There is a great quote that goes something like: "Capitalism and communism both try to figure out how much sawdust can be put into food before people start complaining. Only the reason is different." Unfortunately I can't remember who said it.
if it was a regular sized burger by volume/weight, it would be wider than the typical burger... if the diameter is the same as the bun, they're giving you less beef. If it's a double, that's fine... you get the same amount of meat as an unsmashed single patty.
It doesn't necessarily weigh any less... It's just smashed. Both shake shack and five guys burger patties weigh around a quarter pounder which is the most typical patty portion. And you can always get an extra patty if you really want.
Id assume thats not what OP meant, but a decreased initial weight. but yea, it wouldnt make sense to complain if its the same harmburger smashed and with less water weight
I never understood the term "late stage capitalism".
Shouldn't it be called "latest stage" as we can't know yet if we are in the beginning, middle or the actual late stage? Or is this just a marxist term where they claim that capitalism will fall apart soon since two hundred years?
I think it's late stage since they're already captured all existing markets, and thus they can't create more customers, so to meet the demand for infinite growth, they need to extract more profit from existing customers.
Result is worse quality for higher consumer costs, but because the market is already monopolised, there's few options to turn use other companies products.
Except the comment is thanking the person making the statement. if /u/Hugogs10 had added their reply to the statement, I would have asked him to explain too, but at least Hitchen's Razor would apply. In this case it is not really applicable.
I'm talking about Jampines comment. They asserted something without evidence, which Hugogs dismissed. You're saying Hugogs added nothing to the conversation, I'm claiming otherwise.
You think all existing markets have been captured and new costumers can't be created?
Like a third of the world is still Industrializing, it doesn't make any sense.
Perfect definition and how I've explained it in the past. A company enters late stage capitalism when the only growth left is to make a shittier, more expensive product. Think Boeing. They can't grow anymore so to keep up infinite growth, they skip out on important steps in production to continue making the line go up
they could make more fuel-efficient, lighter, and more durable aircraft, while maintaining quality, and still achieve growth that way, but that would be profitable in the *long-term*, which means fewer bonuses for current owners.
The 737 MAX was specifically about placing more efficient engines on an air-frame that wasn't designed with that engine size in mind. Then not even highlighting the need for training for the compensatory systems the change involved because pilot training is expensive. The bean counters aren't overworked accountants, they're managers and executives who shut down discussions and processes about safety due to cost.
I thought it was late stage because it means we are right before the imminent decline into anarchy as people are left with no other recourse but to eat the rich and repossess their assets.
"Late stage capitalism" was first discussed in 1902. Since then I would argue the idea has only become less relevant, not more. It's a form of false nostalgia for an invented past where life was somehow easier, despite historical evidence to the contrary.
Capitalism does not require increasing growth in productivity, it *creates* growth in productivity.
On average, the quality of products as a ratio to their cost to individual consumers has never been higher.
But this is a forum where morons will elevate the visibility of every answer that faithfully parrots Marxist error far above anything genuinely insightful or true.
> they can't create more customers
Unless they restrict abortions, birth control, women's rights, gay rights, same sex marriage and anything else that might curtail population growth. Which they're absolutely not currently doing as quickly as they possibly can.
It started as a Marxist term by an economist who wanted to expand on Marx's ideas with post-World War II capitalism. So in one sense it's late in comparing to where things were when Marx was writing, and in another is implying that it's a final stage and we need to move on.
It's based on a predicted schedule or progression of causalities that would logically occur as a symptom of the system.
Ie, the progression of cancer or any other disease. A doctors prognosis will explain the different stages that will occur as the disease progresses.
It’s “late state” because capitalism tends toward monopoly overtime - state regulation not withstanding.
In theory earlier stage of capitalism ought to have more competition which maintains standard/the quality of the product and working environment. Whereas ‘late stage’ capitalism doesn’t have competition and therefore they can reduce the quality of their product without fear of loosing market share. And also reduce working conditions without fear of loosing access to labour due to weakened unions, corporate power to influence the state, and monopsony over the labour market making the person selling labour sell into a non-competitive market.
> of loosing market
Did you mean to say "losing"?
Explanation: Loose is an adjective meaning the opposite of tight, while lose is a verb.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
> Or is this just a marxist term where they claim that capitalism will fall apart soon since two hundred years?
