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%?
The bread rolls at the supermarket have gotten so comically small that you can’t even use them to make a proper sandwich anymore.
The thing that pisses me off the most is “””eco-friendly””” companies doing shrinkflation. My guy, you can tell me it’s recycled plastic or whatever, if the portions are smaller you’re still pumping out more plastic than before, asshole.
Some countries have outlawed this behavior. If the seller/producer wants to decrease the package contents and keep the package size and price the same, they can (of course), but they must write on the package that the contents have decreased in large bright characters that are hard to miss. Something like this:
255gnow 200gI’m not sure where you are (assuming USA, based on the packaging), but it’s not illegal in the USA, since consumer protection is near to nonexistent.
In the US it’s actually illegal for companies to do something that benefits the consumer
Pretty sure this is Canada, no frills is a franchise chain under Loblaws. Loblaws is the kind of company that increases a product price by 20% and then puts up a “same price everyday” sign to gaslight customers.
Meanwhile Kroger raises their prices and then puts a giant yellow tag on them labeled “Everyday Low Prices”.
It’s not on sale, it’s always more expensive than it was before, but they want you to think it’s a discount.
Cool business move… NOT!
(Should we even be bringing back the ‘not’?)
This sucks. One of my favorite places to eat has both inflation and shrinkflation. Higher price for smaller portions.
More than likely their suppliers are bleeding them, a lot of restaurants in my town are dealing with the same shit
Yeah. One of my favourite restaurants closed a couple months ago because they just couldn’t justify charging more for food, but their suppliers sure could.
It’s not the supplier “bleeding them” the supplier has the exact same problem the restaurant has, inflation, if they don’t raise the prices they go bankrupt. It’s a vicious cycle of everyone raising prices not to go bankrupt which causes everyone else to do the same.
If you don’t think suppliers are using inflation to justify robber-baron price hikes, I guess you missed the part where companies are posting record profits.
Huzzah for our current system of capitalism that insists a company is only doing good if each quarter has record profits. What’s bad with doing “good enough?”
This concept of greedflation has been disproved in recent meta-analysis. It should probably die. I’ll copy paste a comment I wrote in some other thread analyzing it.
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).
Inflation drives all the numbers up. If money inflates to half the value but you maintain the same profit margins, you’ll make record profits despite the finances having functionally remained exactly the same.
Workers are also making record wages. It doesn’t mean much if you don’t consider how much the money is actually worth, as we’ve all been discovering over the last few years.
so why not just lower the profit margins? also give me some of them record wages please, all I got was a bottle of champagne for all the work weve done and record profits but also raises in pay are frozen because of the turbulent times
You got champagne? All I got was runaround, brand new policies pulled out of thin air, and creative counting to deny seniority benefits. Turns out, I’ve worked for the same place 30 years when it inflates their retention and longevity numbers for the oversight agencies. I’ve also worked there for only a year (started a new position last year) when it suits them to deny a published benefit. The completely mindboggling part? These two countings were in the same email.
so why not just lower the profit margins?
Probably for the same reason you don’t casually decide to go to your boss and say that you voluntarily want a pay cut.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages
Average hourly wage at the start of 2020 was $24. It’s now $29, which comes to about $10,000 more each year, and is an increase of about 21%. That growth has been concentrated in the service industry, but the data is pretty clear regardless, and the general trend applies to basically all sectors. Inflation in that same time period is 18.1%, so it simply is a matter of fact that the average worker has greater buying power today than they did in January 2020.
That’s an average, of course, and may not necessarily apply to you individually.
you got champagne? I just got lumped onto more projects for no more money
You’re getting downvoted but the suppliers have suppliers too, and even if it’s a farm-to-table thing the farms have supply costs.
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.
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.
Everybody blaming shrinkflation and nobody mentioning how terribly low salmon stocks are right now.
Atlantic Salmon populations have been doing fine and have an LC conservation status. Most of the issues with other salmon are in the populations off of the US West Coast.
Alaska has been seeing their populations increase in large part due to government hatcheries and wildlife management.
Can someone please check on the salmon make sure they’re ok?
