Up untill a week ago Nofrills carried these “three packs” of salmon for $10. Now the same pack contains two for the same $10. I thought it felt light when I bought it yesterday.
This comes to about $0.02 increase per gram, and a $1.10 price increase overall. Or a 11% increase in price overall. Meanwhile inflation is at 6-7%?
It’s like that episode of Next Generation “Remember Me” when the universe is shrinking and everyone’s disappearing and the Enterprise computer keeps gaslighting Dr Crusher trying to convince her it’s fine, everything’s fine, this is totally normal. But it’s not fine, it really isn’t.
I paid like $8 for 115g of marinated salmon last week because I wanted to try it, but it is getting ridiculous.
The ever reducing diameter of wraps is the thing that gets me the most. Do they think we won’t notice?! It’s maddening. I want a big wrap.
You’d think with a wrap it’d be easier to just stuff it with cheap starch and keep it looking big and satisfying in the display case.
its literally impossible to make a burrito in Australia. every wrap is made for ants
Is this near the sign that says “Always $10”? :\
lol
The bread rolls at the supermarket have gotten so comically small that you can’t even use them to make a proper sandwich anymore.
Interesting that while there is only 2 instead of 3 in a pack, the total weight has gone down only 22% (from 255g to 200g, instead of 170g if the weight dropped by a third/33%). So the actual salmon pieces may be bigger?
This is still shrinkflation but there has probably also been previous hidden shrinkflation in the individual salmon pieces too and that bit has been slightly undone.
This is the cost of war.
This is the result of company greed
Literally just copy pasting this places now because so many people are still claiming greedflation is a thing. Not trying to spam but links to comments don’t seem to work, and as a literal economist who works on inflation I’m tired of reading political talking points disguised as economic analysis.
I think everyone should probably listen to this great report from NPR that dissects this issue. The Tl;dr: is greedflation is not really a real thing.
The deeper answer to your question of, “can one party increase prices in a market?” is sort of basic economics, and the answer is, “Usually, no.” In a competitive market, the answer is no. In a monopolistic market (meaning one company controls most of the market, think like Google with browsers) with no government oversight, the answer is yes. Things get complicated when you add in government regulation or oligopolistic markets (markets where only a few players control the market). In those cases, it depends on how strong government regulations on price-gouging are and any anti-monopoly or anti-anticompetitive practice laws are, and also depends on how oligopolists behave. Sometimes, particularly in industries with few big players, the big players will make the same decisions independently. If they do this cooperating it will usually violate antitrust laws, but if they both decide they’ll be better off say, not paying workers as much, or charging super high markups, them that can happen. A lot of economic research shows that kind of “tacit collusion” happens in real life, like in the oil and gas industries. But other times oligopolies will behave very competitively, only uniting through lobbyist trade groups if at all (think Microsoft and Amazon in cloud software).
So that’s the facts, but here’s my economic musing: The reason it feels like greedflation is a thing is a combination of factors:
- Inflation was very real, and very salient.
- Corporations (as mentioned in the NPR piece) crowed about their “record profits” in the short term, and also mention them when they are absolute record profits, not just record profit margins (something not mentioned but very real - a company can make twice as much money but also have spent twice as much, making way “more” money but with identical margins)
- In the US at least, we are seeing the highest numbers of industry consolidation and monopolies/oligopolies since the Gilded Age, so it feels like companies should be able to raise their prices if they want to.
- Media coverage and online spaces have become extremely polarized, so “corporations bad” is a very easy refrain to find if you’re watching or reading anything remotely left-wing, and it has been parroted by many democratic politicians as well, because it scores cheap and easy political points (also, and this is just my opinion, it helps vilify corps more in the public eye to help get more support for better antitrust legislation and enforcement, the actual end goal. I don’t think senators like Bernie Sanders don’t actually understand what’s going on with profit margins, I think they’re using it to generate political will, but that may be my own bias creeping in).
Greedflation isn’t really a thing
describes the mechanisms and reality of greedflation
Why do stating profits vs profit margins matter? On that note, what do you think sounds better in an announcement to the general public - “we made record profits”, “we increased our profit margins by shrinkflation and charging more”, or both? I’d argue the first - if they cut costs or increased sales that would be worth bragging about, but charging more isn’t something you really want to directly call attention to
Why does collusion vs tacit agreements matter? Consolidation of industries and regulation is why it’s possible and is very relevant, but doesn’t address the core question
Ultimately, groups of humans behave differently than the individuals they’re made up of. Sometimes they even do things no individual member wants to happen - market forces are in this category of emergent properties.
You seem to think greedflation is a bunch of cigar smoking men in a room saying “there’s a war on boys, what say we jack up prices again?”
It’s about what companies are doing, not individuals. Companies are using the little ripples in the supply chain from every global problem to ratchet up prices in sync, and there’s not enough regulation or competition to make them lower them back down.
That’s what greedflation is - companies being greedy in sync across an industry,
Did you listen to the NPR report? I don’t understand how you still have these questions.
If you mean Ru vs Ukraine, the for-profit cost gouging for groceries disguised as ‘inflation’ began prior to that.
deleted by creator
Two of the largest agricultural producers in the world are fighting. Food prices will rise.
Removed by mod
salmon does not get priced independently from all other foodstuffs
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The lucky ones will be dead. I don’t expect that surviving the collapse is going to be a desirable option.
It’s weird to me how much people focus on surviving widespread near-apocalyptic disasters. Why would I want to?
If you’re from a first workd country and not already in poverty, you’re probably going to be fine.
I’m sorry, what? The entire American west is becoming unlivable, Canada is burning to ashes, poisoning tens of millions of people across the continent, a hirricane just hit Californis, an entire fucking city just got wiped off the map in Hawaii, and western Europe is going to go into freefall when the impending collapse of tbe Atlantic currents drastically ravages their climate.