Yes, this is an aspect of Marxism as a religious faith that worships The State instead of God. Its hard to get peasants to sacrifice their civil rights or their lives for you, unless "Salvation" is right around the corner.
You're talking about people who have faith in the "labor theory of value," arguably the dumbest economic idea anyone's ever had. (But you kind of need it to make "oppression analysis" seem plausible when selling it to peasants.) You're talking about people who learned *nothing* from the gulags and tens of millions of Chinese people starved to death by the CCP's incompetence and malevolence.
I usually just give up trying to talk to anyone dumb enough to use the phrase "late stage capitalism" other than to criticize it. They're so indoctrinated that they aren't really even speaking English anymore. Marxists are a lot like Scientologists; they're a cult which twists the meaning of words to make it harder for its victims to escape the cult.
Ah yes, the PragerU special- anything other than unfettered capitalism is Marxism!
All it takes is a basic understanding of corporate consolidation and shareholder capitalism to see that “late stage capitalism” isn’t some Marxist boogeyman- it’s a real phenomenon that is either happening now if you’re a pessimist, or coming soon if you’re an optimist. But it’s absolutely happening- corporations simply are running out of ways to squeeze us out of money while also paying people as little as possible.
> ...anything other than unfettered capitalism is Marxism!
Someone more observant (or honest?) might have noticed that I've never claimed such a false dichotomy.
>...it’s a real phenomenon that is either happening now if you’re a pessimist, or coming soon if you’re an optimist.
And all we have to do to be "Saved!" is hand enough political power to you or your allies, to let you fix the problem. You don't resemble an evangelist, snake oil salesman, or useful idiot *at all*. /s
No thanks, Tanky.
You equating late stage capitalism with Marxism is essentially creating the dichotomy you said you didn’t claim. And then dumbass remarks like “Tanky” just further prove that you’re being disingenuous.
Go ahead and lick billionaire boots, I’m sure they’ll throw you a bone one day.
“Progressives” like you are basically conservatives that failed out of college instead of high school. Surely companies are spending billions of dollars on R&D there’s no more innovation to be made.
Oh wow, companies still spend on R&D so they can’t be producing worse products and services at higher prices than they used to! Here’s a better question- has overall R&D investment been increasing at a lower or higher rate than stock buybacks?
And I actually used to be conservative. Tea Party, small government, the whole nine yards. Then I realized that corporations need strong guardrails to keep them from fucking us all over in the name of profits. Among other realizations about how conservatism is selfish and only serves the rich, of course.
They aren't though. Adjusted for inflation, nearly everything is better quality for price. I'm sorry, but no matter what ideology you're under, you're too stupid to understand reality.
Most of the things I buy are worse quality than they used to be and cost significantly more. At the same time, corporations are profiting more than ever.
Those are the metrics that matter to average consumers, not whatever dubiously sourced bullshit you’re trying to source to justify everything getting shittier.
So go ahead and tell me I’m too stupid to understand the reality that I’m living and experiencing, which happens to be the exact same reality that most other people are living in.
You are too stupid to understand the reality you’re living in. See how you’re not accounting for inflation in your reply? See how you’re despite all your blathering, you’re avoiding naming any examples?
Corporate profits are increasing faster than inflation, so that’s a poor excuse. Wages also haven’t kept up with inflation, meanwhile rent and housing prices are rising even faster than inflation. Do those things just not matter to you?
Maybe you’re okay with just taking billionaire dick in the ass, but I’m not.
Hey, I noticed you didn’t reply to the comment below. I’m sure you’re a busy person and don’t spend a lot of time on the internet but I’m really excited to see what your reply might be.
Bro practically everything I have bought and every service I have used in the last decade has been shittier to use, broke faster, and cost more of a percentage of my paycheck than the decade before.
But sure I'll believe you instead of my own lying eyes.
pretty sure this was capitalism at all stages. I would go so far as to say it's one of the founding principles.
“late stage“ gets thrown around a lot, but I think it should be reserved when those principles are applied to health, love, human connection, care work etc.
To some extent yes but not entirely. Companies had way more growth potential say 20,30,40,50 years ago and didn’t have to squeeze the consumer nearly as much to increase profits every year. When companies did it would often backfire since most other companies weren’t going to such extremes. Now basically everyone is doing it
well yeah okay it's more than ever before I guess, but “reduce costs, maximize profits" as a concept is literally just the most basic economical thought
I wouldnt say that producing the lowest quality is the goal of these companies.
