Consumers are increasingly pushing back against price increases – and winning
thegrio.com
thegrio.com
> In grocery stores, they’re shifting away from name brands to store-brand items, switching to discount stores or simply buying fewer items like snacks or gourmet foods.
Like everything must be a war between two sides. It can’t simply be the most basic economic concept at work.
On the other hand, I’m equally surprised at how few people seem to understand supply and demand has influence on prices. I watched as some family members complained loudly about how concert prices were outrageous and unaffordable for the average person like them, then went right on ahead and then bought the tickets they wanted anyway. They didn’t understand that people’s willingness to pay uncomfortably high prices was the entire reason tickets were so expensive.
I watched the same thing happen at the grocery store earlier where a couple picked up a package of steaks, lamented that it was going to cost them X hours of work, and then threw them in the basket anyway. It’s like large parts of the population are on purchasing autopilot and the price barely matters.
I think it speaks volumes to how high our standard of living has been if we think that it’s newsworthy that some people are switching to store-brand foods or buying fewer gourmet food items (quoted from the article above). Of course, the people suffering the most are the ones who have had to buy store brand foods and avoid gourmet luxuries long before inflation kicked in.
It's a bummer because I want to know about what people enjoy, like, not what they hate or dislike. So often it is the latter. I somewhat blame social media as outrage and anger gets more engagement than anything else it seems and folks seem conditioned to express that more often than something ... nicer.
When you're a kid it's blue toy aisle versus pink toy aisle. SEGA (blue logo / mascot) — or I guess Playstation these days — versus Nintendo (red logo / mascot). Coke versus Pepsi.
As we reach adulthood we're primed for duality in a way that makes us think we must choose one way or the other when presented some choice we didn't even ask for. Do I shop at Walmart, or Target? Do I vote Democrat, or Republican? Do I watch CNN, or Fox? Do I use iPhone, or Android? Do I take the Blue Pill, or the Red Pill? By the time one has been coerced into the decision they've already lost. The only winning move is not to play :)
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
The reason I say numbers vary is because the chart at the top of this article paints a different story (that more than 50% do not vote)
What are they supposed to do? Meat is generally considered an inelastic good [1] unlike your concert example.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
Also let's not judge the shoppers in the original comment. Maybe they wanted it for a special occasion which made it less optional.
That people consider meat an inelastic good shows a cultural and commercial brainwashing. The idea that an individual or family could go without meat is practically heresy in the United States. Frankly, it's ridiculous and shows a fundamental lack of imagination and willingness to accept that reality doesn't guarantee anyone's ability to acquire cheap hamburger, chicken breasts, bacon, or any other meat.
People do notice changes, however, even if they don’t contextualize them correctly all the time.
I wouldn't call it an actual trend unless it falls outside the typical range and stays there for more than a few years.
It sounds like the alternative you propose would involve... not having a ticket? That is clearly not an acceptable outcome if I want to go to the concert.
A lot of people just don't get it: Tickets for major sporting events and concerts are luxuries for the rich, exactly like private jets. They are supposed to be unaffordable. I don’t know where this idea came from that a middle class family is supposed to just be able to afford live Taylor Swift tickets. This isn’t 1970.
If artists price them below what they are worth, they are going to sell out to (mostly) scalpers in 200 milliseconds. If they price them at what they're worth, people grumble and complain about how expensive they have gotten, but that doesn't stop people from buying them, so there is no downward pressure on the price.
So by now they're pricing them way more than they are worth, and people are buying it regardless, so there's still further upside :\
I want concert tickets to cost more; I hate scalpers more than I hate the rich.
Yeah, I remember when Led Zeppelin first came to my town.
All the way from England.
It wasn't 1970 yet either.
That was two dollars well spent.
Or find a free concert to go to. There’s always free music performances to be found if you know where to look.
Someone like Taylor Swift has hundreds of millions of fans. There are what, maybe 50-100 tour dates a year.
The venue doesn't have a million seats.
Most of the fans aren't going, then.
I suspect this is coming for many thing that AI will automate. In the future rich people will have human performers performing for them only while everyone else has to make do with AI generated slop.
Here in the US, now though? There are huge swathes of people who will say, with all seriousness, "I'd rather be dead than be friends with a liberal/etc." It's so polarized. Not just teasing/smart ass as outright abusive labeling.
this is something I found weird about how inflation was politicized.
