[HN Gopher] How have prices changed in a year? NPR checked 114 i...
___________________________________________________________________
How have prices changed in a year? NPR checked 114 items at Walmart
Author : srameshc
Score : 165 points
Date : 2026-01-14 16:39 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| kenjackson wrote:
| It's disappointing, but not surprising, that people thought the
| president would make any really impact on inflation. That said,
| with global conditions improving it looks like we could've
| actually seen a drastically larger reduction in inflation if not
| for the tariffs. The goals of the tariffs seem so misaligned with
| what the country needs - again not surprising that we're doing
| something the opposite of what we need - and again also not
| surprising that his supporters don't seem to care.
| _factor wrote:
| A weak economy bodes well for cash infused investors as fire
| sale prices arise.
|
| I think we've crossed a line where we can no longer assume
| basic alignment with "our" leadership.
| seiferteric wrote:
| I think the real issue is that for the powers that be,
| inflation is seen as either neutral or a good thing. The only
| people it hurts is the working class and the blame is nebulous.
| So it is used as a tool to increase taxes without changing
| laws, lower the cost of debt, and cut labor wages since they
| don't get pay raises commensurate with inflation. So I think it
| is a trick played upon the working class to screw them over in
| the long term while the wealthy are protected because all their
| assets simply go up in value with inflation. I think the target
| inflation rate should be 0%, not 2%. I simply don't believe the
| justification for the 2% target.
| trashface wrote:
| We're well above 2% anyway, I doubt they will ever hit that
| again - they are already having to cut rates because job
| market is frozen, and that will increase inflation pressure.
|
| I track my spend each year and my personal actual inflation
| rate has averaged about 4.5% over past 5 years. And I'm
| pretty low income, my spending is all core stuff.
| NickC25 wrote:
| >It's disappointing, but not surprising, that people thought
| the president would make any really impact on inflation
|
| Except that a president, in normal times, COULD make an impact
| on inflation, both directly and indirectly.
|
| What is surprising, is that after a completely failed
| presidency that saw a marked decrease in middle class
| prosperity, people thought that Donald Trump, of all people,
| could bring inflation down.
| chasd00 wrote:
| man, i already can't wait for November to be over.
| jrussino wrote:
| Thanks to NPR for this important reporting; it sucks that the
| Corporation for Public Broadcasting is shutting down after losing
| all of its funding.
|
| This "basked of goods" approach to understanding price inflation
| seems outdated to me. 114 items! It seems to me like there must
| be organizations out there with tons and tons of price and
| consumer spending data for thousands and thousands of items,
| right? It should be possible to get much more comprehensive
| measurement of price changes over time vs and approach taken like
| this one (or the CPI, for that matter).
| bpt3 wrote:
| 1. It sounds like you're just describing a larger "basket of
| goods"? That data is available, but also valuable, and I'm not
| sure why the basket of goods tracked by the CPI or NPR would be
| inadequate.
|
| 2. This specific exercise is designed to be relatable to
| individuals (in general, and specifically ones such as the
| people interviewed in the article who claimed that their
| grocery bill went up about 50% in a year, which is implausible
| to put it politely) so that they can understand the actual
| level of inflation rather than the one they imagined in their
| head.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| I've had a gripe with "basket of goods" approach. Does a
| household really care that much if the game of clue is 10%
| cheaper in 2025?
|
| There needs to be an index that reflects what people really
| need and the closest I've found is the ALICE index:
| https://www.unitedforalice.org/essentials-index
| eszed wrote:
| I did not know about this, and it's _excellent_. Seems like a
| one-shot explanation for the "vibe-flation" phenomenon that
| many people find mystifying.
| bpt3 wrote:
| Most households are able to afford more than the essentials
| and do care about the cost of entertainment.
|
| There's value in the index you described as well, but IMO it
| doesn't make sense to use it as the basis for the overall
| economy.
| turtletontine wrote:
| Thinking about the "overall economy" increasingly means
| focusing on the spending of the rich, and ignoring the poor
| and struggling. A consequence of increasing inequality is
| the rich make up more and more consumer spending. Consumer
| spending can therefore easily look great while most people
| are struggling to get by. There really is no "overall
| economy", there are many many different stories happening
| all at once, and focusing on simple metrics lets you easily
| fool yourself.
