Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:24:27 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:14:47 -0500, dpb wrote:

Swingman wrote:
...

It's pretty simple in this age of corporate greed ...
I submit "corporate greed" is simply a reflection of the consumer
choosing price over quality in the most part...

I would respectfully disagree. In many, I would say most, cases
corporate greed is the driver to decisions that will reduce the
quality of the product when in fact there is perfectly good demand and
profit in the higher quality product. It is not the goal of the
corporation to reduce the quality, simply the outcome. The goal is to
make ten more points of profit margin because, you the consumer, don't
know any better anyway. In many cases, the consumer does not get a
choice or the higher end choice becomes harder and harder to find.

And the big retailers are partners in this effort. They tell the
manufacturer's brand managers, hey you get it from China at a dirt
cheap price or you will lose your shelf space, and we'll develop our
own store brand and get it from China ourselves.
It's true corporations are motivated to improve profit margins -- that's
their job.

Their job is to do the will of the owners. If the owners by weight
are investors who are mostly interested in reasonable growth, dividend
income, and long term continuity, then what they do by risking that
for quick profits is a legal crime. It is done because their personal
compensation is based stock appreciation in the short term.

Whether management for short term stock price targets is a crime is
surely debatable at best. Whether it is or isn't a wise management
practice is a different question, of course. The problem tends to
revolve around Boards of Directors who take too passive of a role in
oversight imo, and I won't disagree about compensation plans that tend
to reward poor behavior.

But, overall, the problems are deeper-rooted and ultimately for retail
most noticeably, driven by the competitive markets.

--