One group said “its corporations being greedy, exclusively!” another group said “its the stimulus money in everyone’s hands, exclusively!”, centrists would say “supply chain disruptions!”
but…. capital misallocations are expected in any economic school of thinking? this means all of those politicized scapegoats are expected factors?
the part nobody wants to hear is that if you still begrudgingly bought overpriced necessities instead of starving to death in the street, then yes, you contributed to inflation. congratulations.
if corporations raised their prices and profits stayed the same, that would be the most equalized outcome.
if profits went down then there would be a case for attempting greed and failing, and if it was for withholding a necessity that would be a real case worth scrutiny!
but since they raised prices and profits went up, despite that combination being what really pissed people off the most, it means that the buyers … had more money… from… somewhere. hmmm….
But about those savings: nothing about our economy is about rewarding savers, every single aspect of monetary and fiscal policy is to promote transactions in the economy
If not to another person for consumptive reasons, they want savings to go into assets
If you want to save in its currency the governments will tax you the most, up to 55% if you’re self employed anywhere Americans have a 1/3rd chance of living
If you do what the government is pointing at with big blaring neon signs, you’ll often get taxed 0% and be paid a tax rebate for doing do.
Because saving is not stuffing money under a mattress, it is investing it for a presumed return. And many major voting blocks benefit by hitting the presumed returns, which happens by promoting transactions.
I mean even as recently as last month you have politicians on the right saying that people are even now "hoarding" stimulus checks, or are still living large on them.
$3,600. In 2020. That's a generous definition of hoarding. And an extremely generous definition of "living large".
the PPP loans along side amplified unemployment benefits were far longer running
in California, Covid unemployment was $450/week with an additional $600/week on top, and it lasted 18 months statewide
the reality isn't as political as it masquerades as, there are and were capital misallocations as a result of these broad programs
I've seen it when I've written tweets, write it dramatically, engagement everywhere, write it with nuance, nobody engages.
Whenever this comes up about athletes and musicians, I say the same thing. I’ve watched friends lament how much money quarterbacks get compared to “heroes” aka police officers, military, firefighters, etc… yet vote against tax increases and buy sports jerseys.
I used to think the shopping mall full of zombies in Dawn of the Dead was just a hamfisted critique of consumerism. But after all the complaining and not much doing I see Americans doing I think if you reanimated our corpses they would mostly go right back to shopping in a literal sense.
See grocery stores where 30% price increases in perishable goods lead to items sitting on the shelf until near expiry, then going "on sale" close to the original price. Over time, higher list prices are slowly reduced, in search of an optimal price to maximize revenue.
This manipulation only works when there are no defectors in the pricing cartel, otherwise non-gouging producers happily accept new customers and market share that may never return to producers enamored with algorithmic discovery of price-vs-demand curves.
What software is being used for revenue management of perishable food products? Are the algorithms similar to the software used to manage sales of perishable airline seats and "unbundling" of related benefits like seating and baggage? In a cyberpunk novel, consumers would wield OSS price discovery.
0: https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@badlogic/111071396799790275
It should be possible to adapt the OSS code to North American grocery supply chains, https://github.com/badlogic/heissepreise
Yet the profit margins of the biggest grocery stores (Walmart/Kroger/Costco/Albertsons/etc) remain at 2%-3%, as they always have.
So there is no “greed”, just higher expenses, or there is massive fraud in the US’s financial sector.
Edit: to reply to below comment due to posting limit.
Kraft profit margin (11%, which was ~10% 15 years ago):
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/KHC/kraft-heinz/pr...
ADM (4.3%, which was ~3% for years before):
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ADM/archer-daniels...
Bunge (3.77%, not increased compared to history):
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BG/bunge-global-sa...
The point is, complaining about greed in food businesses when they are historically low profit margin businesses, and still are for the most part (search Tyson/pilgrim/Hormel for meat, and other categories for similar profit margin trends) does not make much sense to me.
These are high labor, high liability, and low ability to scale businesses. It’s mostly their costs rising due to increased labor prices that causes price increases, and one you would expect with less and less poorer working age people in the world at the very bottom end.
