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

71–80 of 174 posts

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#71

Post by thaumasiotes »

GuB-42 wrote: post #61
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…

So you mean listing the change on already mandatory information. Note that a lot can be told just looking at the label, but few people do it. For example quality meats tend to have more protein, quality diary products tend to to have more fat. High salt and sugar is usually a bad sign. The order of ingredients is important too: greatest amount first. It means that if the thing they advertise in front of the package i…

> It means that if the thing they advertise in front of the package is way down the list, that's not good.

Certain strong flavors, like mint, pepper, and lemon, usually appear pretty low in the ingredients list at the same time they're headlining the label.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#72

Post by nabla9 »

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.

r/badeconomics is great place to lurk for a layman who wants to learn.

The problem for layman like me interested in economics is that you have absorbed so much wrong views and explanations from the news and political commentary that you must work hard to unlearn them before you can start learning.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#73

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> 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.

The proposal was a lot more aggressive than that -- dane-pgp specified that the packaging must mention if the ingredients stay the same but their relative proportions change. Under current law, there is no reason to alter the labeling for such a change[1], so you'd be seeing a huge requirement for new labels that weren't formerly required.

[1] Actually, there are two. First, you might switch up the relative proportions so much that the rank order of the absolute amounts changes, which would require reprinting the ingredients list. This is really unlikely.

Second, you might end up altering the Nutrition Facts information. That would also require relabeling. I don't know how likely that is; the Nutrition Facts panel is a pretty low-resolution instrument.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#74

Post by darkwater »

graycat wrote: post #45
JackFr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

You bake the pizza in a what? My Italian origins strongly disapprove this :/

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#75

Post by hnarn »

virgilp wrote: post #67
hnarn wrote: post #66

In Sweden, "jämförelsepris" (comparison price) is mandatory for many goods. This means stores have to, in addition to price, display "price per gram" or whatever unit makes sense. This way, you can quickly compare different groceries despite differing packages, and shrinking the item for the same price would be visible when looking at the comparison price.

This is an EU rule, no? Because it's not just Sweden. Still, tbh, it still works on some items. Eg here most producer gradually shrinked yoghurt from 175 to 140g - pisses me off, but I must assume it works.

Sweden passed the law in 1991 and joined the EU in 1995 — and as usual, stating "this exists in country X" is not insinuating "this only exists in country X".

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#76

Post by foepys »

hnarn wrote: post #75
virgilp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an EU rule, no? Because it's not just Sweden. Still, tbh, it still works on some items. Eg here most producer gradually shrinked yoghurt from 175 to 140g - pisses me off, but I must assume it works.

Sweden passed the law in 1991 and joined the EU in 1995 — and as usual, stating "this exists in country X" is not insinuating "this only exists in country X".

Relax a bit. The only point GP was trying to make is that it's not just Sweden but in many EU countries it's also a law. There is no need to be aggressive.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#77

Post by cyphar »

hnarn wrote: post #66

In Sweden, "jämförelsepris" (comparison price) is mandatory for many goods. This means stores have to, in addition to price, display "price per gram" or whatever unit makes sense. This way, you can quickly compare different groceries despite differing packages, and shrinking the item for the same price would be visible when looking at the comparison price.

We have something similar in Australia. It really makes life a lot easier when shopping, because it means you don't need to do mental arithmetic whenever you are buying toilet paper (and when there are specials you usually find that non-discounted options are actually cheaper per-gram).

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#78

Post by chewz »

Shrinking portions is the simplest way. The other is replacing products.

Say supermarket bakery introduces new bread with seasame seeds only 25¢ more. Then slowly there is only new seasame seeds bread on shelves and regular bread becomes rare. Later seasame seeds is slowly dispearing from bread and voila - you have made regular bread 25¢ more expensive.

The other way is lowering quality of products. Inflation basket still contains basic bread, tomatoes and plain sausage. The problem is that the quality of these products tanked and to buy a bread of a quality of simple bread from 40 years ago you must shop in some premium, organic, hipsters bakery where it costs 10 times more then simple bread. Same goes for tomatoes and sausage.

And electric drills or washing maschines? Don't get me started. Today's Bosch electric drill lasts one building season, my fathers Bosch electric drill lasted 35 years. Price is the same or lower but you get way less for it.

But the inflation headline number stays low. And that matters as you can keep wages low (many pensions are inflation indexed). And as people used to say under communism -"Bread is more expensive but locomotives got cheaper".

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#79

Post by p_l »

petre wrote: post #56
cadence- wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EC had explicit goal of "beer closer union", going cm to its immediate predecessor.

Some people claim it was sold as purely economic union, some claim it was well known goal back then.

But a lot of the rules that are supposedly so bad are rules that would be there in a purely economic union.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#80

Post by odiroot »

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…

> Chocolate bars used to have 200g. Some now have less than 100g.

I think it's a very good development.

Post reply on HN