When I call my insurance company and their sound recognition is so sensitive that if I make any noise at all it starts over and says "i'm sorry I don't recognize that" and then it takes me 10 minutes to get someone on the call, all while I'm paying them $25 every day of the year (it will rise another 10% next year), and the call center is in another country so it's hard to understand them and the call quality is shit, it's not other things in my life.

It's a broken system to divert money to executives and shareholders (most of whom have done zero work for the company), resulting in shittier service and anger for all of us.

BTW, I don't abuse the representatives with cursing or name calling, but I can get upset and I do let them know it's not their fault.

I mean, have you ever called Comcast?

> There will always be angry customers.

There will always be companies that make their customers angry. You're really going against people seeking solutions from companies they pay?

I'm amazed anyone would downvote this - how am I disillusion here?

The customer is not always right.

Please don't straw man. Nothing in OP's comment said they're against fixing issues. But they - correctly - pointed out that you won't be able to completely eliminate abusive callers even if you're fixing issues. They never once presented it as dichotomy.

I would argue the strawman is the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem instead of the issue they're contacting customer service about.

> the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem

That's the straw man. I don't see anything in the parent comment that implies or expresses that. It says

1. "There will always be a subset of people who act irate or abusively for external reasons", not 2. "All people who are irate or abusive due to external reasons"

Your flipping the implication within the sentence, then arguing against that

Agreed