I would reserve the term “greed” for software businesses with infinite scalability that not only deliver 20%+ profit margins year after year, but growth on top of that.
Apologies for the imprecise statement, "Greedflation visible in grocery stores" would have been better. With the possible exception of grocery house brands, greedflated pricing was mostly set by grocery suppliers. As TFA noted, some grocery house brands have gained customers due to competitive pricing against branded suppliers.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/07/greedflatio...
> food and commodities businesses Kraft Heinz, Archer-Daniels-Midland and Bunge all saw their profits far outpace inflation ... Four food companies – the listed suppliers Archer-Daniels-Midland and Bunge, plus the privately owned Cargill and Dreyfus – control an estimated 70%–90% of the world grain market.
Edit: thanks for the 3 data points. Will look for further analysis, beyond the 1350 companies in the study linked above. My only counterpoint is that grocery house brands and profit margins have been relatively stable, while some branded competitors have spiked prices. In theory, all should be subject to comparable labor and energy cost changes. I have also seen spiked prices inching back downwards on some groceries, in series with varying discounts, implying demand testing.
Hey wait a minute, that's the kind of returns I like to do with a regular business, and I'm as non-greedy a non-consumer non-capitalist as you probably will find.
I'm just a plain entrepreneur by nature, and a respectable return is always a worthwhile target.
Software businesses can do way better than that, absolutely no greed should be necessary. And when greed does pop up (prevail?) it's so disgraceful.
When you do the math over the long run, the amount of upside is drastically limited by the presence of greed.
The cash-flow sharks will circle ominously, but seldom bite groceries when there are fat things like real estate and pure financial operations with a much sweeter underbelly.
Let's say that you used to eat 10 units of grains ($1 each) and 5 units of beef ($5 each), for total spending of $35.
Let's now say that prices doubled (grains $2, beef $10).
You can't afford $70, so you adjust your consumption patterns and replace 2 units of beef with 2 units of grain (cutting your beef consumption in half).
We have now replicated the graph that Krugman so proudly showed off.
"Food at home" prices are "only" up ~25%.
Paraphrased and copy-pasted from here: https://twitter.com/MorlockP/status/1761782081351196814
1. What survey are you talking about? It's certainly not mentioned in the OP, and I don't have a twitter account so I can't see the prior tweets.
2. It feels incredibly suspect to paint "economists" as using this particular methodology, when "inflation" is usually synonymous with "CPI", and that uses a fixed basket. In fact your linked tweet even admits this.
Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning.
When you do the math, it's a little too late now, the currency has lost more face value than the "anecdotes".
It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals.
And that's when the economists have a truly neutral agenda.
Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Sometimes the most accurate data is recorded but it's so sensitive that it's not the least bit available, so might as well not have been recorded anyway.
Edit: not my downvote, I understand where you're coming from.
For much of the 2000s and 2010s, people thought crime was on the way up, despite statistics that say otherwise. Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes.
>It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals.
Examples of those "situations"?
And you don't think there might be some fundamental differences between crime rates and grocery prices?
Like, perhaps, the fact that every household has to buy groceries all the time, and is likely to get some kind of a feel for how the prices are fluctuating, while to most people, crime rates are primarily observable by what the media reports, not by any objective criteria? And even then, they're unlikely to be particularly connected to those numbers, since they have very little direct impact on how most families live their lives, so it's easy to have an incorrect impression and just let that persist despite years of actual evidence to the contrary (that they never have to directly interact with)?
That is a worthwhile consideration.
I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to perfectly describe reality.
For example let's go full anecdata, and go big why not? But no random choice. This is groceries, how about the biggest?
Wal-Mart is one of those companies I have studied structurally for decades, since the time their approach was limited to expansion only using small stores in relatively rural areas nationwide where they really did sell for less before building the strength to arrive at their first "superstore" in a "big city".
Back in 1982 my buddy was a manager in one of those small stores in a small industrial town and they were quite frugal. But they already had the most advanced computerized operation of anybody by far, fully networked and an envy of anyone wanting a distributed retail operation today. Sears and K-Mart didn't even come close, even up until the end. It was very interesting to find out how it was to be bussed to Bentonville, Arkansas every year to personally meet with Walton and be empowered by Sam to go back home and "do your best, we're behind you 100%".