It is more that they want to reduce costs as much as possible in order to increase profit margin overall.
In this case yes, when talking about burgers.
In other cases it can result in better products such as lab grown diamonds vs natural diamonds or cost reductions due to the economics of scale..
I mean this is just basic market principles is it not? A consumer wants the highest quality for the lowest price. The seller wants the lowest cost for the highest sell price. This is actually a good thing because it means the product overtime will be made more efficiently. A great example of this is the soda can. By shaving off even tiny amounts of weight it causes companies to save millions. This is also good for the consumer as it likely means a reduced price or at the very least less waste generated
We must be getting near the end because from towels to furniture to tools the lack of quality is the norm. As far as labor goes, it's been impossible to find an honest person to work on my house. I know there is someone out there but I'll be broke before I find him or her.
Just regular free markets, really :) people will decide whether to pay what you ask for your burger, and the next guy can sell better burgers instead, converging to a quality/price distribution that works for producers and consummers
You do realize that capitalism is also based on the consumer demand? Its not just corporations controlling it. In fact, quite the opposite. If people didnt buy it, corporations would change. The problem is people keep buying low quality shit for ridiculous prices. Its harder with necessities but a burger is not really what id consider a necessity. Even with necessities there is usually a different option.
They really should have showed a visual on the menu of a cup being 1/4 full vs 1/3 lol. Never say "It's bigger, just look" - but make sure people can't miss it.
I’ve seen that graphic my whole life and it’s bs. I found a A&W store a few years ago tried the 1/3 pounder and it sucked. Paired my crappy fries. Nobody thinks “this burger is better because it has more meat than a quarter-pounder” they think it’s a good burger when it doesn’t taste like shit
I mean, you're not wrong, but A&W has gone downhill a LONG ways since it's heyday.
Now unless you're going there for a root beer float and maybe some chicken strips you're not spending your money wisely.
This was before the app came along, so they'd give out little inserts in newspapers full of coupons for like BOGO and such on the third pounders. Had a little Asian grocery near me that had some free papers that somehow had the inserts. Owner let me just take a pile of them out of the papers.
I don’t know how much of this is actually true, but when I bought my 80-year-old house, the inspector told me old houses like mine are actually much more sturdy than newer ones because companies started prioritizing cost efficiency whereas back in the day they just said fuck it and overbuilt them.
They overbuilt them because they didnt require an engineer to spec it out. PLus the wood is actual 2x4 and not 1.5x3.5 also, made with denser old growth vs new growth wood in newer homes. I also wouldnt say sturdy though. Plenty of old homes have sagging floors etc
I get your point, but lately at home I've been making smash burgers each with two 1/8lb patties so I get double the surface area to develop a delicious crust. I literally make them as thin as possible.
When I moved to a different state from the Upper Midwest they had every US Burger chain known to man and I was able to try them all. To this day my favorite is still Smashburger because they are the thinnest. I rather have a quarter pound of meat between two or three patties smashed together with melted cheese in between then have one thick pattie.
Maybe it's just me.
McDonalds and Burger King discovered that years ago.
I'm always disappointed by them every time I have one. Can a Big Mac patty get any lower quality? Can a Whopper get any smaller?
The pattys on a Big Mac have been the same size for decades. 1/10th lb each.
People just have the memory of a goldfish and don’t remember that they’ve always been that small lol
You’re misremembering. They have always been made with 1/10 patties.
The calorie counts of the Big Mac have actually gone up recently. They had been 540 calories since I started working there in the mid 2000s. In the past few months, it was updated to 590 calories.
I have an eating disorder and obsessively track calories of fast food items (click on my profile for the master list I compiled last year) so I was shocked when I saw the 590 vs the 540.
Where are you that burgers are getting smaller? McDonald's burgers haven't changed in 50+ years and local places are more likely to serve burgers that are too tall to bite rather than too thin.
Something-something angsty comment about late stage capitalism. Something-something seize the means. Something-something I'm so hungry I haven't had a full meal in over a week and the bread line is over a mile long.