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| > Thinking about the "overall economy" increasingly means
| focusing on the spending of the rich, and ignoring the
| poor and struggling. A consequence of increasing
| inequality is the rich make up more and more consumer
| spending.
|
| It means increasingly focusing on the spending of the
| rich, _because the population is increasingly richer_.
| Proportion of families making more that 150k (in 2024
| dollars) has gone from 5% in 1967 to 33% in 2024, while
| both middle class (50k-150k) and poor ( <50k) have
| decreased. [1]
|
| [1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!dtoi!,f_auto,
| q_auto:...
| turtletontine wrote:
| Great example. The population as a whole is richer like
| you say, and also the richest 10% account for half of
| consumer spending, compared to 36% 30 years ago. [1] So
| yes, consuming spending has become more of a metric of
| the wealthy's spending habits.
|
| No single metric tells the whole story, and by taking
| them in isolation it's quite easy to lose the forest for
| the trees.
|
| [1] https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-
| strength-ri...
| darth_avocado wrote:
| > Most households are able to afford more than the
| essentials and do care about the cost of entertainment.
|
| 1/3 of the households make less than $50k. Mean survival
| budget is $35k-40k. After taxes, if a third of the
| population can barely meet a survival budget, an index like
| this needs to be part of the overall economy.
|
| And the point of the ALICE index is exactly to address what
| you are pointing out. When wages, social security etc. were
| increasing proportionally to the essential goods, it made
| sense to have the CPI include other goods and services,
| allowing policy makers to use it as a basis for policy
| directions. However, when essentials become expensive
| faster than non essentials, it creates a problem for policy
| makers. It explains the "vibeflation" where policy makers
| were pushing back hard on economic struggles that most
| people are feeling by pointing to CPI numbers that show a
| 2-3% inflation, meanwhile people are struggling and dipping
| into savings to make things work.
|
| We need to have both.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Beyond just the monthly/yearly changes are the cumulative
| affects of those changes and disparities of wage
| stagnation with record inflation over time. Increased
| rent/housing costs are also a massive factor.
|
| Not even counting the number of households who are at
| credit card and other debt limits at close to 30%
| interest. Trump has given some lip service to trying to
| get this down to 10%, but it'll really take congress to
| make anything happen that has a chance of sticking.
|
| A lot of people are very underwater.
| t-3 wrote:
| It doesn't make a lot of sense to measure the cost of
| entertainment in terms of monetary inflation though. Hugely
| price-tiered status-signaling goods like kids toys just
| don't respond to market forces in the same way commodities
| do.
| boplicity wrote:
| Toys for kids are absolutely a necessity in most households
| with kids.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Only when you can afford them.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Why does your child need 34 or 35 toys? She can be happy
| with just one or two toys.
| queuebert wrote:
| "Back in my day, we had a cardboard box and a stick and
| didn't complain ..."
| dpark wrote:
| "Why don't you just live like you're destitute? So
| ungrateful?!"
|
| How many toys do _you_ have?
| barbazoo wrote:
| People could save so much money if they bought used instead
| of new more often, especially toys. It's crazy how much
| garbage we produce basically just because we literally
| don't share our toys.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| I think you mean, spend $0 instead, given how many folks
| are donating toys on local facebook groups
| sudobash1 wrote:
| I have come away from Christmas with almost the opposite
| conclusion. I have 3 young kids, and I notice almost an
| inverse correlation between the number of toys around and
| how contently they play.
|
| The ideal number of toys is non-zero, but my experience
| suggests that it is pretty low.
| elevation wrote:
| Toys/gifts are important, but you'll find most of what you
| need (baby toys to bicycles) for pennies on the dollar at
| your local yard sale, estate sale, or free as hand-me-downs
| from an older family.
|
| I would hesitate to include the retail prices for these
| kinds of goods to a CPI type metric because the price are
| incredibly flexible.
| naet wrote:
| I think the ALICE index is great for tracking pure essentials
| and survivability, which is definitely important, but it's
| also not unreasonable to track things that aren't 100%
| essential.
|
| My household does care if basic games and toys are cheaper or
| more expensive; we have kids and want to get some amount of
| stuff for them. If the price changes we will get more or less
| of those things since our budget for them is limited. I
| probably won't fall into abject poverty if some non essential
| things go up in price, but I also will be buying less which
| has both personal and broader economic impacts.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Absolutely. You need both. The point I'm trying to make is
| that we only have CPI which drives most policy decisions.
| However when you need about $40k to just survive and 1/3 of
| the households make less than $50k before taxes, you also
| need something like this to make effective policy
| decisions. Social security payments are a great example. If
| you adjust them only based on CPI, and essentials get more
| expensive at a higher rate than non essentials, you create
| a system where over a period of time, social security
| payments would barely cover the essentials.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I've had a gripe with "basket of goods" approach. Does a
| household really care that much if the game of clue is 10%
| cheaper in 2025?_
|
| The game of Clue, and other games/toys, are in basket of
| goods because _on average_ Americans spend some portion of
| their income per surveys:
|
| * https://www.bls.gov/respondents/cpi/
|
| The CPI published (and in headlines) isn't about _your
| personal_ spending, but the spending _on average_ spread over
| millions of people /households. The CPI is a _model_ of
| reality, and so pointing to a _particular_ instantiation of
| consumer will not match _exactly_ :
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
| joshuamorton wrote:
| This isn't really indexing in the same way that the CPI is
| indexing.
