Shrinkflation...

[Yaworski]

Side helpings Used to be ok but looks like they used an ice cream scoop for cold slaw and just spatula of fries but still outstanding. Don't eat out often.

I love coleslaw but restaurants give you just a tiny dollop of the stuff. Green beans? They'll fill the plate with them. Red Robin used to have bottomless fries and coleslaw but they got rid of the slaw. I don't go there anymore.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Got those went to Walmart and got the Bolillo Blues.
Its a roll from Mexico. They apparently got it from the French.
It's an in house Walmart product, and it's about half the size of what it used to be! Bought 2 for 97 cents.
Still good but Small!

'It is a variation of the baguette, but shorter in length and is often baked in a stone oven. Brought to Mexico City in the 1860s by Emperor Maximilian's troupe of cooks, its use quickly spread throughout the country.'

 

[mrchick]

Even magazines are shrinking. The one on top is narrower and 50 pages versus 84 pages. Might have to reconsider my next renewal.

 

[A10]

Funny how nobody says, "Awe 'member when Awe got paid $1.50 per hour. Themsh wuz the daysh..."

I do.....they were.....

 

[steelslaver]

Agree, my two cents... I suspect we will be seeing more shrinkflation is the future if congress keeps spending like they've been doing since the start of this decade and devaluing our dollar.

As far as debit spending goes the congress and administration last 3 years have only kept up with the rate of the congress and administration of the previous 4 and this one and the previous one come in at 1 1/2 times the rate which the previous 8 saddled us with.

It hasn't been one of them, it has been ALL OF THEM

National debt
2008 $10,025
2012 $16,066. 6 trillion
2016 $19,573 3.5 trillion
2020 $26,945 6.4 trillion
2023 $33,167 6 trillion

 

[chief38]

Shrinkflation has been going on forever! Yes, it has gotten worse in the last 3 years but coffee containers, soda, and packaging of many items have always exhibited this phenomenon. Just a few years ago Costco sold a 15 bottle case of Seltza for $6.79. The price is still the same but now there are only 12 bottles. Many other examples exist as well!!

 

[Racer X]

I call comlpete B$ on shrinkflation. Just look at corporate profits as they increase, while we get less product for the same or higher price. They charge more for less because they can. It's that simple. If their profits weren't up after the change, it would appear they had to do it to stay in business. When profits rise, it wasn't because overhead had increased and the price/product amount had to adjust to keep pace with "inflation"

 

[Yaworski]

They charge more for less because they can.

That's always true but "shrinkflation" is holding the price stable and decreasing the size of the product. Shoppers are price sensitive and not sensitive to quantity.

Raising the price and keeping the quantity the same will generate a backlash and push shoppers to a competing product.

However, if I shrink the 1 lb package of hot dogs to 15 ounces and leave the price the same, most shoppers won't notice. Save that 1 ounce on 100,000 packages of hot dogs and that's over 6,000 extra packages of hot dogs and the consumer is none the wiser.

 

[coltle6920]

Since none of us are CFO's of a major corporation you'll have to decide for yourselves if what I say makes sense or not.

Corporations operate on a margin of profitability. When costs go up the price goes up but that "margin" usually remains constant. You see their profits go up and complain without seeing that their costs also went up.

Companies can keep that same margin of profitability by either raising the final price or eating the cost and shrinking the product size. Either way nothing changes for the company.

You on the other hand feel you are being cheated. You resent paying the same price for less product but also don't like paying more than you paid before.

Our Government would suggest that companies should absorb the cost increases and be charitable to we the end consumer. Those companies wouldn't survive if they operated that way for long. As an example I offer how Walmart operates. Walmart demands that their suppliers absorb any cost increases or their business deal is terminated.

You don't have to accept my explanation. You just have to decide if paying the same for a little less is better than paying more for the same. At least one thing remains constant. If a company advertises something by weight it can't be changed. A pound of coffee will always be a pound.

 

[SmithNut]

Times are tough all over....

Last week I saw a Pimp driving a Volkswagen.....

 

[Rustyt1953]

The business of business is business.

Same as it ever was.

 

[Yaworski]

The business of business is business.

Same as it ever was.

Very true. A company's mission is not to produce product or provide jobs, it is to make money for the owners.

 

[coltle6920]

Very true. A company's mission is not to produce product or provide jobs, it is to make money for the owners.

Okay, I read this several times and still can't make sense of it. How does a Company not actually produce anything but still make money for themselves?

Oh,Wait! My bad. I heard there is company in D.C. consisting of 535 owners that do nothing and still manage to get richer every day.

 

[steelslaver]

Since none of us are CFO's of a major corporation you'll have to decide for yourselves if what I say makes sense or not.

Corporations operate on a margin of profitability. When costs go up the price goes up but that "margin" usually remains constant. You see their profits go up and complain without seeing that their costs also went up.

Companies can keep that same margin of profitability by either raising the final price or eating the cost and shrinking the product size. Either way nothing changes for the company.

You on the other hand feel you are being cheated. You resent paying the same price for less product but also don't like paying more than you paid before.