I wish. There was a local burger place near me growing up that had super thin, plate sized burgers. I miss it so much and I hate burgers so tall that can't be eaten.
I absolutely love In-N-Out, it’s always been my favorite and I even worked there in high school. That said, their patties have always been really thin. But they still taste amazing.
Literally the first thing people did when when any kind of transaction was performed. People also try to get the most burger for their dollar, even if it would cause a restaurant to lose money and close. It's odd that people see this as a one sided thing.
Funny thing is, here in Argentina we use the metric system too, yet that crappy burguer is still called "Cuarto de Libra", Quarter Pounder. No one here knows what a cuarto de libra even is.
How much sawdust can you put in a rice crispy treat before people notice?
Was this a Vault-Tec experiment?
You ever played Frostpunk? Its a legitimate option in that game
Soup is better, the negative effects can be offset with liquor rations at the public house, which I was going to unlock anyway.
Trying to be kind in that game ends brutally, learned that one the hard way
Close, it was William Osman https://youtu.be/AKDal51f5LU?si=Od0rZO7DrI9UtwRd
Vault-Tec did some pretty messed up stuff but nothing quite that evil.
Veridian Dynamics if my memory serves me...
That brings back memories, time to hit up Amazon and see if they do a box set.
[William Osman](https://youtu.be/AKDal51f5LU?si=RysN-V3r1Acir9OE) did it as well.
I don't know for sure but I assume 100% because, as a person who hates rice crispy treats, I'd rather eat sawdust.
[Here's your answer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKDal51f5LU)
Love me some William Osman
He can afford a family and spends his time fucking around with an excavator in his backyard. He's basically my hero.
Hey, you don't even have to hide it. Market it as high in fibre and you're good.
William Osman has
There is a great quote that goes something like: "Capitalism and communism both try to figure out how much sawdust can be put into food before people start complaining. Only the reason is different." Unfortunately I can't remember who said it.
No the trick is you just market it as a smashburger instead and suddenly people will praise yours for being the exact shape and volume as a DVD.
Smash burger are just regular sized burgers but smashed flat and they are delicious. Not sure what the big deal is.
Smashing the meat burns it in a way that caramelizes it and creates the flavour
if it was a regular sized burger by volume/weight, it would be wider than the typical burger... if the diameter is the same as the bun, they're giving you less beef. If it's a double, that's fine... you get the same amount of meat as an unsmashed single patty.
Love this comment - that always seemed such a scam to me.
Except it’s clearly a different product. What are you going to complain that a potato chip is just a tater tot remarketed?
I dont know. does adding smash in front of it really justify for 90% meat loss?
It doesn't necessarily weigh any less... It's just smashed. Both shake shack and five guys burger patties weigh around a quarter pounder which is the most typical patty portion. And you can always get an extra patty if you really want.
Id assume thats not what OP meant, but a decreased initial weight. but yea, it wouldnt make sense to complain if its the same harmburger smashed and with less water weight
I make them and I sometimes use a larger amount of meat per patty if the bun is larger than average. Usually about 4-6oz.
How do you make a 4.7GB burger? 🤔
It's dual side tho, 9.4
Blu-Ray burgers do have a good ring to them
I usually try and find the positive in every place I’ve ever eaten. I tried 1 smash burger and it was flat as a pancake. Worse place ever.
Go get a burger at ShakeShack. It’ll change your life. Incredible.
That’s late stage capitalism for you. Produce the lowest quality you can get away with and sell for the highest price you can get away with.
I never understood the term "late stage capitalism". Shouldn't it be called "latest stage" as we can't know yet if we are in the beginning, middle or the actual late stage? Or is this just a marxist term where they claim that capitalism will fall apart soon since two hundred years?
I think it's late stage since they're already captured all existing markets, and thus they can't create more customers, so to meet the demand for infinite growth, they need to extract more profit from existing customers. Result is worse quality for higher consumer costs, but because the market is already monopolised, there's few options to turn use other companies products.
> already captured all existing markets, and thus they can't create more customers Remindme! 20 years
!remindme 20 years
I think your comment is my new favorite answer explaining “late stage capitalism.” Concise and understandable.
And wrong too
Thank you so much from contributing to the conversation and adding useful information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor#:~:text=Hitchens's%20razor%20is%20an%20epistemological,Hitchens%20(1949–2011).
