Cost of living, OP/ED........

[Brian37]

I finally had it with my cable company. Cut back my channels because they jacked up the price one to many times.

What these morons do not understand is that they could do far better by allowing the customer to cherry pick the channels. What they would lose in the bundles they would make up for in the volume of customers.

But it isn't just that. Everything is part of a rigged market, the customers today have very little say because the laws are written by corporate America far too much. It is not supply and demand, the prices are being dictated to the consumer, not by the consumer.

It used to be growing up when gas prices went down, food prices would go down too. Well not true now. Gas prices have been at an all time low, but yet now the meat I used to buy at Food Lion, shrank in size of packaging but the price stated the same or went up.

This shit has to stop across the board. Profits in the stock market are at an all time high but the middle class and working poor are stagnating and falling.

What we have now is a free for all market, not a free market dictated by the consumer.

[Nine]

Prices OP pls nerf.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't think that either eating large quantities of meat or watching cable T.V. are part of the cost of 'living'. I don't eat meat or own a T.V. and I still seem to be living quite well.

[vorlon13]

Cherry picking (ala carte) channels would be the absolute end of 2/3 of them. And then the cable TV companies can't brag about having packages with 250 channels anymore.

Stuff is migrating to the internet, almost a moot point about cable TV long term viability.

[Brian37]

I don't think that either eating large quantities of meat or watching cable T.V. are part of the cost of 'living'. I don't eat meat or own a T.V. and I still seem to be living quite well.

YOU, ok but so what? All you are arguing by this is a justification of "cant afford it, then you are not equal to me"

You are not the entirety of society. The rich are only one part of a society. They have no problem selling to every class but want none of the responsibility to keep things affordable. It is profit driven having nothing to do with quality of life or equality in the eyes of the government. We have a plutocracy now and only an idiot thinks that is sustainable long term.

Now if I point out a billionaire who would agree with me it might be incumbent of you to ditch such a bad position.

[Minimalist]

The cable tv model is unsustainable. Many young people have "cut the cord" and either download or stream what they want to watch.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/perso.../20854397/

Already, nearly 126 million Americans watch video on a smartphone at least once a month, up about 25% over last year, Nielsen says. Millions more are supplementing — or replacing — traditional TV viewing with content streamed to tablets, computers and Net TV devices.

[Dystopia]

I wonder what will happen to TVs in a few years... I don't use my TV, I download everything I watch. I prefer to read news on online newspapers because TV channels sensationalize everything (and additionally reading is better to comprehend what's happening IMO), particularly our equivalent to the American FOX news. I don't need a TV for anything because everything I need is online. Any shitty laptop can perform the basic tasks you need

[Brian37]

The cable tv model is unsustainable. Many young people have "cut the cord" and either download or stream what they want to watch.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/perso.../20854397/

Already, nearly 126 million Americans watch video on a smartphone at least once a month, up about 25% over last year, Nielsen says. Millions more are supplementing — or replacing — traditional TV viewing with content streamed to tablets, computers and Net TV devices.

Well they could survive by switching to wireless and allow the user to cherry pick. Like I said, what they would lose in bundles they would make up in volume by having smaller numbers of channels but allow the user to pick all the channels instead of forcing them to get channels they dont want in order to get the ones they do.

I hated my standard package because there were only 4 or 5 channels I actively watched. My basic is going to now prevent me from watching three of my favorite channels. But it simply got to the point it was not worth it.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't think that either eating large quantities of meat or watching cable T.V. are part of the cost of 'living'. I don't eat meat or own a T.V. and I still seem to be living quite well.

YOU, ok but so what? All you are arguing by this is a justification of "cant afford it, then you are not equal to me"

You are not the entirety of society. The rich are only one part of a society. They have no problem selling to every class but want none of the responsibility to keep things affordable. It is profit driven having nothing to do with quality of life or equality in the eyes of the government. We have a plutocracy now and only an idiot thinks that is sustainable long term.

Now if I point out a billionaire who would agree with me it might be incumbent of you to ditch such a bad position.

I could afford it, I just don't care for either of them. They certainly aren't part of the cost of 'living.' It's just something that you want but isn't necessary to a happy life at all. In fact both are more than likely detrimental to it. If you want luxuries you should have to pay for them.

[Nope]

I have Roku, Netflix and a Computer and I get to watch plenty of tv without cable.