Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer we take a hit on quality in exchange for diversity across the country.
I hate that outside the probably 5 biggest US cities it's all so boring. Maybe I'm getting old and have rose-colored glasses but I feel like this wasn't the case 20 years ago.
I can't say I agree fully with the original video either but this is just blatantly trying to reframe the same facts presented in said video, but placing the blame on consumers rather than businesses, which is a really dirty tactic.
> Sysco serves poor quality products. They also serve great quality products. Remember, if restaurants are buying poor quality products, it’s because it’s all you, the consumer, will pay for.
"feel bad about being poor"
> Again, animal welfare is not a Sysco issue. Sysco offers countless sources for humanely-raised meat. And, as always, as a consumer, if you want to be really sure: stop eating meat, and tell everyone you know to do so as well.
"feel bad about eating meat"
> Ironically, the foods analyzed in the video as a sign of “quality” are fried pickles, jalapeño poppers, and funnel cake fries. These are inherently low-quality processed foods that no one in their right sobriety should be eating.
"feel bad about food choices"
> The More Perfect Union narrative stops just short of calling Sysco a monopoly. They’re not. They only control 35% of the market
"only 35%"
I mean, c'mon.. was this written by a real person or Adam Smith come back from the grave?
Sysco did to restaurants what Clear Channel did to radio. Regional cultures disappear as everything begins to sound and taste the same wherever you go.
I didn't really follow the premise of the original video. Can you find identical food at various locations throughout the country? Yes. Are you required to eat this same food? No!
You could likely order the things that local restaurant/pub does make in house, rather than go for the variety of items on the menu that are simply there to appease customers' fancies.
Or you could go to a proper restaurant that makes the majority of their dishes in house. You have this choice.
If Sysco and these other companies didn't offer pre-made jalepeno poppers and the like, they simply wouldn't be on the menu in the first place.
> Revealed preference shows that American eaters value price above all-else.
I've thought quite a bit about revealed preference in the context of recommendation algorithms. It's tempting to believe what people do in a given situation reveals what they actually prefer despite claims to the contrary, but psychology has long theorized it's more complicated than that. There's a complex interplay of conscious preference, subconscious impulses, information availability, and executive function.
The hard part is quickly convincing someone of the value proposition when there's an option that will ultimately be more satisfying than the quick and familiar.
I don’t love this argument and I think it comes down to - and maybe this is an elitist anti-populist argument or whatever but, like consequentially - one could say about Walmart that Walmart didn’t destroy small-town American main streets, consumer preferences did. And of course, this is loosely speaking true, but this is tangentially similar to “Fentanyl didn’t ruin small-town America, consumer preferences did.”
Like - consequentially, one can see that before Walmart there were more locally owned stores in small towns. And I think we can argue about whether or not people were happier then. I would guess most people, particularly younger people are just happy to have a place where they can buy more stuff cheaper.
But all those negative externalities still happened. We can still be mad about that; and I think to a certain extent, like fundamentally is our goal to optimize dopamine hacking at the cheapest possible price point? Is there ever an argument to be made that maybe we design a system that doesn’t entirely feed into this pattern? Antitrust law is almost entirely a set of laws that exist to stop the system just doing its thang. Anti-drug and anti-smoking laws as well. Should we stop praying to the altar of consumer preferences in more cases? especially in the growing metaverse/character ai/brain-computer interface era.
Well when it says the video "doesn't even mention US Foods or Performance Food Group" when i know for absolute fact the video in fact mentioned both, it's hard to take it seriously.
I also find it ridiculous to counter "they abuse animals in factory farms" with "well they also sell free range eggs if you're willing to pay". Okay so you admit that they are abusing animals in factory farms, though. The latter doesn't in any way excuse or absolve the former.
I dislike the argumentative tone, especially when it seems to strawman rather than steelman the argument, i had to watch the original video.
I think the original video is misrepresented, it argue that Sysco is a local monopoly for restaurants in rural areas, not a global monopoly. And it does absolutely mention its two big competitors, especially when Sysco tried a merger with one, and the two of them are in a merger themselves.
I won't argue point by point since i really, really dislike this argumentative method, but to me, the main argument from OP is: consumer have choices, and chose low-quality (the part about the frozen line especially is interesting). The video argues that Sysco is a local monopoly and that in reality, few restaurant truly have a choice of what they serve, so they serve shit even if they don't want to , more and more expensive shit as Sysco's earnings are rising, and people are just now starting to notice.