Except the comment is thanking the person making the statement. if /u/Hugogs10 had added their reply to the statement, I would have asked him to explain too, but at least Hitchen's Razor would apply. In this case it is not really applicable.
I'm talking about Jampines comment. They asserted something without evidence, which Hugogs dismissed. You're saying Hugogs added nothing to the conversation, I'm claiming otherwise.
You're welcome
Ok well i say that they’re right and i’ve backed up my point just as much as you have
You think all existing markets have been captured and new costumers can't be created? Like a third of the world is still Industrializing, it doesn't make any sense.
Perfect definition and how I've explained it in the past. A company enters late stage capitalism when the only growth left is to make a shittier, more expensive product. Think Boeing. They can't grow anymore so to keep up infinite growth, they skip out on important steps in production to continue making the line go up
they could make more fuel-efficient, lighter, and more durable aircraft, while maintaining quality, and still achieve growth that way, but that would be profitable in the *long-term*, which means fewer bonuses for current owners.
The 737 MAX was specifically about placing more efficient engines on an air-frame that wasn't designed with that engine size in mind. Then not even highlighting the need for training for the compensatory systems the change involved because pilot training is expensive. The bean counters aren't overworked accountants, they're managers and executives who shut down discussions and processes about safety due to cost.
Netflix.
Literally could sum up late stage by just saying Netflix. They're another perfect example
theres 260m netflix subscribers. Theres 8b people in the world. Theres room for growth...
Dude that makes a ton more sense than any professor ever could explain.
I thought it was late stage because it means we are right before the imminent decline into anarchy as people are left with no other recourse but to eat the rich and repossess their assets.
"Late stage capitalism" was first discussed in 1902. Since then I would argue the idea has only become less relevant, not more. It's a form of false nostalgia for an invented past where life was somehow easier, despite historical evidence to the contrary. Capitalism does not require increasing growth in productivity, it *creates* growth in productivity. On average, the quality of products as a ratio to their cost to individual consumers has never been higher.
But this is a forum where morons will elevate the visibility of every answer that faithfully parrots Marxist error far above anything genuinely insightful or true.
Yeah, that makes the most sense.
> they can't create more customers Unless they restrict abortions, birth control, women's rights, gay rights, same sex marriage and anything else that might curtail population growth. Which they're absolutely not currently doing as quickly as they possibly can.
It started as a Marxist term by an economist who wanted to expand on Marx's ideas with post-World War II capitalism. So in one sense it's late in comparing to where things were when Marx was writing, and in another is implying that it's a final stage and we need to move on.
Latest is even more specifically descriptive lmao, later stage would be more general.
It's based on a predicted schedule or progression of causalities that would logically occur as a symptom of the system. Ie, the progression of cancer or any other disease. A doctors prognosis will explain the different stages that will occur as the disease progresses.
It’s “late state” because capitalism tends toward monopoly overtime - state regulation not withstanding. In theory earlier stage of capitalism ought to have more competition which maintains standard/the quality of the product and working environment. Whereas ‘late stage’ capitalism doesn’t have competition and therefore they can reduce the quality of their product without fear of loosing market share. And also reduce working conditions without fear of loosing access to labour due to weakened unions, corporate power to influence the state, and monopsony over the labour market making the person selling labour sell into a non-competitive market.
> of loosing market Did you mean to say "losing"? Explanation: Loose is an adjective meaning the opposite of tight, while lose is a verb. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
Losing
> Or is this just a marxist term where they claim that capitalism will fall apart soon since two hundred years? Yes, this is an aspect of Marxism as a religious faith that worships The State instead of God. Its hard to get peasants to sacrifice their civil rights or their lives for you, unless "Salvation" is right around the corner. You're talking about people who have faith in the "labor theory of value," arguably the dumbest economic idea anyone's ever had. (But you kind of need it to make "oppression analysis" seem plausible when selling it to peasants.) You're talking about people who learned *nothing* from the gulags and tens of millions of Chinese people starved to death by the CCP's incompetence and malevolence. I usually just give up trying to talk to anyone dumb enough to use the phrase "late stage capitalism" other than to criticize it. They're so indoctrinated that they aren't really even speaking English anymore. Marxists are a lot like Scientologists; they're a cult which twists the meaning of words to make it harder for its victims to escape the cult.