But sure, tell me more about how being in a developed country is going to save us when there’s no fucking food and everything is on fire.
Oh nooo people won’t be able to live in Phoenix Arizona
Was all yall dumbasses fault for trying to settle big cities in literal wasteland.
Most places in sane locations in the first world will be more or less shielded from the worsr effects of climate change.
That’s certainly a revision of what you said earlier. So now you have to not only be financially sound, in a premier country, but also not say, anywhere near the southern US or any flammable forests?
Economically, maybe.
in every other respect? uhm… have you looked at the news this year?
The cause of obesity usually isn’t the size of a pack of salmon.
Well, this specifically being smoked wild salmon, it’s not really problematic in that health sense (farmed salmon, on the other hand, has way much more fat and because of what it’s fed, that’s not even the good fat with lots of Omega-3) except perhaps any slightly hgher cancer risks associated with the smoking process (also it depends on any kind of chemicals added to accelerate the “smoking” - you can actually add “smoked flavour” - and preservatives).
Unfortunately, buying ultraprocessed foods is cheaper than buying healthy food. So I’d say it will only make the problem worse.
Cheap food is usually less healthy but if you talk about people staving a little from time to time it seems realistic that many might get slimmer, not the healthy way to do it but I guess some could end up healthier
My guy.
Losing weight by starving does not lead to a healthier person. What you get is a malnourished person.
Thinner people does not equal healthier people. These two factors need to be considered separately. Of course, the grossly obese tend to be less healthy, but even those in a “healthy” weight range, can have a large number of health-related problems, both with their diet and with their exercise and otherwise.
Look at a thin person’s legs: little or no muscle means the low body mass is the product of self-starvation, muscled legs means it’s the product of lots of exercise.
Also you can notice that people who starved themselves to be thin as teenagers (much more common in women) have arched legs.
Of course, it’s a missfired joke!
Thinner people are healthier in that they won’t suffer from the same medical issues that plague the obese. A thin person might have high cholesterol, but they’re not going to also have the same increase chance of heart disease an obese person will see. No individual who’s 300lbs is healthy, obesity in and of itself is the disease. The fact thin people suffer from other, non-weight related diseases doesn’t mean there is not point in not maintaining a healthy weight.
Food insecurity is not a solution to the obesity epidemic, but eating a couple hundred calories per day less than maintenance is also not starvation. And ensuring healthy foods and produce are more affordable than unhealthy and high-processed alternatives is a great way to kill two birds with one stone.
I love them sockeye… Watching them fight to get to spawning ground is something special to watch. One year I watched a group splinter off the Hoh river in Washington and make their way up a feeder stream. Ever day after school I’d run out to see where they were. So many started and only a few made it.
They literally saved my life. I was looking for somewhere to end myself when I found them. Their presence intrigued me and I decided to see it out. The day the last one spawned and died broke something in me, that hate I had. It’s hard to explain but I was so overwhelmed by the experience I decided that if they can do that journey, i can do mine.
Thinking about it again always makes me so emotional.
Anyways that salmon is cheap and it should be cherished for what it is.
Sockeye Salmon are the best flavor of salmon.
You comment made me feel emotional too. I’m glad you’re doing better now.
If it’s not Shrinkflation, it’s Diluteflation.
I occasionally see posts and news articles about how AriZona Tea Company has “held the line” and kept their giant cans of iced tea priced at 99 cents for so long.
Well, after drinking a few cans of the stuff recently, I’m almost certain they’re watering down their product. The tea is nowhere near as concentrated as it was a few years ago. There’s practically no flavor to it anymore.
Hmm I’ve been drinking it for years and don’t notice that either. Maybe check the sell by dates on yours. They do kind of deflate over time.
I kinda doubt they would bother to water it down. Realistically the flavouring in it costs a fraction of a cent for them. If they changed it for any reason would probably just be to be healthier
Companies operating on that scale sell millions and millions of beverages. Even half a cent per can can add up to huge amounts of money. Also, their job is literally to sell containers of diluted high fructose corn syrup, so I don’t think customer health is their priority.
Here in southern Ontario near the border we’ve been getting REALLY great deals on Arizona lately because our local market buys in bulk from across the border. I’ve never been able to get Arizona for 50 cents my entire life before. It must be overstock or something, but I’m having one or two like every day.
I’m on disability. Watching the prices climb the past few years has been genuinely distressing. I could never afford a full month of groceries but now I can afford even less. Food doesn’t go nearly as far as it should. I find myself having to stretch stuff over days or do what I’m currently doing and just not eat for the better part of a week to save the little I have left.
I am not doing well and this shit is making it worse… I’m honestly afraid.
I recommend you check out TheFreePizzaDude on Imgur. There is a limit to how often you can receive donations (like once every other month), but they will help with getting you a pizza or even some regular groceries if you ask.
This is something the government should be doing though, rather than having to rely on charities and kind individuals. In most developed countries, the government has good programs to assist people in need, ensuring they can get basic groceries. The US is an outlier.
I mean the government is doing it, that’s what disability is. It’s just not kept up with inflation in a lot of areas.
What I meant is that the government should provide it and ensure you can actually live off of it.
Oh then I would not agree the US is an outlier in that, or at least not near the only exception.
You have to stop buying them now. That’s the only way the prices will ever stabilize.
The absurd thinness of the “family size” boxes of frosted mini wheats is another one.
They won’t be able to stand upright in the next round of shrinking.
I’d have more sympathy if this was something like peanut butter or eggs instead of smoked wild salmon.
Bidenomics at work
