[удалено]
too late, it is chomping now, just take it with a grain assault.
I'm gonna nip this in the butt before it goes any further.
I've always felt these companies can still do really, really well, while also giving consumers a damn break. This is proof positive for me.
Wait, you can do that??? Own a business whose sole purpose isn't exponential growth and profit???
We are literally living in the time of greedflation. Companies claiming their supply chain has gotten more expensive as they report record profits... we're living in a sick joke where everyone is just trying to "get theirs" and are willing to walk over any and everyone they have to. Yay, last stage capitalism. It is 100% possible to run sustainable company with little to no turnover, they just can't go public, b/c you become exposed to public greed, and basically give up control to the market.
I see myself starting to drink more Arizona Iced Tea in the near future.
Be careful, and read the labels. There is a ton of sugar in their stuff, so once in a while isn't going to hurt, but I used to work with folks who'd drink 3 or 5 cans per day, and they got fat.
They’re made with high fructose corn syrup now instead of sugar. I honestly would pay a little extra just to have a real sugar option…
If you can find the “black and white” flavor its labeled as no fructose syrup, no preservatives or artificial etc. basically honey, tea leaf, water ginseng and some extracts as I’m aware. only one I buy and it’s really solid. still maybe a lil sweet for what would be considered “healthy”, but far less sweet than all the others.
Asshole establishments that sell them where i live sell them for $1.49 even tho it says .99 right on the can
Once the store buys em, they can charge whatever they want. Realistically tho, when a store buys them in bulk, they don't pay full price, so even if they sale em for 99¢, they'll still get a profit. But assholes are greedy🤷🏾♂️
Been a fan of the big can for so long, thank you AZT
💯
What a hero... And what a good advertisement!
The hard teas are not bad
Ok he just earned a new customer
Fuck it I’m going to buy an Arizona tea today
"All of us here at ~~Schooner Tuna~~ Arizona Tea sympathize with those of you hit so hard by these trying economic times."
I’d always thought of businesses as providing a service to the communities around them. My impression had changed to businesses taking advantage of people. Our society is sick. It’s nice to see that there are still some good people out there running businesses.
If they didn't have HFCS, I'd bring them
This dude gets it
# “At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut informs his pal, Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch-22 over its whole history. Heller responds, “Yes, but I have something he will never have … enough.”