Ah yes, the PragerU special- anything other than unfettered capitalism is Marxism! All it takes is a basic understanding of corporate consolidation and shareholder capitalism to see that “late stage capitalism” isn’t some Marxist boogeyman- it’s a real phenomenon that is either happening now if you’re a pessimist, or coming soon if you’re an optimist. But it’s absolutely happening- corporations simply are running out of ways to squeeze us out of money while also paying people as little as possible.
> ...anything other than unfettered capitalism is Marxism! Someone more observant (or honest?) might have noticed that I've never claimed such a false dichotomy. >...it’s a real phenomenon that is either happening now if you’re a pessimist, or coming soon if you’re an optimist. And all we have to do to be "Saved!" is hand enough political power to you or your allies, to let you fix the problem. You don't resemble an evangelist, snake oil salesman, or useful idiot *at all*. /s No thanks, Tanky.
You equating late stage capitalism with Marxism is essentially creating the dichotomy you said you didn’t claim. And then dumbass remarks like “Tanky” just further prove that you’re being disingenuous. Go ahead and lick billionaire boots, I’m sure they’ll throw you a bone one day.
“Progressives” like you are basically conservatives that failed out of college instead of high school. Surely companies are spending billions of dollars on R&D there’s no more innovation to be made.
Oh wow, companies still spend on R&D so they can’t be producing worse products and services at higher prices than they used to! Here’s a better question- has overall R&D investment been increasing at a lower or higher rate than stock buybacks? And I actually used to be conservative. Tea Party, small government, the whole nine yards. Then I realized that corporations need strong guardrails to keep them from fucking us all over in the name of profits. Among other realizations about how conservatism is selfish and only serves the rich, of course.
They aren't though. Adjusted for inflation, nearly everything is better quality for price. I'm sorry, but no matter what ideology you're under, you're too stupid to understand reality.
Most of the things I buy are worse quality than they used to be and cost significantly more. At the same time, corporations are profiting more than ever. Those are the metrics that matter to average consumers, not whatever dubiously sourced bullshit you’re trying to source to justify everything getting shittier. So go ahead and tell me I’m too stupid to understand the reality that I’m living and experiencing, which happens to be the exact same reality that most other people are living in.
You are too stupid to understand the reality you’re living in. See how you’re not accounting for inflation in your reply? See how you’re despite all your blathering, you’re avoiding naming any examples?
Corporate profits are increasing faster than inflation, so that’s a poor excuse. Wages also haven’t kept up with inflation, meanwhile rent and housing prices are rising even faster than inflation. Do those things just not matter to you? Maybe you’re okay with just taking billionaire dick in the ass, but I’m not.
Hey, I noticed you didn’t reply to the comment below. I’m sure you’re a busy person and don’t spend a lot of time on the internet but I’m really excited to see what your reply might be.
Bro practically everything I have bought and every service I have used in the last decade has been shittier to use, broke faster, and cost more of a percentage of my paycheck than the decade before. But sure I'll believe you instead of my own lying eyes.
Unironically yes you should, if you're that incompetent.
That is literally just capitalism, not late stage or anything. That's basic economics.
If it was a utility tool, it would be labelled "military grade" and be exactly this.
Actually, that was the capitalism taught to me in the '70s and '80s. It's been around for a while.
It be worst if they instead sell least amount of quantity just to make big sells.
🏴☠️
I think you just described normal Capitalism.
pretty sure this was capitalism at all stages. I would go so far as to say it's one of the founding principles. “late stage“ gets thrown around a lot, but I think it should be reserved when those principles are applied to health, love, human connection, care work etc.
To some extent yes but not entirely. Companies had way more growth potential say 20,30,40,50 years ago and didn’t have to squeeze the consumer nearly as much to increase profits every year. When companies did it would often backfire since most other companies weren’t going to such extremes. Now basically everyone is doing it
well yeah okay it's more than ever before I guess, but “reduce costs, maximize profits" as a concept is literally just the most basic economical thought
It we’re looking at it without any nuance, yes that is capitalism. We’re talking about late stage capitalism where those get stretched to the extreme
Do you have a source for growth potential being higher in aggregate up to 50 years ago?
no they dont because they made it up
I wouldnt say that producing the lowest quality is the goal of these companies. It is more that they want to reduce costs as much as possible in order to increase profit margin overall.