|
| Alice pulls medians from other surveys (so it uses what I
| assume to be CPI food and CPI housing data, though they may
| also use other things), and then includes childcare and
| healthcare costs with some (imo) pretty painful assumptions,
| and then tacks on a random 10% "misc" category. It does a
| good job of creating a very high estimate of costs. As one
| example, I looked at the housing cost for an suburb I'm
| familiar with, and it lists the housing cost for a single
| individual as nearly $1800, you can pretty easily find 1BR
| apartments for 1-1.2K in that area, and utilities aren't
| going to run $600/mo, and you can pretty easily go cheaper.
|
| And then again after doing that it tacks on a "misc" 10%
| budget item. I wouldn't call it a good estimate of "what
| people really need" and also it consumes the basket of goods,
| it doesn't compare to it.
| kjshsh123 wrote:
| The CPI components are individually tracked and weighting is
| public. You can just play with the weights.
| tclancy wrote:
| The Economist tried to solve this in the past with
| https://www.economist.com/interactive/big-mac-index
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index for non-
| subscribers)
| tracker1 wrote:
| I often toyed with the thought of a TP index... literally the
| spend on something you use to wipe crap off your rear and
| throw away.
| autoexec wrote:
| Short of unrolling it all and weighing it by the pound the
| math involved in the cost of TP is complicated. That said,
| McDonald's use of discriminatory/surge pricing complicates
| the actual cost of a big mac too.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Even by the pound would be hard... quality two-ply vs
| low-grade gas station TP... The price per unit is also
| difficult to compare... are you getting the costco packs
| that still have the larger per-sheet area or the new,
| smaller sheets.
|
| Not to mention, in general it might be a counter-
| intuitive index... If the spend per person on TP on
| average goes down, is that an uptake in bidets, lowered
| tp costs, or economic affects and people choosing cheaper
| options?
|
| That said, I still think it could be a "fun" index to
| track over time.
| hoofhearted wrote:
| https://www.spins.com/
| queuebert wrote:
| Credit card companies have all of this data. They could track
| classes of spending and regress out rising incomes, age, etc.
| topspin wrote:
| > Thanks to NPR for this important reporting
|
| It's fascinating to see such work. By the grace of NPR,
| apparently the "transient inflation" narrative is _officially_
| inoperative, and plebian concerns about the price of eggs are
| now worthy!
|
| Will wonders never cease?
| linuxftw wrote:
| Wages and energy have not increased. Tariffs on food are
| basically non existent for most items.
|
| It's 100% purely supply side pricing, propped up by government
| spending and credit (which is largely backstopped by the
| government as well).
|
| I listened to a podcast recently that some 'homeowners' have not
| made a mortgage payment in years, have no ability to pay, but
| here are essentially unlimited 'no doc' mortgage modifications
| available since the Corona time period.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| > listened to a podcast recently that some 'homeowners' have
| not made a mortgage payment in years, have no ability to pay,
|
| How? Somebody is holding the bag here on the mortgage - a bank,
| probably. And they are fine with not receiving payments? Or is
| somebody else making payments on the homeowner's behalf?
| quietsegfault wrote:
| Mortgage foreclosure is a legal process that takes a very
| long time and is very expensive.
| groby_b wrote:
| Banks are perfectly well equipped to foreclose on you. Ask
| anybody who was around in 2008.
|
| You don't usually skate by on years of non-payments, so I'd
| sticker the original claim with [citation needed]
| Amezarak wrote:
| Don't know if this is what the OP is referring to, but:
| https://archive.is/2EObp
|
| sounds like a very similar thing.
|
| Here's another one on perpetual forbearances:
| https://www.wsj.com/opinion/covid-housing-relief-forever-
| rec...
|
| This would seem to indicate that Covid forbearances are
| extending into 2026: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SFH
| /documents/SFH_FHA_INFO_...
| linuxftw wrote:
| Yeah, those are some of the programs I was referring to.
| The 'loophole' aspect that was mentioned on the podcast
| is that when the FHA does the 'loss mitigation' (aka,
| refi's the loan), there is not any kind of qualification
| as to whether the buyer will ever be able to make a
| payment on the new loan. It's just approved anyway, and
| the cycle can happen unlimited times.
