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

91–100 of 174 posts

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#91

Post by derriz »

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".

You’re being over sensitive I think. The reply isn’t “correcting” you - it actually adds information. Strictly speaking you are correct but generally if a fact is qualified by a restriction like “this exists in country X”, given there are around 200 countries in the world, it certainly implies there that country X is somewhat unusual in some regard. If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels”, then I’d find it perfectly reasonable for someone to point out that it’s also the case in other countries.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#92

Post by thinkloop »

The article seems to have missed the correct conclusion: we calculate inflation wrong.

If Toblerone gives you less chocolate for the same price, that doesn't mean some new thing called "shrinkflation" now exists, that means that chocolate became more expensive. But that new pricing doesn't seem to be properly hitting the inflation metrics.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#93

Post by xmprt »

pikma wrote: post #90
abtinf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US it’s not mandatory, and most supermarkets do it anyway.

But in the US it is frequent that the price per weight (or per volume) is not displayed consistently in the same units, for example $/oz for some items versus $/lb, and it's much harder to do conversions than with the metric system.

Unless you're comparing the price of apples to the price of yogurt, I've never seen that. Items of the same kind are displayed in the same units.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#94

Post by benj111 »

lrem wrote: post #70
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.

Same EU rule is circumvented by some shops by having the comparison prices in mismatched dimensions (volume Vs weight Vs unit).

I believe it's based on what the pack displays, if its grams then they show price per gram, if its ml, likewise.

I suppose its still possible to game with own label goods, from what I've observed it only seems to come up in a limited range of goods, sauces and suchlike.

I havent weighed a litre of oil, but a litre of water is a kg, so water based goods should be fairly comparable ml to g, that's the basis I work on anyway.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#95

Post by jobigoud »

darkwater wrote: post #74
graycat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :/

Not OP but when I have pizza leftovers I also reheat them in a frying pan. It works pretty well :-)

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#96

Post by benj111 »

bfdm wrote: post #60

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…

You don't need to be Walmart sized. Pound shops in the UK routinely do this and have nowhere near the clout Walmart do.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#97

Post by blihp »

refurb wrote: post #62
blihp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As most regulations are around the world - a response to some problem. It’s not unique to the US. Do you have a source for the $/Oz being due to bad behavior? From what I’ve heard it was done purely to address consumer demand.

True enough re: them usually being a response to a problem.

See the 'Background' section on page 11 of https://www.nist.gov/document/sp1181-unit-pricing-guidepdf and more generally https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/laws-and-regul.... So yes, it was done purely to address consumer demand... by way of laws and regulations with producers and retailers under threat of even more onerous laws and regulations.

A contemporary example to hopefully convey the situation back then: if 'right to repair' becomes law at some point, this would also be due to consumer demand. Notice the level of interest companies have in addressing this consumer demand prior to legislation being passed...

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#98

Post by derriz »

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.

This is a Brexit lie based on a superficial change of name - the constitutional basis of the European Union is specified in the 1957 treaty of Rome and the later Maastricht treaty (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome). The treaty of Rome explicitly states that the goal is the creation of a single market for goods, labour, services, and capital. This was the foundation of the union that the UK voted to join by plebiscite in the 1970s. The UK - a representative democracy - also ratified the subsequent Maastricht Treaty by democratically elected parliament. The idea that the British people were somehow subjected to a “bait and switch” con job is simply a fabrication and demonstrates historical ignorance.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#99

Post by dc90 »

petre wrote: post #58
damnyou wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!”

"Now 20% lighter!"
Post reply on HN