How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models • Hacker News Board

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#41

Post by JackFr » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 3:46 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #5

forinti wrote: post #4

This is a process Brazilians know well. Chocolate bars used to have 200g. Some now have less than 100g. Toilet paper rolls used to have 50m; most now have 30m and some have only 10m. This sort of thing started happening in the 1980s, because the government had frozen prices (that always works well). It became such a problem that now the law says that the packaging must clearly point out if the quantity inside has cha…

> now the law says that the packaging must clearly point out if the quantity inside has changed. We need this law in the US. I’m not one to push for new regulations, but I have seen this happen time and again with big companies (Nabisco, General Mills) that shrink their boxes and count on the customer not to notice.

> We need this law in the US. I’m not one to push for new regulations, but I have seen this happen time and again with big companies (Nabisco, General Mills) that shrink their boxes and count on the customer not to notice.

Except for fast-food companies, which we've been told have slyly been increasing their portion sizes and making us fat.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17585324

Or maybe we could just stop being victims of the evil corporations and we take responsibility for our lives.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#42

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 3:49 AM UTC

VHRanger wrote: post #30

thesagan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this pattern in academic settings myself. There's simply a lot of tunnel vision. Although, as a parent comment pointed out (a bit rudely) there's acknowledgement of various shortcomings of measures such as CPI, there's also a tendency to assume these models are accurate in policy-setting institutions. I'd say they're maybe as accurate as predicting weather in the Great Lakes Region. Also: r/economics should…

Mod of r/economics here. If you want informed people on economics on reddit, go to r/badeconomics which is the more tightly knit hangout for professional economists and grad students. Otherwise, go to the economics cluster on twitter. r/economics is like r/news with an econ twist. It's too large to effectively moderate.

[deleted]

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#43

Post by unimployed » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

thesagan wrote: post #23

unimployed wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure you are being sarcastic or you are not all that experienced. Talk at length with most economic professionals on /r/economics and you will find the repeatedly stated and unstated views that “the CPI is the most studied economic measurement in the world” and “you are welcome to perform your own study covering the inadequacies of the CPI.” I paraphrased slightly but from memory those quotes are highly accura…

I've seen this pattern in academic settings myself. There's simply a lot of tunnel vision. Although, as a parent comment pointed out (a bit rudely) there's acknowledgement of various shortcomings of measures such as CPI, there's also a tendency to assume these models are accurate in policy-setting institutions. I'd say they're maybe as accurate as predicting weather in the Great Lakes Region. Also: r/economics should…

My experience is from bureau members and long time members I’m able to identify as professionals. I’m well aware of the population of undergrad and econ101 members that are fairly easy to identify as well.

If you know of any sources that are well known references that acknowledge the shortcomings of BLS methodologies I would be interested in reading up on them. I have not seen those kind of discussions frequently in publications.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#44

Post by andrewf » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 3:53 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #6

forinti wrote: post #4

This is a process Brazilians know well. Chocolate bars used to have 200g. Some now have less than 100g. Toilet paper rolls used to have 50m; most now have 30m and some have only 10m. This sort of thing started happening in the 1980s, because the government had frozen prices (that always works well). It became such a problem that now the law says that the packaging must clearly point out if the quantity inside has cha…

I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Of course companies would protest, claiming that their recipes are trade secrets, but we already require that products list their ingredients, and we protect trademarks for products, whi…

Around 15 years ago, the price of cocoa shifted significantly relative to hazelnuts. (I forget which one actually moved in absolute terms)

Cue worse-tasting chocolate bars showing up in the stores, proudly proclaiming on their wrappers: NOW WITH MORE HAZELNUTS.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#45

Post by graycat » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 4:02 AM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #37

graycat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There there are alternatives: (1) Recently I wanted a bag of sugar. At my closest grocery store, the bag was 4 pounds instead of 5. No problem: At my next stop at Sam's Club, I got two bags, 15 pounds each. (2) Sometimes dish soap comes in small bottles. Okay, at Sam's get a gallon jug of their generic dish soap and with a funnel refill the small bottles. Same for glass cleaner, etc. (3) Pizza can be $7 to $20. Okay.…

> So, anytime, in 20 minutes, 7 of effort and 13 waiting, get a pizza faster, better, and cheaper than frozen, carryout, or delivery. I don't know where you live, but in Manhattan your version will be cheaper, but it will definitely not be better and most likely will be no faster. Neither your stove nor your oven can match a commercial pizza oven.

