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

111–120 of 174 posts

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#111

Post by DrJokepu »

abtinf wrote: post #82
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.

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

Nine states have mandatory unit pricing laws: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. Also DC.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#112

Post by hnarn »

derriz wrote: post #91
hnarn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels”

1. This is a dishonest comparison, because cars have 4 wheels by definition, while price labeling is very much differentiated across the globe.

2. Even if Sweden was one of only five countries in the world where cars have 4 wheels, saying "in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels" is still not the same thing as saying "Sweden is special, we have cars with four wheels, I bet no other countries do". The fact that you interpret it more as the latter says more about your own bias than what is stated in the text.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#113

Post by hnarn »

TheChaplain wrote: post #109
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.

You're right, that always confused me when visiting the U.S. But yes, the price advertised is always the price you pay. This also goes for the deposit fee on bottles and other return items.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#114

Post by hnarn »

taejo wrote: post #108
pikma wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> it also happens in the EU that one item will be shown as €/100g and another as €/kg

In my experience this difference is decided by what a "normal" amount of the good tends to be. For example, €/kg is usually used for meat, flour etc, but for something like spices or herbs a price of €/kg would seem silly since you rarely buy, and it's rarely sold in, a kilo. Still, a luxury of the metric system is that even if it's listed as €/100g, all you have to do is multiply by ten (aka move the decimal one step).

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#115

Post by Farradfahren »

nabla9 wrote: post #72
VHRanger wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not trying to sound spitefull - but has economics actually progressed to the stage where they make predictions and if failing to fullfill them, declare there theory as dis-proofen?

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#116

Post by icebraining »

frabert wrote: post #105
viraptor wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, but is the dripped weight the one being shown on the price per gram display?

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#117

Post by thinkloop »

drchewbacca wrote: post #104
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…

> So much stuff on the internet (like stack overflow or github) has gargantuan economic value

I'm not so sure about that. Yes they are conduits to massive value, but that value is coming from us, not them. If they were to close down, equally good replacements would be (are) available immediately.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#118

Post by walshemj »

hnarn wrote: post #114
taejo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> it also happens in the EU that one item will be shown as €/100g and another as €/kg In my experience this difference is decided by what a "normal" amount of the good tends to be. For example, €/kg is usually used for meat, flour etc, but for something like spices or herbs a price of €/kg would seem silly since you rarely buy, and it's rarely sold in, a kilo. Still, a luxury of the metric system is that even if it's…

in the UK I have seen products in the same category next to each other on the shelves use different units.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#119

Post by eyeball »

mikepurvis wrote: post #18
gnicholas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Consumerist (RIP) used to run a great series called the "grocery shrink ray" where they would call out these changes: https://consumerist.com/tag/shrink-ray/

Damn. I didn’t know consumerist had been wiped out. Bought by consumer reports?

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#120

Post by derriz »

hnarn wrote: post #112
derriz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you had claimed “in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels” 1. This is a dishonest comparison, because cars have 4 wheels by definition, while price labeling is very much differentiated across the globe. 2. Even if Sweden was one of only five countries in the world where cars have 4 wheels, saying "in Sweden, cars have 4 wheels" is still not the same thing as saying "Sweden is special, we have cars with four wheels, I bet n…

I’m being dishonest? It was an example to illustrate a simple point which has nothing to do with Sweden. Your 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote and I’ve no idea how you inferred those claims unless you’re angry or upset.

Let me try one last time with an example. In this exchange, which party is being unreasonable; A: “in Switzerland, you have to pay for plastic bags in supermarkets”... B: “it’s the same in many other countries”... A: I NEVER CLAIMED SWITZERLAND WAS SPECIAL!!!

Post reply on HN