Turns out when I had later moved to an industrial suburb of a big city, that's where Wal-Mart decided to build their first superstore.
The one where they first started selling, you know, groceries.
Most people know now they are the biggest, but you gotta start somewhere. Who knew if it was going to last.
It was quite experimental at first, and has gotten less so every year, I still go to the same store whenever I can. Very consistent Wal-Mart shopper, more so than most with nothing to be embarrassed about. Remember when they were first selling guitars? It was no coincidence they had a $100 model.
Anyway there is a difference between a 97 cent item and a $1.00 item, but its' not just the 3 cent difference, which is not functionally part of the equation since it has already been figured in in advance. Even though it is only about a 3% margin, it's groceries and there have been centuries to go as low as you can go, and no lower.
Lots of these items are produced in close partnership with suppliers when Wal-Mart makes a deal for them to scale up and supply all stores if the manufacturer can meet the price target Wal-Mart requires. These 97 and $1 items are both "one dollar items" with slightly different terms.
And they stayed that way, as designed for the duration of the bonanza-for-billionaires' ZIRP era.
There are lots of $2, $3 and much more price-target merchandise, and Wal-Mart is (was) the king of "rollbacks".
They don't mention that word any more these days, but I have seen a rare rollback or two in a store since covid which could give support to the idea that Wal-Mart is accurately taking the pulse of the consumer situation as good as could be accomplished right now.
In my observation the $1-target products stayed the same for only 6 months after increasing costs ruined everything people had been counting on for most of the 21st century. Then jumped to $1.24 to reflect a late start into an undeniable 12% effective overall dollar inflation, with allowance to avoid another price increase unless the inflation rate changes much or lasts longer than two years. "$2 items" went to $2.48, etc.
And that's just a "single point" of nothing other than one person's pure anecdata.
So in essence I'm trusting the Wal-Mart economists whoever they are, more than anyone else. They seem to have done OK so far.
And I'm a below-average observer myself, I don't get out nearly as much as I should ;)
Off the top of my head example: shrinkflation. Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down.
The BLS is well aware of this and it's already factored into CPI calculations.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...
There are clues all over but this page has some good info itself:
https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/His...
It could even be at the point where BLS misindication, and shrinkflation's misrepresentation, are symptoms of the same disfunction to the same degree.
Will I share them with you to prove all this? Hell no.
I bet it would be delicious ;)
But no need, as shown in my other comments an accurate bit of anecdata can be revealing enough for me, and there's no reason to hesitate accepting this as the real hard-core record-keeping-based measurement of grocery cost beyond which most people are doing.
I don't doubt the accuracy of the ~30% decline in purchasing power but what can not really be pinpointed is time, like how long it took for double-digit dollar inflation to be reached before it was reflected in your documentation.
My closest guess is 30% over 2 years so about a 15% yearly rate is what you've had I would estimate.
Otherwise, there is fruit (not juice), yogurt, vegetables, cheeses, whole grain bread, avocados, milk, soy milk, lentils, nuts, oatmeal etc.
> Pancakes, French toast, waffles, donuts, crepes,
I couldn’t fathom giving any of these to my kids on a regular basis (nor did I get them). The food traditions my parents came from was
So much is geared toward uber-consumers who have way more funds that can be considered disposable.
i found the same title at Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/inflation-consumers-price-gouging...
> And in a March 2023 research paper, the economist Isabella Weber at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, referred to it as “seller’s inflation.”
...which links to this absolute must read paper[1].
The current state of food processing allows for way too much adulteration, even in the simple foods.
Even yesterday I discovered that there is high quality pasta and low quality. The high quality pasta is made with seminola wheat. And on the lower quality one you get wha it's called "durum wheat (seminola)". Same name, but different processing. Th difference in quality is staggering.
Is this supposed to be comedy? Most people did not become more well off during the early years of the pandemic.
I wish we could exercise the same choice (branded vs generic) in the ISP utility we chose to pay for. For me it's either 56k or Comcast cable. I'm on the same comcast plan as I signed up for in 2012 (80/5 for $78/mo total with modem rental then) and it's not only gone up in price by over 1/3 but the service has decreased in quality too. When I signed up I had unlimited data transfer. Now I'm repeatedly paying $10/50GB "overage fees" on my 1.2 TB/mo allowed data transfer. And my speed has not increased at all, still 80/5. Only now I pay $106/mo (w/modem rental).