Our Government would suggest that companies should absorb the cost increases and be charitable to we the end consumer. Those companies wouldn't survive if they operated that way for long. As an example I offer how Walmart operates. Walmart demands that their suppliers absorb any cost increases or their business deal is terminated.

You don't have to accept my explanation. You just have to decide if paying the same for a little less is better than paying more for the same. At least one thing remains constant. If a company advertises something by weight it can't be changed. A pound of coffee will always be a pound.

While that is somewhat true the driving forces of inflation is the increase in the money supply due to debt decreasing the value of the money already in existence. Nation debt is created by the government and the elections of those in office is financed by those at the top NOT those at the bottom.

While I am not a redistribute the wealth fan the INCREASED flow of wealth to the top has got to stop.

Currently the top 1% have 31% of wealth and the bottom 50% just 3%, those between 90-99% own another 36% and those between 50-90 have 31%

30 years ago the top 1% had 23% those between 50-90% had 36% and the bottom 50% had 4%

In the 1960s the top 1% had about 15% of all wealth and the rest was also far more equally distributed.

Who do you think finances those 10 million per candidate campaigns for congressional seats, those with the 3% or those with the 31%?

Yes house hold income is up, but actual purchasing power after inflation AND THE INCREASED TAXES due to higher tax rates on INFLATED wages, is not


You can not have a healthy country when half the country is getting poorer and poorer while the top 1% get richer. History proves that "Let them eat cake" never works out well. Telling the public to eat more cereal isn't any better.

 

[cmj8591]

You can not have a healthy country when half the country is getting poorer and poorer while the top 1% get richer. History proves that "Let them eat cake" never works out well. Telling the public to eat more cereal isn't any better.

The problem with your observation is that the top 1% also create wealth. That 1% contributes about 25% of taxes collected and are responsible for creating most of the jobs in our free enterprise economy. The reason that more and more people are, or at least seem, to be getting poorer is that more of them have left the workforce and become dependent on the government for their well being. This is being done by design to keep a certain segment of politics in control. Government programs have become the new slavery. The other thing is that 100 years ago, when most of the wealth was actually held by that 1%, your theory might have had more traction but now most of that 1% wealth, or at least the wealth generated by that segment is in the hands of a wider group of the population. Think 401k's and the fact that most of the wealth in the US is publicly held. The whole 1% argument comes right out of The Communist Manifesto but in historical context, really hasn't held up very well in practice. These day it generally gets thrown around to whip the working class into a frenzy to get them to go along with a certain political agenda. A lot of my union friends like to throw that 1% argument around but what it usually comes down to is that they didn't have the foresight or discipline to take advantage of the investment opportunities that came from that 1%.

 

[Yaworski]

The reason that more and more people are, or at least seem, to be getting poorer is that more of them have left the workforce and become dependent on the government for their well being.

People are also being far stupider with their money than they were in years past, especially those who are income challenged. If you can't afford to fix your car, maybe the latest iPhone should wait.

 

[LVSteve]

People are also being far stupider with their money than they were in years past, especially those who are income challenged. If you can't afford to fix your car, maybe the latest iPhone should wait.

Yep, too much FOMO for their income is a common disease. Too many think it's a smart idea to buy a $55k truck on a 84 month loan when they make $45k. Good luck telling them to buy used, or get a better family vehicle like a crossover SUV or minivan. If you're lucky you'll only get the stink eye.

I have zero sympathy for somebody being interviewed about the cost of feeding their kids when school is out when in the background is a 75" TV and three rottweilers jumping around the room.

 

[steelslaver]

While that explains some of them it does not explain the majority of the 160 million in the lower 50% or truck sales would be through the roof. IF the the top 1% are providing the jobs they certainly have not provide enough that are not minimum wage. You need to be making about 40K to get out of the bottom 50% that's about $20 an hour.

Some one explain to me how you pay rent, own a car.pay insurance on it and feed yourself on $20 an hour after taxes,medical insurance. deductions.

In the poorest state in the nation, Mississippi it takes $46,000 to make a "living wage"

The top 1% off WAGE earners take home 21% of all wages. I doubt many of us here made it. You need to knock down $820,000 in WAGES not investments to make it. Thats around $400 an hour on a 40 hour week. I just finished a job working for $75 an hour and for each 84 hour weeks I made $7,650 pre tax. IF I could do it 52 weeks a year I wouldn't make 1/2 off what the top 1% of wage earners make

 

[ladder13]

Everyone gets $500 an hour, that solves everything.

 

[Yaworski]

IF the the top 1% are providing the jobs they certainly have not provide enough that are not minimum wage.

That's because all the good jobs in the manufacturing sector have been sent overseas. Why? Companies want higher profit margins and people want cheaper goods.

I sell large appliances (sad but someone has to do it). Everyday, listen to people whine about how their new appliances don't last and how expensive everything is. I've taken to pulling out ads from the 80s and showing them that appliances aren't that expensive today and that's why they don't last. A side-by-side refrigerator with water and ice dispenser was about $1,300 ($3,800 in 2024 dollars) in the mid 80s. Today, one is about $1,500. What had to give to keep the price that low?

Oddly these same people who complain about the price of appliances are willing to spend $1,000 on a new phone or a Luis Vuitton purse.