How prices changed at a Walmart in a year • Hacker News Board

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#41

Post by corodra » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #30

elhudy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is 55% higher though - from $0.50 to $0.76 per bulb? Garlic doesn't seem like an elastic enough good where $0.25 would make a difference. It's a staple food in almost every American household. With that being said it's sad to hear that so many people purchase Chinese produce.

Why is it sad?

It's sad that food has to travel long distances to be purchased at reasonable prices when it's grown relatively nearby. To put the shoe on a different foot. The Dominican Republic produces a lot of tomatoes. But they lack a lot of the infrastructure and machinery that both the US and Mexico have. Shops there sell Mexico and US tomatoes when there's a tomato field ten or twenty miles away. Those fields truly can't compete on a serious level without specialty importers in the USA. That's the sad part.

The bad part, environmentally, think of all the excess CO2 produced in transport that in reality, doesn't truly need to happen.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#42

Post by mfoy_ » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

corodra wrote: post #41

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it sad?

It's sad that food has to travel long distances to be purchased at reasonable prices when it's grown relatively nearby. To put the shoe on a different foot. The Dominican Republic produces a lot of tomatoes. But they lack a lot of the infrastructure and machinery that both the US and Mexico have. Shops there sell Mexico and US tomatoes when there's a tomato field ten or twenty miles away. Those fields truly can't com…

Similarly my parents live in a rural community and practically everyone grows garlic, but farm-stands have trouble competing with grocery store (read: Chinese) garlic.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#43

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

tom_mellior wrote: post #21

gzu wrote: post #15

Yet somehow our consumer price index shows inflation rising at only 2%

As the article notes, some things like consumer electronics are still getting cheaper.

Which is why they are added when new and expensive - it flatters the real inflation measures and saves governments money longer term.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#44

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

klingonopera wrote: post #24

chrischen wrote: post #3

The goal of the tariffs is to improve the bargaining position of America in getting better trade deals with China... not to move manufacturing back to the US. That might be what’s fed to the average Joe the plumber Trump supporter but common sense easily precludes that motivation. To actually move manufacturing back you’d have to tariff every country with a lower cost of living than the US, and that’s most of the wor…

It's even more likely that China will switch to a higher level of automation and robotics before the West does. They already have the production, and can incrementally adapt and upgrade, whereas in the West, it would have to be (re-)built from the ground-up with intent to directly compete against low-labor markets (though arguably, in some industries this would probably be an advantage), and that would require far mo…

Unlikely they have to keep the working and middle class happy

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#45

Post by ahmedalsudani » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

corodra wrote: post #41

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it sad?

It's sad that food has to travel long distances to be purchased at reasonable prices when it's grown relatively nearby. To put the shoe on a different foot. The Dominican Republic produces a lot of tomatoes. But they lack a lot of the infrastructure and machinery that both the US and Mexico have. Shops there sell Mexico and US tomatoes when there's a tomato field ten or twenty miles away. Those fields truly can't com…

That is why the argument is made for freedom of movement of labour. If you could have cheaper labour in America, you would have the best of both worlds. But of course you’d have people complaining their jobs are being stolen.

We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#46

Post by droithomme » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #11

d--b wrote: post #7

the cart doesn't make sense, it's too small and has too specific things in it. cod filet are pricier, shrimps are way cheaper. Great.

> To create NPR's basket, we consulted the lists from 2018 of tariffs the White House imposed on imports from China, but also Mexico and Canada — as well as China's retaliatory tariffs on U.S.-made products. The products were picked not to represent an average shopping cart at Walmart (because we already do that and it’s called the CPI), but to specifically target items which they thought would be hardest hit by tari…

> but to specifically target items which they thought would be hardest hit by tariffs

In that case we can draw some conclusions. Even trying to game the basket, most of the items either stayed the same price or went down. So the effect of tariffs on prices appears to be negligible.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#47

Post by corodra » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #45

corodra wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad that food has to travel long distances to be purchased at reasonable prices when it's grown relatively nearby. To put the shoe on a different foot. The Dominican Republic produces a lot of tomatoes. But they lack a lot of the infrastructure and machinery that both the US and Mexico have. Shops there sell Mexico and US tomatoes when there's a tomato field ten or twenty miles away. Those fields truly can't com…

That is why the argument is made for freedom of movement of labour. If you could have cheaper labour in America, you would have the best of both worlds. But of course you’d have people complaining their jobs are being stolen. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

I don't know, I think that's only partially the problem. But just so we're clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there are other factors. Mostly, I think it's the way distributors and retailers form their contract deals, which spills to the farmers. I've never done food, but I know some of the deals work similarly to what I experienced in security. Camera manufacturers for example, give you a discounted price when you buy a certain amount every year. The more you sell, the better your discount. Typically 3 tiers, some did 4. This is both good and bad. It protects the loyal and well experienced integrators from the fly by night folks from making quick turn and burn dollars. Fly by night folks get lower margins compared to the bigger guys. But at the same time, it makes it a serious pain in the ass to get a foot in the door when starting out. On top of that, if you're a middle of the field player, you don't take too much risk in a new or alternative brand because it'll hurt your yearly number, thus hurt your discount, thus hurt your margins, thus hurt your overall profit. I assume big box grocery stores have a similar instance with distributors, with nuances of course.

Part 2. There are farmer markets (real ones, not the hipster kind) with local farmers and it's a good 20%-50% cheaper. Plus, those farmers make a better margin. Problem, lower volume in comparison. Typically (near me) these are part of the weekly flea markets or literally a dude in his pickup truck on the side of the road. These places don't have a good... PR look. But I'm also in Florida and I grew up white trash. Nearly everything grows here and I'm fine if things aren't pristine/well-marketed.

I think over marketing, bad lock in deals and piss poor public perception of real food production are the main problems. Real strawberries look like Frankenstein's face. And they're fucking delicious.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#48

Post by corodra » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

mfoy_ wrote: post #42

corodra wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad that food has to travel long distances to be purchased at reasonable prices when it's grown relatively nearby. To put the shoe on a different foot. The Dominican Republic produces a lot of tomatoes. But they lack a lot of the infrastructure and machinery that both the US and Mexico have. Shops there sell Mexico and US tomatoes when there's a tomato field ten or twenty miles away. Those fields truly can't com…

Similarly my parents live in a rural community and practically everyone grows garlic, but farm-stands have trouble competing with grocery store (read: Chinese) garlic.

Florida has a fuckton of strawberry fields. I'm about 1-3 counties away from the major producers. In major grocery chains around me, it's all California and Mexico strawberries. You have no idea how angry that makes me.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#49

Post by lonelappde » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

tom_mellior wrote: post #21

gzu wrote: post #15

Yet somehow our consumer price index shows inflation rising at only 2%

As the article notes, some things like consumer electronics are still getting cheaper.

This is the evil of fiscal policy. Inflation is targeted not at 2%, but 2% plus erasing all the non-fiscal economoc gains of improved technology.

Re: How prices changed at a Walmart in a year

#50

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Sep 16, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #49

tom_mellior wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article notes, some things like consumer electronics are still getting cheaper.

This is the evil of fiscal policy. Inflation is targeted not at 2%, but 2% plus erasing all the non-fiscal economoc gains of improved technology.

> This is the evil of fiscal policy. Inflation is targeted not at 2%, but 2% plus erasing all the non-fiscal economoc gains of improved technology.

This is a very confused comment. The part that's coherent enough to clearly identify what is wrong is that it refers to “fiscal policy” when it means “monetary policy”, which is the policy targeted at particular inflation rates. But even aside from that, the whole claim is incoherent.