|
| I think they're looking at adding a means test, but I'm
| unsure.
| mbrameld wrote:
| It doesn't take years, and it's less expensive than writing
| off the mortgage.
| quietsegfault wrote:
| In judicial foreclosure states, the process can take 12
| to 24 months, and longer if contested or if other periods
| apply. In nonjudicial states, timelines are shorter but
| still typically 4 to 9 months from default to sale.
|
| Lenders incur legal fees, court costs, property taxes,
| insurance, maintenance, HOA dues, servicing advances, and
| loss of interest during the process. Industry estimates
| often put foreclosure costs in the tens of thousands of
| dollars per loan, excluding the loss from selling the
| property below the outstanding balance.
|
| "Writing off the mortgage" is not the realistic
| alternative. Lenders generally compare foreclosure
| against loan modification, repayment plans, short sales,
| or deeds-in-lieu, because charge-offs are accounting
| outcomes after losses are realized, not an operational
| substitute for foreclosure.
| linuxftw wrote:
| So, the basic process is 1) Borrow stops making payments. 2)
| Borrow goes into forbearance for 12 months just prior to
| foreclosure start. 3) Forbearance ends, borrower cannot make
| current. 4) FHA steps in to do loan modification.
| Essentially, they roll the forebeared balance into the loan,
| payoff the existing mortgage, and issue a new FHA-backed
| loan, without any income or payment ability qualifications.
| 5) Repeat the process again.
|
| So, the government is making everyone whole.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| > swai fish fillets from Vietnam (up 34%)
|
| Swai is perhaps the worst possible fish to buy (low nutritional
| value, bad for environment, contains toxins) so (a) it's
| unfortunate they picked this fish and (b) it's good it's more
| expensive since perhaps people will buy less of it.
| dsr_ wrote:
| The article text cites a comment about ice cream becoming
| unaffordable.
|
| The numbers show reduced prices for milk and butter (e.g. cream),
| and sugar remaining constant.
|
| Thus: ice cream is being priced too high.
| jandrese wrote:
| Maybe the milk and butter were local while the ice cream was
| imported and hit with tariffs?
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Less than .2% of ice cream is imported.
| quietsegfault wrote:
| First, I think you're probably right that ice cream is priced
| too high compared to its inputs.
|
| But maybe there are other factors? What about energy? One would
| assume that ice cream has a higher energy requirement than
| other "treat" style products? Are there specific tariff impacts
| on ice cream manufacturing equipment?
| fwip wrote:
| Could be. But also, ice cream manufacturers buy their
| ingredients more cheaply than consumers do. It is very possible
| that the cost of milk/butter/sugar at Walmart reflect Walmart
| deciding to lower their profit margins on these items, even if
| the cost to Walmart has increased.
|
| Or - Walmart is a big enough supplier that they have stable
| contracts with manufacturers, and are able to purchase their
| ingredients for the same cost as always, while Turkey Hill et
| al is competing over what's left. (Like Apple, buying up TSMC
| runs.)
| lm28469 wrote:
| If you try it at home you'll realise combining milk, butter and
| sugar in a bowl doesn't create ice cream. And when you figure
| out how to create ice cream you'll realise moving said ice
| cream to a place where you can sell it requires extra steps too
| Loudergood wrote:
| How does the cost of chilling, packaging, and moving 1/2
| Gallon of ice cream differ from 1/2 Gallon of frozen dairy
| dessert?
| dylan604 wrote:
| You also have to learn how to do it without adding things
| like listeria which seems like a difficult task for at least
| one brand after multiple rounds of recalls.
| infecto wrote:
| Labor costs have risen. There are other inputs than a handful
| of raw materials.
| binary132 wrote:
| it may be that the costs of labor, distribution, and
| manufacture (for various reasons) have been increased
| bpt3 wrote:
| Does ice cream need to be affordable to 100% of US households,
| regardless of their other budgeting decisions?
|
| That's the implication of your comment.
| VLM wrote:
| The implication is economic decline.
|
| Healthy economies "should" have a reward for specialization
| where both supplier and purchaser win. There is no reward
| anymore for economic specialization in the context of ice
| cream; its cheaper to make your own, now. This is a troubling
| long term implication for any *-as-a-service
|
| There's a second even worse economic implication in that ice
| cream has long been affordable to 100% of US households...
| Now due to permanent long term economic decline its seen as
| acceptable losses for some not to afford it anymore. Again,
| troubling long term implications.
| bpt3 wrote:
| 1. Ice cream has never been affordable to 100% of US
| households.
|
| 2. I strongly suspect the couple in the article could
| afford ice cream if they brought less beef, less name brand
| items, or were just more savvy shoppers.
|
| 3. I don't know how you determined that it's cheaper to
| make your own ice cream, but I would say that's generally
| inaccurate based on personal experience and a basic
| assessment of input costs and a reasonable value on your
| time.
|
| 4. If you really feel like ice cream is overpriced, you
| have identified an opportunity!
