I don’t understand boycotts in these cases, what’s the rationale? From what I understand, lower demand during periods of short supply is ideal for firms. That’s exactly what happened during the failed 1980-1982 strike in India that ultimately broke the back of their socialist left, and it was a huge gift to Indian capitalists — although, in that case the lower demand was due to a global recession.
Usually a boycott is because the workers don't have enough leverage to significantly cut into profits on their own, so you hit them on the consumer end as well.
That’s what I figured the logic was, and it seems misguided to me. I’m going to explain what’s in my head because it’s been driving me bananas. If there’s someone with empirical data showing one way or the other, I’d appreciate a recommendation. This is what I remember from my Marxian labor economics class in college, so it doesn’t come from practice as an economist or anything like that.
It’s not like PepsiCo’s money is sitting idle, they have it invested all over the place. They can’t possibly lose money from a boycott in any meaningful amount, the worst they can do is match the market. What does happen is the margin that the workers can fight over decreases over time, which undermines the workers’ bargaining position. Stable demand with a supply shortage, on the other hand, increases the workers bargaining position by increasing the marginal cost of not supplying enough units. It might even make it more likely that consumers would buy a substitute, which would deepen the cost over the long run. This way instead seems like it softens the burden for the firm.
Frito-Lays workers are on strike and calling for a boycott of pepsi-co products.
Here's a list of products to avoid
Please at least abstain from these products, and if you can, grab some friends and hand out this list outside grocery stores.
deleted by creator
In Australia a few of the brands are different. Lays is Smiths, for instance. Sakata and Nobby's nuts are also Pepsi brands.
I don’t understand boycotts in these cases, what’s the rationale? From what I understand, lower demand during periods of short supply is ideal for firms. That’s exactly what happened during the failed 1980-1982 strike in India that ultimately broke the back of their socialist left, and it was a huge gift to Indian capitalists — although, in that case the lower demand was due to a global recession.
Usually a boycott is because the workers don't have enough leverage to significantly cut into profits on their own, so you hit them on the consumer end as well.
Yeah it's only one plant. If it was the whole workforce striking, then companies would want pent up demand after the strike.
That’s what I figured the logic was, and it seems misguided to me. I’m going to explain what’s in my head because it’s been driving me bananas. If there’s someone with empirical data showing one way or the other, I’d appreciate a recommendation. This is what I remember from my Marxian labor economics class in college, so it doesn’t come from practice as an economist or anything like that.
It’s not like PepsiCo’s money is sitting idle, they have it invested all over the place. They can’t possibly lose money from a boycott in any meaningful amount, the worst they can do is match the market. What does happen is the margin that the workers can fight over decreases over time, which undermines the workers’ bargaining position. Stable demand with a supply shortage, on the other hand, increases the workers bargaining position by increasing the marginal cost of not supplying enough units. It might even make it more likely that consumers would buy a substitute, which would deepen the cost over the long run. This way instead seems like it softens the burden for the firm.