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

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#101

Post by Shaanie » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:16 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...

Which other countries are you talking about? European countries are, afaik, required to show a comparison price. I'm more surprised there are developed countries that do not require it.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#102

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #85

thaumasiotes wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you have time, perusing ingredient lists for products at the grocery store is fascinating. I got in the habit trying to avoid palm oil, but there's all kinds of surprises in there. Not in the "I'm shocked there are chemicals in my food" way. But just in the transparent differences in formulation by weight. Check out marinades / BBQ sauces and baked beans.

In the case of the strong flavors I mentioned, I think it's appropriate. They headline the label because that's what the food tastes like. It just doesn't take much peppermint oil to create a really strong flavor.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#103

Post by itnlfal » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:23 AM UTC

jfoster wrote: post #46

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…

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?

Future planning heavily depends on deciphering trends.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#104

Post by drchewbacca » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

thinkloop wrote: post #92

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.

I agree. I think also there's problems with how GDP is calculated.

If everyone who used spotify was paying 79p per track you would see massive economic growth in the music sector. However because it's an all inclusive streaming service not a huge amount more money is moving through it.

However as a consumer I am getting 1000x more music now than when I was 15yrs old. That doesn't seem to get recorded though.

So much stuff on the internet (like stack overflow or github) has gargantuan economic value but doesn't figure in GDP stats because it's mostly free.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#105

Post by frabert » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #87

lrem wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In Australia the misleading part is what's actually weighed. The price per kg for canned beans doesn't help when 400g supermarket brand is 280g beans, 120g water. :( But on average, with pretty much everything else, it works just fine.

In Italy, canned foods must display a "dripped"(?) weight, that is the mass of the contents after the oil/water/whatever has been poured away

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#106

Post by twic » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:33 AM UTC

p_l wrote: post #79

petre wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the European project was really focused on a "beer closer union", it might have been more popular!

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#107

Post by skrebbel » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

Bombthecat wrote: post #88

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 much this! I could swear that cheese in germany adds more and more.. Water or so and taste less and less like cheese..

To be fair, German cheese never tasted much like cheese.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#108

Post by taejo » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:38 AM UTC

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.

As you say the metric system makes it less egregious, but it also happens in the EU that one item will be shown as €/100g and another as €/kg

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#109

Post by TheChaplain » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:38 AM UTC

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.

You should also add that the price label is the final price, i.e. including taxes.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#110

Post by nootka » Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:48 AM UTC

burfog wrote: post #39

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…

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.

Wadding is a sub-optimal wiping technique. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=G.I.%2bbutt%2bwipe&amp=true

That said, the general point of your post still stands.