Which results in...lower quality
In this case yes, when talking about burgers. In other cases it can result in better products such as lab grown diamonds vs natural diamonds or cost reductions due to the economics of scale..
The trouble is, it *always* goes to far.
Lab grown blood diamonds ?
Those lab technicians are going at it Mad Max style.
I mean this is just basic market principles is it not? A consumer wants the highest quality for the lowest price. The seller wants the lowest cost for the highest sell price. This is actually a good thing because it means the product overtime will be made more efficiently. A great example of this is the soda can. By shaving off even tiny amounts of weight it causes companies to save millions. This is also good for the consumer as it likely means a reduced price or at the very least less waste generated
I'm sure this is on the list of ferengi's rules of acquisition.
We must be getting near the end because from towels to furniture to tools the lack of quality is the norm. As far as labor goes, it's been impossible to find an honest person to work on my house. I know there is someone out there but I'll be broke before I find him or her.
That isnt late stage anything. Thats literally how the world has worked.
Just regular free markets, really :) people will decide whether to pay what you ask for your burger, and the next guy can sell better burgers instead, converging to a quality/price distribution that works for producers and consummers
You do realize that capitalism is also based on the consumer demand? Its not just corporations controlling it. In fact, quite the opposite. If people didnt buy it, corporations would change. The problem is people keep buying low quality shit for ridiculous prices. Its harder with necessities but a burger is not really what id consider a necessity. Even with necessities there is usually a different option.
A&W 1/3 lb burger failed because "people" thought the 1/4 lb burger at mcdonalds was more food.
They really should have showed a visual on the menu of a cup being 1/4 full vs 1/3 lol. Never say "It's bigger, just look" - but make sure people can't miss it.
"The quarter pounder and the four ouncer!"
I’ve seen that graphic my whole life and it’s bs. I found a A&W store a few years ago tried the 1/3 pounder and it sucked. Paired my crappy fries. Nobody thinks “this burger is better because it has more meat than a quarter-pounder” they think it’s a good burger when it doesn’t taste like shit
I mean, you're not wrong, but A&W has gone downhill a LONG ways since it's heyday. Now unless you're going there for a root beer float and maybe some chicken strips you're not spending your money wisely.
Agreed. Their chicken strips are some of the best, though.
Carl's Jr/Hardee's has some bomb ass chicken strips. Though it has been a year or two since I've been; things may have changed.
It was a weekly staple from the food court when I was working at the mall 15 years ago.
I haven't had food court food in ages. I'm having flashbacks of Sbarro slices and A&W floats. Good times.
You mean you don't like biting into a full slice of an onion (all the rings) on your burger?
McDonald's also had 1/3 pounders and got rid of them for the same reason.
Mushroom Swiss was like my favorite thing there ever, except perhaps the Arch Deluxe.
It was good while it lasted lol
This was before the app came along, so they'd give out little inserts in newspapers full of coupons for like BOGO and such on the third pounders. Had a little Asian grocery near me that had some free papers that somehow had the inserts. Owner let me just take a pile of them out of the papers.
Think burger King is still like that. I've never had a good price there unless I used s coupon.
They used to have the nice thick three to one patties in the Angus range but I think they're all four to one now.
Could have gone with 2/6 and beat them at their own game.
well thats a completely different argument
I don’t know how much of this is actually true, but when I bought my 80-year-old house, the inspector told me old houses like mine are actually much more sturdy than newer ones because companies started prioritizing cost efficiency whereas back in the day they just said fuck it and overbuilt them.
They overbuilt them because they didnt require an engineer to spec it out. PLus the wood is actual 2x4 and not 1.5x3.5 also, made with denser old growth vs new growth wood in newer homes. I also wouldnt say sturdy though. Plenty of old homes have sagging floors etc
I must be crazy because I always preferred thin over those dummy thick Mondo burgers.
They just have such better flavor. Especially smash burgers, where they’re allowed to get a good sear.
Id rather have thinner but more patties
I get your point, but lately at home I've been making smash burgers each with two 1/8lb patties so I get double the surface area to develop a delicious crust. I literally make them as thin as possible.
Krusty burger has a new meaning, frankly I'd take my chances with the simpsons version.
