For me, it’s a matter of how little they know the world around them and how things affect other things. Case and point, when voters thought that voting Trump in, that he would magically make egg prices go down. They’re going down now, from what I saw shopping earlier today, but they weren’t because of him.
Another example is how when shop lifters, when they shoplift, always think that they’re harming who they call ‘The Man’ aka corporate operating the stores, directly. That’s not entirely true and I know this having worked retail several times and currently.
Who you’re hurting, really, is the store itself and those that work in it. The store pulls its own profits in by how many people shop there and part of that profit, is distributing to those who work there. When you’re stealing from that store, you are actively harming that store’s profits and in turn, harming those that work there.
The CEOs and executives are still raking in millions and they aren’t above having to shut down stores over dipshit thieves which in turn, costs a lot of jobs in that store to absorb the profits to make up whatever costs.
So you are impliciting saying that this behavior will damage the profit share of shop and nothing else, because almost nothing will be reverted into the workers.
And only once the share profit is not enough, excuse me, decided to be insuficiente by the ceo to fulfill the gross margin of the full multinational company, those workers will suffer the consequences even if there were not any stealing.
It is ironic that this appears in a post about understanding difficult and not obvious relationships between complex concepts :)
And no, I am not justifying anything, this post in only for the sake of understanding a complex pattern