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've reduced my ice cream intake close to 0 solely based on
| price. Specifically, I remember the prices from long ago to
| the current just under $10. To me, ice cream should not be
| the same price of a cheap bottle of wine or other alcohol as
| an example comparison. We all have our own individual red
| lines, but ice cream prices crossed mine some time ago
| kbelder wrote:
| Ice cream is being priced too high if the ice cream sellers
| would make more money by decreasing the price of ice cream. If
| they wouldn't, it is appropriately priced.
|
| Or, from the buyer's perspective, it is priced appropriately if
| the total amount buyers would spend on it would go down if the
| price is lowered or raised.
|
| There isn't a correct intrinsic price that an object should be
| sold at that can be calculated based on the ingredients and
| labor. That idea is one of the fundamental flaws of Marxism.
| Price is a compromise between the buyers and sellers, based on
| the values of each.
| Edman274 wrote:
| Is it completely insane and incoherent to imagine a situation
| where ice cream has two equilibrium prices, one higher and
| one lower, and the market just settles on the higher one?
| Like, imagine a case where Jeni's would start losing money on
| every pint if they reduced the price by a dollar, but they'd
| make the same amount of money overall if they reduced it by
| 3. But they're in a local optimum, the "price reduced by 3"
| is identical for revenue purposes, and they choose their
| current local optimum. Then ice cream could _still_ be priced
| too high and be "appropriately priced". Is this impossible?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Is it completely insane and incoherent to imagine a
| situation where ice cream has two equilibrium prices, one
| higher and one lower, and the market just settles on the
| higher one?
|
| It it completely insane? No. But draw a set of supply and
| demand curves that supports it, and then try to come up
| with a narrative that explains them. In the static, same
| time, all other things being equal case, it is hard to do.
| heisenbit wrote:
| This story is a fiction pitting the seller and buyer against
| each other in a context free vacuum. The reality is that
| between buyer and seller there are channels which are either
| under control of the seller or another powerfull third party.
| The playing field is very difficult to enter for new sellers
| and the number of sellers has been going down for a long time
| tilting the playing field more and more against the buyer.
| snake42 wrote:
| Even if ice cream is lower, if the price of staples is going up
| you have to make cuts elsewhere.
| smallerize wrote:
| At least Walmart is likely to honor the price on the shelf.
| Dollar stores often just change prices without updating the
| shelf, so you don't know what you're going to pay until you get
| to the register. https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2025/dec/03/customers-pa...
| lavezzi wrote:
| This is illegal in the UK (and we aren't even talking about the
| hidden tax surprise at US registers either), unsurprising to
| see it's normalised in the US.
| thegreatpeter wrote:
| would be interesting to reveal the holding company behind each
| brand and what impact they had on products
| instagib wrote:
| The physical size of charmin changed during the pandemic.
|
| Good to track this yearly since some standard metrics are useless
| versus the shrinkflation, reduction in quality ingredients, and
| other manipulation we'll learn about sooner or later.
|
| Many ice creams are now dairy desserts due to not having enough
| ingredients to make the cut. Same with milk chocolates and now
| declared chocolate candy due to not using enough real cocoa.
| Supermancho wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's a national thing, but Hardees/Carl's Jr
| Large Cup sizes slowly decreased in volume until they matched
| the McDonald's Large Cups.
|
| There's been plenty of volume gaming as costs and prices have
| risen.
| snake42 wrote:
| In the article it says:
|
| To account for possible changes in package sizes, we focused on
| the price per unit, whether it was an ounce of salsa or a
| square foot of aluminum foil.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| It doesn't say that they accounted for possible changes in
| item quality. Tide detergent claims that their new 80-oz
| bottle of laundry detergent can wash 64 loads just like the
| previous 100-oz bottle because it's more concentrated, and I
| suppose NPR (if they'd retained a sample of the previous
| product) could have brought that to a chemistry lab to test
| and verify that claim, but I have no idea how you'd
| objectively prove that an ounce of salsa had truly remained
| the same product.