You could argue internet is not essential to live like food. It really isn't. But it sure is hard to live without.
If you aren't using your own modem it is usually worth adding unlimited data if you are repeatedly going over your cap.
It's normally $30/month, but if you rent their modem it is only $10/month more to add unlimited [1].
[1] https://www.xfinity.com/learn/internet-service/xfi-complete
Is the modem collecting data? Are they hoping you'll use their streaming service and then gouge you later once you are addicted?
It can't just be that they give you unlimited bandwidth just to get you to pay a bit more for their modem. They could make so much more money by just charging for the 50GB like what OP pays.
I set Netflix to a lower resolution to save on bandwidth. As a secondary effect I don't think I ever go over 250GB per month, even downloading games, datasets, etc.
Those streaming services should take a lesson or two on video encoding from the scene people.
Video/audio media is only a healthy fraction of my data transfer though. Most is participating in p2p networks like tor and i2p, hosting my website from home, torrenting, downloading large language models, and other random stuff.
One person leaving a twitch stream on during working hours would use up more than half that budget.
> and at only 80MB/sec
1.2TB is only 5% utilization of the connection on average.
That's fine. It's also possible they don't want to pay the overage charges even more. It's up to them.
Video quality is a choice but it's a pretty obvious thing for people to want, and video easily eats a terabyte.
Also your sibling comment says none of your hardware is over 720p? If you have normal-ish eyesight then I feel bad for you, even just considering text clarity.
Are you really trying to tell someone on HN not to be curious? I am genuinely wondering what cool thing they might be doing with that.
"and video easily eats a terabyte."
It doesn't for me. We stream quite at bit at 720p, gaming, etc. we don't get even close to that.
I mean none of my hardware goes over 1080p, and that my difference between 720p and 1080p is not big. My eyes are slightly better that the standard 20/20. I'm not aure why you say you would feel bad for me as your entire comment is meant to antagonize me.
No, I'm not saying not to be curious. I'm saying your wording implied it was excessive for ordinary use, while it's very easy to reach.
> I mean none of my hardware goes over 1080p, and that my difference between 720p and 1080p is not big. My eyes are slightly better that the standard 20/20.
Okay then.
> I'm not aure why you say you would feel bad for me as your entire comment is meant to antagonize me.
I would feel bad for you if you were stuck with a 720p screen, and think you very much were missing something. How is that antagonizing? You're reading into things much more than I did.
Now that you clarify it's 1080, I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Because I stream at 720p and not 1080p.
Lol, I wish I had 80MB/s. No, cable ratings are given in megabits. I get 10MB/s max. But that's not the only relevant number. I'm always uploading. And re: download, those 25GB large language models I've been testing this last year have been eating a lot.
But really I'm just constantly using a small amounts because I participate in the internet rather than use centralized services (and even host my dot com from home). 1.2 TB both up/down + comcast internal overhead goes fast. That only about 400KB/s average.
That's like almost 1/day for over a year?
It doesn't seem like a situation that's going to be improved by consumers complaining about the ISPs. For example, Comcast is consistently derided for poor service and has ranked as one of the most unpopular brands in the US as early as 2010.
Is there even a prospect of competition if the regulatory picture changed, or is it just too capital-intensive to roll out new infrastructure and bring a competing service to market?
> Only now I pay $106/mo (w/modem rental).
The price you're paying today has merely tracked nominal inflation relative to the price you were paying 12 years ago[1].
[1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=78&year1=20120...
On the other hand, there is a no-name brand, which delivers "bio" milk¹, for 1.05€ per liter.
During the high-inflation period, the regional "non-bio" milk was significantly less stocked than the "bio" milk.
This has turned around by now, the "non-bio" milk is quite obviously hard to sell (i.e. tags with "30% off due to expiry date" on it), while the "bio" milk is out of stock.
¹ "bio" is regulated quite strictly, cows must have quite a few m² to roam around freely in the open, amongst others
I’m not interested enough in what the article is trying to tell me to put up with that.
Timely reminder, when ads take up the whole screen, or anything like that at all, they are not tangential.