This is the first I’ve heard of this. What’s causing it?
Same reason for every animal resource: over exploitation of the resource, habitat destruction/pollution, and climate change. This isn’t a recent thing, salmon stocks have been declining over the last 4 decades. The response to this decline of course has been to continue extracting the same amount year over year.
You have to stop buying them now. That’s the only way the prices will ever stabilize.
I’m totally with you that shrinkflation is an issue.
But these nofrills packages are intentionally priced at an even value like $10. to the point that the price is written directly on the package not an in store label that they can update. I get things like chicken and sausage patties like this too. So instead of putting in 3 and updating the price to $15 or whatever they just take one out.
Additionally fish is not a staple good, generally fish is sold at “market price” because it’s affected by populations and seasons and prices for fish vary significantly through the years because of this.
But again I agree and the best thing to do is pay attention and not buy things that you don’t think are worth.
They also print the weight and number of pieces on the package, which they had to update. Since the packaging is otherwise identical, shoppers will buy it without reading the weight of number of pieces because it looks exactly like the old package.
Obviously, No Frills wanted to keep the price at $10, so they reduced the amount of fish in the package. That’s shrinkflation. If the goal were to keep customers informed of the change, they would have made more noticeable change to the package.
deleted by creator
It’s consistently amazing to me that people have no idea how the money system works; it’s only the economics of the country, no big deal.
Ah yes, the US Fed causing inflation in all of Europe and Canada too. It’s crazy how the Fed made inflation lower here at home though. I don’t know how they do that without there being some kind of series of global supply shocks.
I guess we’ll never know.
deleted by creator
Lol yeah the person who replied didn’t know what nofrills was but the bank of Canada also increased total money supply similar to how the us federal reserve did.
Will at least all our problems of overweight, diabetes and clogged arteries be solved in a few years? Or will most of us be dead by that time? I fear the latter…
Unfortunately, buying ultraprocessed foods is cheaper than buying healthy food. So I’d say it will only make the problem worse.
The lucky ones will be dead. I don’t expect that surviving the collapse is going to be a desirable option.
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?
It’s weird to me how much people focus on surviving widespread near-apocalyptic disasters. Why would I want to?
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.
Of course, it’s a missfired joke!
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.
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.
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).
The cause of obesity usually isn’t the size of a pack of salmon.
“our research shows customers want more manageable and convenient portion siz-”
THE FUCK WE DO
In restaurants… not the fucking store!
deleted by creator
I want to say this is one of the more obtuse examples of shrinkflation. A lot of it is simply to allow a product, usually something by weight like cereal (where you’re not getting x individual pieces), to completely sell out, only to be replaced with one with nominally fewer grams of product while maintaining price. Usually with a 2-3 week gap between the old product and new. Usually it will come back with a redesigned box or something or new “eco” packaging that helps to distract from the fact that they just performed a 10%+ moneygrab on your lucky charms. Most people are content to just be able to buy the product again, and since it’s been completely sold out with no product to compare with, there’s less of a chance anyone is going to be able to have something to directly compare to when buying the updated product.
If they had instead sold 3x fillets at 200g, I have serious doubts even you would have noticed; but since they moved to larger, but fewer fillets, it’s starkly obvious that something happened.
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.
While these price changes can certainly come in part from corporate greed, there may be some other costs at work being applied; the increased difficulty of agriculture in a world where the climate is getting out of control, or as someone else mentioned the war in Ukraine having an effect on agricultural exports from the area.
I’m at least trying to be flexible in my preferences. I try to be aware of the carbon offset associated to the food I buy, or the amount of land needed to produce it. We can also get a bit too used to certain foods actually being subsidized by the government, primarily meats. It doesn’t necessarily mean I can eat cheaply, but sometimes I pick up an option I wouldn’t normally consider that either saves me money or satisfies me even more.
The cost increase is one thing, like you said there may be valid reasons why pricing for these particilar salmons increased more than inflation did. The disgusting part here is in my opinion the sneaky way its done: by shrinking the package you are (again in my opinion) lying to the consumer by leading them to believe you are paying the same as you were before, as the package looks mostly the same.