| queuebert wrote:
| Laundry detergent is usually priced as cents per load by
| savvy shoppers. That would factor out smaller doses.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The amount of detergent per load is set by the
| manufacturer, who can injection mold that measuring cup
| in whatever size they want. FTA:
|
| > _The amount of liquid had shrunk to 92 ounces from 100
| ounces before the pandemic, and the price had risen by a
| dollar. After that, the cost stayed the same, but the
| contents shrank to 84 ounces in 2024 and then to 80
| ounces in December._
|
| > _The label continuously promised enough detergent for
| 64 loads of laundry._
|
| > _...Tide specifically got the "most significant upgrade
| to its liquid formula in over 20 years," according to the
| company, with a "boosted" level of active cleaning
| ingredients and updated dosage instructions._
|
| > _" The result is superior cleaning performance in a
| smaller dose," a Procter & Gamble representative said._
|
| Do you take them at their word for that? I'm specifically
| wondering whether the 84 ounce, 64-load bottle with a cap
| that measures out 1.3125 ounces per load contains the
| exact same liquid as the 80 ounce, 64-load bottle with a
| cap that measures out 1.25 ounces per load. I prefer
| powder detergent with a prewash dose, I know my clothes
| get clean, but I don't know that anyone outside a lab
| would be able to inspect clothes post-wash and notice the
| difference in cleanliness caused by the removal of 0.0625
| ounces of detergent.
|
| They have three ways to protect or boost profits: Raise
| prices, decrease quantities, or decrease quality. NPR and
| the
| snake42 wrote:
| Sure, but they are accounting for size shrinkage which the
| original poster was saying they didn't.
|
| I don't really know how you can account for quality either.
| User surveys? Ingredient sourcing? But then again I think
| this kind of reporting is just a general barometer. Some
| other comments are pointing to data sources that might do
| more of this.
| yard2010 wrote:
| In other words: enshitification ensues!
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| When every company at once throws it at you it seems like
| something different. Someone called it baffleware. It's all
| too much to track/account for/adjust to, so you just comply.
| Kind of like Trump and Project 2025, but it's being done on a
| corporate level on everything in our lives.
| apercu wrote:
| I rarely eat pork, but saw some ridiculously cheap bacon at the
| store last week.
|
| When I got home I noticed it was 12oz instead of the
| (historical) norm 16oz.
| Kye wrote:
| "Pack contains 6 Mega Rolls (224 Sheets Per Roll) of Charmin
| Ultra Soft Toilet Paper"
|
| to
|
| "MEGA ROLLS, MEGA VALUE: Pack contains 6 Mega Rolls (208 Sheets
| Per Roll) of Charmin Ultra Soft Toilet Paper"
|
| Everyone saw that coming when they changed roll sizes and
| reframed it, right?
| autoexec wrote:
| They can keep the sheets per roll the same and still give us
| less for the same price if they reduce the dimensions or
| thickness of the sheet too. They should just give us a weight
| assuming the paper is less expensive than the cardboard roll
| inside.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Toilet paper math is the hardest kind of math. According to
| the print on various different packages of Charmin, and I
| could not make this up:
|
| 12 Mega Plus rolls = 54 Regular rolls
|
| 30 Double Plus rolls = 68 Regular rolls
|
| 12 Super Mega rolls = 72 Regular rolls
|
| 18 Mega rolls = 72 Regular rolls usually, but sometimes are
| sold as "Bonus Mega = 82 Regular rolls"
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _The physical size of charmin changed during the pandemic._
|
| This is generlly taken into account. From StatCan, who
| publishes Canada's CPI numbers:
|
| > _7.10 Quantity adjustment entails accounting for changes in
| the quantity (e.g. package size, number of tissue ply, etc.) of
| observed POs. This is another implicit method of quality
| adjustment because it is assumed that the quality per
| standardized unit is the same over time._
|
| > _7.11 Quantity adjustment is the default treatment for nearly
| all of the POs in the food major aggregate as well as some of
| the products in the household operations, and personal care
| supplies and equipment aggregates._
|
| *
| https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/62-553-x/2023001/chap-7-...
|
| * https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/62-553-X
| jimt1234 wrote:
| > As affordability became Americans' top concern, big brands
| began to worry about shoppers switching to store-label
| competitors or skipping some purchases altogether.
|
| I think, at least in the last year-or-so, big brands also became
| worried about getting flamed by the president for raising prices.
| NickC25 wrote:
| The companies that got flamed by 1600 Penn were the ones that
| raised prices without paying the occupant of 1600 Penn a bribe
| beforehand.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| For the other 96% of the world population: 1600 Penn is a
| cute slang term referring to the address of the White House,
| a.k.a the president.
| dwa3592 wrote:
| For the love of god- I can't understand why people buy paper
| towels. It makes zero sense. It's expensive, you throw it after a
| use. I started using cloth towels and life is so much better.
