Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 174 posts

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#51

Post by everybodyknows »

tzs wrote: post #50
ekianjo wrote: post #19

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. 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…

A "last-modified" date on the standard nutritional info would be great pro-consumer regulation.

Now if we could only get a "roasted-on" date requirement for coffee ...

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#52

Post by colechristensen »

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…

Products diluted with water are hard to do, but I have no problem with government standardization of, say, the length of toilet paper on a roll. Maybe it doesn't even need to be a law but a tiny tax on nonstandard sizes (0.1%, enough to drive profit-seeking towards standards)

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#53

Post by dannyw »

cco wrote: post #34

Next time someone tells you, "Well even the poorest of us today eats better than a king in the middle ages" think about this quality "inflation". What is the current cost today of putting high quality, wild meat on the table along with seasonally ripe and fresh fruit? What about high quality beer with no use of malt substitutes? There are a number of measures, availability being one, where our modern food production…

It will cost you a little bit more in time and money, but go to your local (legitimate) farmers market and you’ll have quality meat, fresh veggies and fruit, and your local microbrewery will serve a cold one with no malt substitutes for a tiny bit more.

Shopping local is so underrated.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#54

Post by cadence- »

colechristensen wrote: post #52
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…

Products diluted with water are hard to do, but I have no problem with government standardization of, say, the length of toilet paper on a roll. Maybe it doesn't even need to be a law but a tiny tax on nonstandard sizes (0.1%, enough to drive profit-seeking towards standards)

The irony is that one of the big reasons Brexit is even happening is because people in U.K. don’t like the fact that EU standardizes everything. They don’t seem to understand that this is being done to protect them from exactly this shrinkflation that is now going to be used by big companies to compensate for the negative results of Brexit.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#55

Post by segfaultbuserr »

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…

Also occurred in China after 2007. First it was just the usual inflation of the general level of price, the most obvious sign was the inflating price of food in supermarkets and meals in restaurants. However, as it progressed, the restaurant owners seemed to believe that, if they keep rising price, it would be extremely unpopular, so the prices kept roughly at the same level, but the amount of food in the dishes becomes smaller and smaller.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#56

Post by petre »

cadence- wrote: post #54
colechristensen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Products diluted with water are hard to do, but I have no problem with government standardization of, say, the length of toilet paper on a roll. Maybe it doesn't even need to be a law but a tiny tax on nonstandard sizes (0.1%, enough to drive profit-seeking towards standards)

The irony is that one of the big reasons Brexit is even happening is because people in U.K. don’t like the fact that EU standardizes everything. They don’t seem to understand that this is being done to protect them from exactly this shrinkflation that is now going to be used by big companies to compensate for the negative results of Brexit.

They never signed up for being part of the EU. The UK joined the EC. Maybe they should stay in the EEA and everything would be fine, but even that has too many restrictive rules now that the English are unable to skirt. Like freedom of movement for goods and for people.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#58

Post by petre »

damnyou wrote: post #48
ekianjo wrote: post #19

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. 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.

"Now 20% less!”

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#59

Post by spacehome »

jml7c5 wrote: post #40
burfog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toilet paper should be measured by volume, not length. Both width and thickness of the sheets can vary. For both, larger is better. All three measurements interact together when forming a wad of paper. All three contribute to the size of the wad.

Density also matters, or you could cheat and sell a roll of paper "fluff". Also, many people fold rather than wad.

You could multiply all of those together to get mass.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#60

Post by bfdm »

Walmart plays a heavy part in this game. They have such an outsized share of the market for Consumer Packaged Goods that they can bully manufacturers. When economics suggests the price of, say, some condiment needs to increase, Walmart simply refuses to accept the higher price. You can either lose your shelf space, or substitute a new, smaller, product format at the same price, which they will accept.

And so bottles of mustard get smaller, but stay $1.99 at Walmart. Kleenex boxes have 76 tissues instead of 88 but stay $0.99 at Walmart.

Post reply on HN