Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shrinkflation Tracker

shrinkflation.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 240 posts

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#161

Post by bumby »

mauvehaus wrote: post #134
bumby wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some toothpaste can be a net-negative, like those with abrasives. It's actually the mechanical aspect of brushing that does most of the hygiene. Frothing and minty taste of toothpaste are mostly marketing. Maybe there's a case for fluoride, but there are other sources like tap water (and that's a whole digression of it's own).

Those of us on well water don't get fluoride in our drinking water.

Hopefully you get it from a dentist visit because unless you use a prescription toothpaste, it probably doesn’t have much effect.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#163

Post by lotsofpulp »

chongli wrote: post #117
lotsofpulp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the point, people eat fewer burgers because they cannot afford more.

This has not worked out so well for other products. I live in Canada where cigarettes are enormously expensive due to taxes. Yet I know people who continue to smoke. They're a lot poorer now, and so they have less money to spend on healthy food. So not only are they destroying their health by smoking, they're stuck eating crappy food as well.

I would not expect a higher price to stop every single person from buying the item immediately, especially not at at a price that is still obviously affordable.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/434150/share-of-canadian...

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#164

Post by vmilner »

jstanley wrote: post #84
switch007 wrote: post #75

Warning: rant about brands The sadistic think about brands is that people are paying for marketing team to continue to lie to them and brainwash them, to convince them to continue buying their products! Media is full of brands - gosh I wonder how they have all that budget for expensive marketing campaigns ! It's so incredibly hard to wean someone off brands. I've been campaigning my family for years, but they still s…

I also find the Lidl Ginger Nut biscuits are vastly superior to the McVities ones, which taste burnt. I don't understand why McVities aren't better.

I bought Lidl Tower Gate Chocolate Digestive Biscuits because of the annoying look-like-mcvities-packaging thing, but they're actually pretty good...

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/14/590x/seconda...

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#165

Post by amelius »

hinkley wrote: post #141

I was just talking today to someone about how they don't like food from a certain global coffee chain anymore because their food has gotten kinda crappy. Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a separate problem? Since they…

> Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella

No we call it just that, enshittification.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#166

Post by amelius »

aequitas wrote: post #153
hinkley wrote: post #141

I was just talking today to someone about how they don't like food from a certain global coffee chain anymore because their food has gotten kinda crappy. Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a separate problem? Since they…

> but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Every time you see a package with “new and improved recipe” you can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper ingredients, not the actual taste.

How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#167

Post by vmilner »

xwdv wrote: post #76

I don’t get it, would people rather pay higher prices up front? A lot of times people don’t even use the entirety of a product they pay for. Shrinkflation can essentially just cut that part out. Even if you eat 100% of something, your brain was probably satiated after eating 80%, the rest is excess. For stuff like candy you won’t notice a missing gummy bear or two. You’ll get the same satisfaction.

When I see perceivable sneakiness, I assume non-perceivable sneakiness is there too. (E.g. Poor product standards, worker abuse)

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#168

Post by krapp »

amelius wrote: post #165
hinkley wrote: post #141

I was just talking today to someone about how they don't like food from a certain global coffee chain anymore because their food has gotten kinda crappy. Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a separate problem? Since they…

> Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella No we call it just that, enshittification.

>No we call it just that, enshittification.

I'll be glad when this juvenile meme finally passes out of Hacker News' system.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#169

Post by prepend »

camhart wrote: post #133
prepend wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t rely on candy. I enjoy it a few times per year. It sucks that Cadbury eggs get smaller and smaller. Not because I need their nutrients to survive.

Did they get smaller or just fewer in the pack?

The eggs got smaller. BJ Novak did the research, https://youtu.be/TlXLCrzpToo?si=0i6G9NFSbr9aKiaN

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#170

Post by shaftoe »

amelius wrote: post #166
aequitas wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Every time you see a package with “new and improved recipe” you can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper ingredients, not the actual taste.

How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s

Actually, free markets do lead to better products. But they cost more than the worse products.

Look at coffee. The gradual shift from Arabica to more Robusta beans over a generation. Each year, an imperceptible shift was taken that, over decades, lead to coffee that tastes terrible. Opening the door for companies like Starbucks and a ton of gourmet roasters to compete.

But properly roasted, single origin coffee costs more than Chock-full-o'nuts. So you have options.

Post reply on HN