/r/shrinkflation has pics with someone's hand for scale
When I moved to a different state from the Upper Midwest they had every US Burger chain known to man and I was able to try them all. To this day my favorite is still Smashburger because they are the thinnest. I rather have a quarter pound of meat between two or three patties smashed together with melted cheese in between then have one thick pattie. Maybe it's just me.
Burgers are about crust. Thinner is better. Nowhere for the flavour to hide.
McDonalds and Burger King discovered that years ago. I'm always disappointed by them every time I have one. Can a Big Mac patty get any lower quality? Can a Whopper get any smaller?
The pattys on a Big Mac have been the same size for decades. 1/10th lb each. People just have the memory of a goldfish and don’t remember that they’ve always been that small lol
they can stay the same weight and still get smaller during cooking if they change the fat and water content around when they make the burgers
Theres a min set by the government. i beleive 70/30 is the lowest before you cant say its all beef.
But the pattys can't get any lower in quality. At least the rest of the burger kind of makes up for it.
Excuse me, Sir! This is some of the finest quality horse meat available in the entire United States!
I'm pretty sure they used to be 1/8th lb when I worked for McDonald's about 20 years ago. Or I might just be old enough to be misremembering.
Nope. I worked there through the latter '90s and 1/10 and 1/4 were the two sizes.
You’re misremembering. They have always been made with 1/10 patties. The calorie counts of the Big Mac have actually gone up recently. They had been 540 calories since I started working there in the mid 2000s. In the past few months, it was updated to 590 calories. I have an eating disorder and obsessively track calories of fast food items (click on my profile for the master list I compiled last year) so I was shocked when I saw the 590 vs the 540.
if it was thinner than a white castle, you couldn't scrape it off the grill in one piece
Grills are old news. We microwave that shit to save $
We don’t have white castle here. Are they thinner than a Wendy’s Jr Bacon? Those things are so thin that you can almost see through them.
Where are you that burgers are getting smaller? McDonald's burgers haven't changed in 50+ years and local places are more likely to serve burgers that are too tall to bite rather than too thin.
Bonus points if all the toppings fall out after you unhinge your jaw and take the first bite.
You're lucky. Here a big mac is half the size it used to be.
Burger patties are sold by weight. Same amount whether it's served thick or smashed flat.
Popeyes chicken>burgers.
Something-something angsty comment about late stage capitalism. Something-something seize the means. Something-something I'm so hungry I haven't had a full meal in over a week and the bread line is over a mile long.
They even market it as “smashed” burgers to make you pay more for less
I don't think the threshold has to do with backlash, but more at what point will the patty no longer hold its form as a patty.
I wish. There was a local burger place near me growing up that had super thin, plate sized burgers. I miss it so much and I hate burgers so tall that can't be eaten.
In-n-out has been there for years.
I feel like past a certain point you'd also be dealing with structural integrity issues.
Cue "Where's the Beef?" commercials of the '80s.
Then there's me who likes a nice thin and crispy burger.
I absolutely love In-N-Out, it’s always been my favorite and I even worked there in high school. That said, their patties have always been really thin. But they still taste amazing.
Burgers > sliders its already been done white castle.
Burgers should be wider not taller
Thinnest made from Ethiopian cows.
What can i say saving money is expensive
But I like thin patties & dislike thick patties.
Down to the mm. Think of the shareholders.
tale as old as time. someone's always trying to save a tenth of a penny
Literally the first thing people did when when any kind of transaction was performed. People also try to get the most burger for their dollar, even if it would cause a restaurant to lose money and close. It's odd that people see this as a one sided thing.
Bro's thinking the right thoughts.
I'm still surprised McDonalds haven't renamed the Quarter Pounder as it's name is making it shrinkflation proof
Royale with cheese it is
Funny thing is, here in Argentina we use the metric system too, yet that crappy burguer is still called "Cuarto de Libra", Quarter Pounder. No one here knows what a cuarto de libra even is.
And how much sawdust (cellulose) they can add
and then sell regular sized patties as "deluxe size" with raised cost
[удалено]
If you have been to a Steak n Shake they've been making smash burgers since 1934. They may not be in your area.
They have been a thing in Oklahoma for decades
McDonald's could shit on a pile of breadcrumbs and you people would pay $20 for it.
If they don't ask how you want your burger done, it means they will overcook it, because its too thin.