| leptons wrote:
| Same here.
|
| We stopped using toilet paper during covid, got a bidet, and
| bought a couple hundred shop towels to dry our butts. Now we
| only buy toilet paper for guests, which happens maybe once a
| year after throwing several parties.
|
| Then we also bought shop towels for the kitchen to replace
| paper towels. I love the shop towels so much.
|
| The butt-towels are white, and we wash them with bleach,
| there's been zero problems doing this over the last ~6 years.
| If there happens to be a bit of excess poop on a towel
| (typically there is none at all), we just throw it out, we have
| hundreds. The kitchen towels are blue, so we don't mix them up
| with the butt-towels.
|
| We have laundry baskets for each kind of shop towel. A small
| one in the bathrooms, a larger one in the kitchen for the
| kitchen towels. We have to wash the butt-towels maybe once a
| month, and about the same for the kitchen towels. It's a simple
| chore that takes practically none of our time, less than it
| would to go out and buy paper. No, the butt-towels do not smell
| at all, they dry quickly and there's never been any problem
| whatsoever.
|
| It's so much better than spending multiple $100s of dollars a
| year on paper that literally gets flushed down the toilet or
| goes into the trash.
|
| A few of our friends took notice and started doing this too.
|
| Honestly, I don't know why we ever wiped our butts with toilet
| paper for so many years, it's just so... shitty. It's just not
| a good experience. When we travel we miss our bidet and shop
| towels so much, to the point that I've ordered a cheap bidet if
| I'm staying in an Airbnb for a week or more, and install it
| there, and leave it behind. $30 well spent.
| amitav1 wrote:
| Take my upvote and leave this platform forever
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I don't use them frequently, but I love them for some things.
| In particular, my wife likes our cloths to look nice. This
| means wiping up something staining will make the cloths look
| worse. In those cases I pull out a paper towel. I could get
| black cloths to get around this, but she doesn't like those.
| So, here we are.
|
| They're also useful when I need to use a harsh chemical that I
| don't want lingering on a household cloth my young kids might
| use on their bodies.
|
| I've had the same roll for around a year, but it's almost
| exhausted. I think they're fine.
|
| They're also very useful in a lab setting, but that's another
| matter.
| amatecha wrote:
| What a poorly-built site. There is a cookie banner covering a
| popover solicitation for donations, covering an inset
| photo/caption which itself is covered by a cookie banner (wtf?)
| ... closed the tab.
| steviedotboston wrote:
| the price of name brand soda is outrageous. I remember when it
| was around a dollar a bottle not long ago, now it's basically 3
| dollars a bottle. I can't think of a good explanation for this.
| It's water and subsidized corn syrup.
| blell wrote:
| >I can't think of a good explanation for this.
|
| Supply and demand.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It was intentional price gouging, but prices have become to
| come down after shareholders pressured CEOs to lower the prices
| in response to tepid sales numbers.
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pepsico-cut-prices-eliminate-...
|
| (The link is for PepsiCo but we all know that they all raised
| their prices together and will lower their prices together.)
| reincarnate0x14 wrote:
| They're pricing at the point of pain, not maximizing
| efficiency. There are few enough companies (what, like, 3?)
| that own the majority of the brands so they don't even need to
| collude to figure out that they can all hover around "as high
| as we can get away with" together.
|
| I've been nursing a minor Coke Zero addiction for years but
| usually get the store brand which is close enough at half the
| cost. For whatever reason Coke Zero itself dropped in price by
| about 30% recently but that's apparently not nationwide.
|
| It really kind of blows my mind how much of that people drink.
| I'll get a 2 liter bottle that will last days and then I read
| about people going through entire cases of Mountain Dew Insane
| Flavor Combo Super Bacinator Blast in a day and it's like my
| god that's like 4000 kcals of corn syrup.
| barbazoo wrote:
| It's sad to see, when I go to my local Walmart, how much
| sugar water people buy, cases and cases. It must be a
| significant source of liquid for them.
| bluGill wrote:
| More importantly it is a significant source of calories. My
| brother quit soda years ago when he realized he was getting
| 1/3 of his daily calories from sugar - a little sugar is
| okay but you can't meet your daily nutrient needs when that
| much is from sugar. If it is just liquid soda is just as
| others (and probably better than alcohol), but there are
| other considerations.
| ricree wrote:
| > how much sugar water people buy, cases and cases
|
| One confounding factor here is that oftentimes the price is
| only reasonable in bulk. I don't know about walmart, but
| around me the best deal typically is "buy 2 get 3 free". I
| rarely buy/drink soda, but on the occasions I buy at all
| I'll be getting many cases at a time.
