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

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#121

Post by prepend »

unimployed wrote: post #14
appleiigs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rarely acknowledged by economists and statisticians inside the field. This is complete false. If you ever took an Econ 101 course, you'd know the fallibility of economic stats are covered at length.

Pretty sure you are being sarcastic or you are not all that experienced. Talk at length with most economic professionals on /r/economics and you will find the repeatedly stated and unstated views that “the CPI is the most studied economic measurement in the world” and “you are welcome to perform your own study covering the inadequacies of the CPI.” I paraphrased slightly but from memory those quotes are highly accura…

“the CPI is the most studied economic measurement in the world” and it being fallible are not exclusive.

I had a great Econ 101 professor. He spend quite a few lectures breaking down how much these key stat suck. Then we spent the rest of the time using them for study because that’s what we have.

The key message he drilled into me was that 1) don’t be so certain of your results (or at least don’t sound like an asshole making pronouncements on things) 2) data are expensive to gather and there aren’t many alternatives; don’t ignore them because they have flaws

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#122

Post by nesadi »

benj111 wrote: post #94
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).

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 a…

A lot of stores in Germany do something else, where they'll use the price per 100g for one brand and price per 1kg for another in order to make it just slightly harder to realize how expensive something is at a glance.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#123

Post by [deleted] »

icebraining wrote: post #116
frabert wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#124

Post by hnarn »

derriz wrote: post #120
hnarn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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: “…

Again, you're characterizing me dishonestly, but at least this time you accurately described the situation. You're well aware that you changed the dialogue to make A sound unreasonable, instead of trying to understand why the point made by B could be understood as an unwarranted correction by A. I suggest we leave it at that because we will not agree.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#125

Post by anticensor »

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!”

Not a good news ?!!!

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#126

Post by frabert »

icebraining wrote: post #116
frabert wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No price per gram is displayed, at least in the places I've been to.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#127

Post by null_object »

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.

Interestingly, considering how passionately you’re defending the “in Sweden” part, shops very often circumvent this law by simply folding the piece of paper that displays the comparison price so it’s hidden.

This is extremely widespread, if not totally universal when it comes to really expensive items.

No-one ever seems to care or notice - I often unfold the paper so the price shows again, as it’s one of my pet peeves.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#128

Post by bbrazil »

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

"Dry weight" is what you're thinking of.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#129

Post by realusername »

nesadi wrote: post #122
benj111 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

A lot of stores in Germany do something else, where they'll use the price per 100g for one brand and price per 1kg for another in order to make it just slightly harder to realize how expensive something is at a glance.

I have not seen that in France so I guess using the price per kilo or litre is mandatory.

Re: How shrinkflation is playing havoc with economists’ models

#130

Post by sorenjan »

null_object wrote: post #127
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.

Interestingly, considering how passionately you’re defending the “in Sweden” part, shops very often circumvent this law by simply folding the piece of paper that displays the comparison price so it’s hidden. This is extremely widespread, if not totally universal when it comes to really expensive items. No-one ever seems to care or notice - I often unfold the paper so the price shows again, as it’s one of my pet peeve…

I've never seen this happen, and I look at the price every time I buy groceries.
Post reply on HN