If you buy less of a company’s product, that company just produces less of it for sale. The price would stay the same.

(The price may even go up, because of a reduction of the economy of scale).

However, you would personally save money by simple virtue of the fact that you’re buying less of the product.

Which is to say, pro tip: You can save money by not wasting food you buy.

Increased demand doesn’t always raise price, due to economies of scale, and the fact that the supply can be elastic and adjusted based on demand.

Think about it, if most people who ate tomatoes now stopped eating tomatoes, would the prices of tomatoes go up or down in the long run?

Sure, in the short term there would be a glut, and the price would go down. But then the supply itself would shrink. Tomatoes would become a ‘niche’ vegetable, like an exotic fruit, and the lack of scale would mean that they would be more expensive on the whole.

It’s the same reason why increased demand for novel consumer products like computers or smart phones pushes the price down in the long run. The increased demand results in the production of greater supply, and due to economies of scale, that item becomes cheaper on the whole.

All this is to say, if we all bought half as much food, production would shrink, and the price would effectively stay the same for us at the consumer level.

> the consumer that is throwing away the product after they have already paid for it.

Most food is wasted by corporations, not consumers. If they can’t sell it for a profit, they would rather it go in the garbage than be given to someone in need.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/grocery-waste-04-16-2018.php

https://www.mic.com/impact/inside-the-tiktok-trend-shaming-corporations-for-destroying-perfectly-good-stuff-48292822

Poverty is a social crime. A harm willfully committed by those in power against the masses who are not.

And consequently, so is suicide. And every other ill that results from poverty.

It would cost a mere 1% of the US’s annual military budget to totally end homelessness. We don’t have a lack of resources problem in the US. We have an entrenched inequality problem.

Musk went full Republican and now his brand is toxic. Everyone is rooting for him to fail now. (Except his hardened maga reply guys.)

But the first big deadly battle for France wasn’t until September (First Battle of the Marne). And this tend seems to start right at the outbreak of the war in July (as soon as the war was declared). So I don’t think this can be viewed as a response to casualties inflicted.

I’d be curious if they were that worried about mortality literally the day the war started, which is what this data reflects.

From what I understand, many people vastly underestimated how long and deadly the war was going to be. Many thought it would be a quick, even exciting affair.

It would take weeks and months for the casualties to start piling up and for people to start realizing just how deadly the war was.

But I don’t know, I guess I don’t have a better explanation. I don’t know why you’d only be concerned about keeping your name going (which typically only applies to the first born) if you’re going to die during the war (vs. dying of natural causes years later?)

I don’t think you understand the tech sector. Google’s CEO is worth 1.3 billion.

If the average tech employee had a net worth of a million dollars (which they don’t), their CEO has about 1.3 billion dollars more than them.

That is, the CEO makes over one thousand times as much money as one of their employees. And that’s being conservative.

Wow, it seems like we really operated under the principle of ‘if they don’t say ouch, that must mean they don’t feel pain!’

It seems so stupid in retrospect. Apparently we’re just terrible at having empathy for other sentient living things sometimes.