| ninju wrote:
| Late stage capitalism
| Aloisius wrote:
| I buy soda syrup to make soda, but even that's gotten
| expensive. Funny thing is that I do it to reduce how much I was
| putting in recycling, but even with the extra state tax for
| bottles/cans, it actually costs me slightly more to make it
| myself.
|
| I've had great results making my own mineral water clones
| though, so maybe I'll try making LabCoatz's coca cola clone
| syrup and see how it works with sucrolose or allulose.
| scythe wrote:
| If you're buying individual bottles, you're paying for the
| refrigerator. Otherwise you buy boxes and it's still very
| cheap. Spindrift is $6.49 for an eight-pack and LaCroix is
| cheaper. I haven't bought Coke in a long time, sorry.
| sejje wrote:
| Pepsi, coke ,Dr p, A&W root beer are now all .50c per can or
| more, in bulk cases from Sam's. Root beer is like 75c/can.
|
| 5 years ago I think they were about 30c.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| It's totally "because they can". Even if you take marketing
| budgets into account I can't imagine it costs that much more to
| make a 2l of Diet Coke vs the store brands which still sell for
| $1 where I live
| vinyl7 wrote:
| The thing with inflation is that a product's individual
| components may cost the same or less over time, but the cost of
| everything else...like housing...doubles every couple of years.
| So you need to increase prices to support higher salaries,
| increasing minimum wage, etc. It's rides the line of becoming
| run away inflation since everyone needs to raise prices to
| support COL, then everything gets more expensive, then they
| need to raise prices again to support everything else getting
| more expensive. It's a loop that will never be closed
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| That stuff is so bad for you though that raising the price
| probably decreases the country's total healthcare costs by
| quite a bit.
| jmward01 wrote:
| It would be interesting to see inflation indexes based on
| different typical buyers, to include the ultra rich. Basically,
| inflation isn't uniform and impacts people differently. Of course
| that brings up how you actually measure the impact of inflation
| to the ultra rich when the price of corn flakes is meaningless
| and their personal purchase are negligible. Maybe you look at how
| much the cost to buy a politician has gone up?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| FWIW, a frugal person can't simply think to eat whatever has
| declined in price... It's worth realizing that, for example, a
| 20% rise on the 0.33 ramen is still one of your cheapest options.
|
| From my perspective (ie, in the USA) it can still be hella cheap
| if you're willing to cook food yourself from scratch. Rice,
| Beans, Lentils, and frozen veggies can give you the baseline of
| very nutritious meals (but boring af) for like $2 a day.
|
| you can eat (all dry/unprepared weight) 100g white rice, 100g
| black beans, 100g black lentils, 225g frozen mixed veggies for
| about $1 if you buy in small bulk (like 2-5lbs at a time)
| morcus wrote:
| If you add a few cents of spices a day, I would argue it's not
| even too boring af and can even arguably be fairly tasty!
| RickS wrote:
| We're really sorely missing something like "semver for food".
|
| I don't have deep food industry knowledge, IIRC there are some
| rules around SKUs needing to rotate in response to certain
| changes, but these are completely opaque to customers. People
| should know they're eating snickers 12.2.2, and while a sub-1%
| change to one ingredient's amount might be a patch bump, a 10%
| total weight reduction should absolutely trigger a major version
| bump. SKU and nutrition labels should be tied to a public
| changelog, and inaccuracies in that changelog should
| proportionally imperil manufacturer solvency.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| This was really informative!
|
| A recent job loss forced me to look harder at my own financials,
| and I was surprised just how much things like groceries accounts
| for in overall spending. I'm making a habit this year of, at the
| end of each day, recording what I spent and on what - so I can
| get better data.
|
| I appreciate what NPR did here. Taking into account price per
| ounce/square foot/etc is essential so I'm glad they did.
|
| It's useful to see these kinds of changes, can help make
| decisions. If company X is shrinking product Y, maybe it's time
| to look for an off-brand instead? That's what I'll be doing for a
| lot of things.
| throw0101d wrote:
| Going out and checking prices independently of official numbers
| has been thing for a while:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Billion_Prices_project
|
| Generally peer-reviewed papers have shown the official CPI
| numbers are fairly accurate.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| I'm surprised the US doesn't try doing chocolate growing in some
| of it's big empty, hot states.
| watersb wrote:
| In general, if there's enough water to grow chocolate, then a
| relatively hot, empty state chooses to build single-family
| housing developments and five-lane roads.
|
| The really empty states lack the water.
| bradhe wrote:
| Cue outrage from the conservative administration for _checks
| notes_ quality journalism.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-14 23:02 UTC)