I should probably have been more precise; their produce prices are generally roughly equal, plus or minus a bit, but the produce quality is almost always great, and it's easy to return if/when you get a rare dud.
Any other food item is almost always cheaper: dairy and other refrigerated foods, meat (great quality), non-perishable food, etc.
If you're happy to buy in bulk quantities, I haven't found any good alternatives to Costco.
Nobody here has mentioned the elephant in the room: Corporations are being allowed to "legally" dodge $15 billion in taxes every year
That's incorrect, I'm pretty sure. It's not that they're overstating, it's that they're the wrong visas. See my reply below for more details.
I looked this up since it's not fully explained in the article. They entered legally on B-1 visas, but B-1 visas are for things like business meetings, not "actual" work.
They should be entering on H-1B or L-1 visas, which are for temporary (1 or 3 year) technical workers who can't be sourced locally. But the US caps these visas, and they can't get enough.
So, the US lobbied to get investment from these companies/South Korea in the US, but then didn't give them enough visas to get the factories built. So now, they're pulling all South Korean employees in the country who are on B-1 visas, stalling all capital investment in the factories the US lobbied for.
This particular case is intended, because it was lobbied for by Democrats, and they're the other team, so anything they've done should be set on fire. (In this case, EVs.) But this will (or course) have chilling effects on all investment in the US going forward and will lead to project cancellations, delays, and cost overruns.
That's my read.
I could have written your comment, lol.
With inflation hitting food prices especially hard, getting the best value per dollar at Costco makes a huge difference. Anything at Costco is almost always ½-¾ what we'd pay elsewhere, and their return policy is incredible, so there's much lower risk when buying durable goods, too.
I'm all for minimizing buying American, but I'm not going to pay double to shop local.
Or keep the live service model, but label things correctly:
You're getting a subscription to the service that's guaranteed to last at least until [planned minimum end date]. Make it illegal to label anything using "buy" that doesn't grant a permanent, non-expiring license to the software or digital good.
There's nothing wrong with charging for a subscription. If that's their product, and the only way they can offer the product, then clearly market it that way and there's no legal problem under the proposed rules.
Granted, that still sucks for videogame preservation, but at least it's honest. And I'm not sure how many people will be willing to shell out $80+ for a "minimum 24 month subscription" to a new game, or pay $9.99 for a "micro"transaction they're guaranteed to keep access to for ~~8 7 6~~ 5 months.