I think OPs point was the exact opposite. They give three examples where "matters of taste" are narratives guided by boardroom profit in the last twenty years rather than actual consumer preference.

People didn't want bigger cars. Corporations made bigger cars to circumvent American fuel efficiency regulations (because it's cheaper to circumvent a law than it is to make a more efficient engine), and convinced consumers bigger is better. Size difference between the #1 selling truck in 1950 and 1990 is nothing compared to the difference between pre-CAFE and present day.

People don't want huge, fattening meals when they go out. It's cheaper for companies to give "more", "saltier", and "fattier" meals than it is to create "tastier" ones, and for the most part we've been hoodwinked again. I'm talking about the "buy one for here get one free to take home" promotions at Applebee's.

People have been convinced owning a home is "the American dream". Construction companies have found they can put a 2800sqft house on a .25 acre plot just as easily as they can a 1400sqft house, so that's all they build. "Starter homes" aren't as profitable as they used to be, so the companies are banking on the narrative they've created to force people out of apartments and into gigantic houses because it's the "American dream".

Indeed. But it somehow morphed into "customers can abuse and harass staff at customer service jobs"

Inevitably the manager turns out to be some kid who isn't any other than the staff member, and has no more authority anyway because the real powers that be are all in corporate offices.

The manager only has any real power if the business is privately owned not a branch of some megacorp.