Living close to an agri co-op, and being raised near a farmer's market (not in the US though), it does track, but local monoply power is not where i think those companies truly make their money. It's their local monopsony power. Coop like working with global logistic companies at first, since they propose the lowest prices and can buy in bulk, and work well with futures. But as soon as the local competion dies, restrictions start to happen on what the coop can do until even local restaurant have to use the logistic food companies instead of the local coop (luckily, here we have regulations and this was banned 25 years ago)
At worst, the original video inform consumers, and given Op's belief in information:
> The reality is if you’re an informed consumer, you probably aren’t. Sysco’s frozen food line is incredibly easy to spot, and is only available at low-quality establishments.
i don't understand why he argues against it. Yes, the fact are presented in an ideological manner, but isn't the consumers more informed after?
18 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 47.1 ms ] threadI hate that outside the probably 5 biggest US cities it's all so boring. Maybe I'm getting old and have rose-colored glasses but I feel like this wasn't the case 20 years ago.
> Sysco serves poor quality products. They also serve great quality products. Remember, if restaurants are buying poor quality products, it’s because it’s all you, the consumer, will pay for.
"feel bad about being poor"
> Again, animal welfare is not a Sysco issue. Sysco offers countless sources for humanely-raised meat. And, as always, as a consumer, if you want to be really sure: stop eating meat, and tell everyone you know to do so as well.
"feel bad about eating meat"
> Ironically, the foods analyzed in the video as a sign of “quality” are fried pickles, jalapeño poppers, and funnel cake fries. These are inherently low-quality processed foods that no one in their right sobriety should be eating.
"feel bad about food choices"
> The More Perfect Union narrative stops just short of calling Sysco a monopoly. They’re not. They only control 35% of the market
"only 35%"
I mean, c'mon.. was this written by a real person or Adam Smith come back from the grave?
You could likely order the things that local restaurant/pub does make in house, rather than go for the variety of items on the menu that are simply there to appease customers' fancies.
Or you could go to a proper restaurant that makes the majority of their dishes in house. You have this choice.
If Sysco and these other companies didn't offer pre-made jalepeno poppers and the like, they simply wouldn't be on the menu in the first place.
I've thought quite a bit about revealed preference in the context of recommendation algorithms. It's tempting to believe what people do in a given situation reveals what they actually prefer despite claims to the contrary, but psychology has long theorized it's more complicated than that. There's a complex interplay of conscious preference, subconscious impulses, information availability, and executive function.
The hard part is quickly convincing someone of the value proposition when there's an option that will ultimately be more satisfying than the quick and familiar.
Like - consequentially, one can see that before Walmart there were more locally owned stores in small towns. And I think we can argue about whether or not people were happier then. I would guess most people, particularly younger people are just happy to have a place where they can buy more stuff cheaper.
But all those negative externalities still happened. We can still be mad about that; and I think to a certain extent, like fundamentally is our goal to optimize dopamine hacking at the cheapest possible price point? Is there ever an argument to be made that maybe we design a system that doesn’t entirely feed into this pattern? Antitrust law is almost entirely a set of laws that exist to stop the system just doing its thang. Anti-drug and anti-smoking laws as well. Should we stop praying to the altar of consumer preferences in more cases? especially in the growing metaverse/character ai/brain-computer interface era.
Tonight's restaurant dinner fell off the Sysco truck
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522868
I also find it ridiculous to counter "they abuse animals in factory farms" with "well they also sell free range eggs if you're willing to pay". Okay so you admit that they are abusing animals in factory farms, though. The latter doesn't in any way excuse or absolve the former.
I think the original video is misrepresented, it argue that Sysco is a local monopoly for restaurants in rural areas, not a global monopoly. And it does absolutely mention its two big competitors, especially when Sysco tried a merger with one, and the two of them are in a merger themselves.
I won't argue point by point since i really, really dislike this argumentative method, but to me, the main argument from OP is: consumer have choices, and chose low-quality (the part about the frozen line especially is interesting). The video argues that Sysco is a local monopoly and that in reality, few restaurant truly have a choice of what they serve, so they serve shit even if they don't want to , more and more expensive shit as Sysco's earnings are rising, and people are just now starting to notice.
Living close to an agri co-op, and being raised near a farmer's market (not in the US though), it does track, but local monoply power is not where i think those companies truly make their money. It's their local monopsony power. Coop like working with global logistic companies at first, since they propose the lowest prices and can buy in bulk, and work well with futures. But as soon as the local competion dies, restrictions start to happen on what the coop can do until even local restaurant have to use the logistic food companies instead of the local coop (luckily, here we have regulations and this was banned 25 years ago)
At worst, the original video inform consumers, and given Op's belief in information:
> The reality is if you’re an informed consumer, you probably aren’t. Sysco’s frozen food line is incredibly easy to spot, and is only available at low-quality establishments.
i don't understand why he argues against it. Yes, the fact are presented in an ideological manner, but isn't the consumers more informed after?