As I wrote, I don't use an oven! Instead I finish the baking in a covered steel pan, and this does give a crisp bottom.

> match a commercial pizza oven.

"Match" in what sense? What I described is different but works great.

For the 20 minutes, even in Manhattan, tough to take the order, make and bake the pizza, slice it, box it, and deliver it, all in 20 minutes.

For the quality, that's a matter of taste, but frozen, carryout, and delivery don't use better ingredients.

Whatever strong opinions some people in Manhattan may have about pizza, for the world of pizza, Manhattan is a very tiny place. E.g., apparently all or nearly all Sam's Clubs scattered all across the US sell 5 pound bags of part skim, shredded, Mozzarella cheese, and no doubt nearly all of it goes for pizza: Pizza is all over the US and much of the rest of the world -- in comparison, Manhattan is a small thing!

By the way, for delivering a pizza quickly, there is a fundamental problem made fully clear in queuing theory: The orders have to arrive essentially as a Poisson process. But the pizza shop has only fixed capacity in pizzas made per minute. So, we have random demand fed to a fixed resource. Then the pizza shop has just two alternatives, (i) deliver quickly but have a lot of expensive time where the delivery people are doing nothing and (2) delivery slowly, from a queue, where the delivery people are busy but the customers have to wait.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#46

Post by jfoster » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #6

forinti wrote: post #4

This is a process Brazilians know well. Chocolate bars used to have 200g. Some now have less than 100g. Toilet paper rolls used to have 50m; most now have 30m and some have only 10m. This sort of thing started happening in the 1980s, because the government had frozen prices (that always works well). It became such a problem that now the law says that the packaging must clearly point out if the quantity inside has cha…

I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Of course companies would protest, claiming that their recipes are trade secrets, but we already require that products list their ingredients, and we protect trademarks for products, whi…

Relative to when? Is it good for a consumer to even care how a product used to be? Isn't time of purchase the time that truly matters?

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#47

Post by blihp » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 4:10 AM UTC

winter_blue wrote: post #20

geodel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I see most of the time in US price/oz is mentioned along with price of item. This greatly helps me decide if buying larger package could save me some money with having to do calculation myself, which I would have to do in my country.

Yea, this is something that's always impressed me about this US. In other countries, I have to pull up a calculator app on my phone, and calculate the price per kg for various packaging sizes, to figure out which one is the best deal. It's almost as though store labels in the US are designed with the discerning consumer in mind...

Don't be too impressed. We only have the price per unit listings, ingredient lists etc. as the result of bad business practices (and sometimes deaths) in the previous century. So it's not retailers or manufacturers responding to consumer demand... they're responding to government laws and regulation.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#48

Post by damnyou » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 4:24 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #19

dane-pgp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Of course companies would protest, claiming that their recipes are trade secrets, but we already require that products list their ingredients, and we protect trademarks for products, whi…

> I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Ridiculous proposition. Formulations change pretty much constantly for various reasons (ingredients become more expensive, or you change suppliers, or you decide to adjust something to…

You could solve the packaging issue by putting a sticker on the package.

Large manufacturers will be fine, there's no particular reason for society to care about their wellbeing so much.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#49

Post by TomMckenny » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 4:26 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #5

forinti wrote: post #4

This is a process Brazilians know well. Chocolate bars used to have 200g. Some now have less than 100g. Toilet paper rolls used to have 50m; most now have 30m and some have only 10m. This sort of thing started happening in the 1980s, because the government had frozen prices (that always works well). It became such a problem that now the law says that the packaging must clearly point out if the quantity inside has cha…

> now the law says that the packaging must clearly point out if the quantity inside has changed. We need this law in the US. I’m not one to push for new regulations, but I have seen this happen time and again with big companies (Nabisco, General Mills) that shrink their boxes and count on the customer not to notice.

Instead, toilet paper literally says 12=48 and the like.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#50

Post by tzs » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 4:32 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #19

dane-pgp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Of course companies would protest, claiming that their recipes are trade secrets, but we already require that products list their ingredients, and we protect trademarks for products, whi…

> I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Ridiculous proposition. Formulations change pretty much constantly for various reasons (ingredients become more expensive, or you change suppliers, or you decide to adjust something to…

That's wrong in regard to food labels. If the formulation has changed in a way that makes those already printed labels inaccurate, they already have to throw them away to comply with Federal law and FDA rules.

All dane-pgp's proposed law would change is that when they change the labels to match the new formulation, which they must do, they would have to include a change date or a version number of something like that on the new label.