On 4/15/2015 10:47 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 4/15/2015 10:20 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On 15 Apr 2015 15:08:01 GMT
Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

is cheaper and sometimes it's not. The only way to know for sure is
to pull out the calculator and crunch some numbers.

good stores show cost/ounce right there

i have asked several times at one store why they have no cost/unit
shrugged me off

we don't care, we don't have to


This is true but they could also "not post the correct calculation per
oz or lb. to steer you towards what they want you to buy. I have seen
that. If it really matters to you it is best to make the calculations
yourself.

I'm more than a little skeptical of this Leon. It's the "not post the
corredt calculation per..." part that raises my suspicions. No doubt -
there are unscrupulous retailers out there, so I can't argue that it does
not or cannot happen, but really - how often does this happen?

Dont get me wrong here, I don't mean to say that all are incorrect, like
everything else there can be mistakes. I'm the guy that finds the
mistakes. ;~( The wrong labels are probably
unintentional,,,,probably,,,,I hope.

On 4/15/2015 11:40 AM, krw wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:40:02 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/15/2015 10:20 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On 15 Apr 2015 15:08:01 GMT
Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

is cheaper and sometimes it's not. The only way to know for sure is
to pull out the calculator and crunch some numbers.

good stores show cost/ounce right there

i have asked several times at one store why they have no cost/unit
shrugged me off

we don't care, we don't have to


This is true but they could also "not post the correct calculation per
oz or lb. to steer you towards what they want you to buy. I have seen
that. If it really matters to you it is best to make the calculations
yourself.

"They" can also be on the receiving end of huge fines.

Yet I have never ever heard of this happening. I have heard of problems
where the price label does not match the register receipt but never
where the cost per oz. or lb. are incorrect. Most people simply look at
the total price and that is the price that has to be correct.

On 4/15/2015 11:05 AM, wrote:
Strange to me that people go to the cheapest tool store on the planet and complain when they don't get the most extreme bargain available. Purchasing another piece of (inexpensive) tooling just for the sake of convenience and nothing else is something that was unheard of when I started in the trades.

The easiest remedy of course, is to go buy exactly what you want and pay the going rate, not to expect a tool discounter to make tools to one's standards. Personally, HF and I are at peace. I buy some things from them quite happily, and run like hell the other direction from others. They are a item distributor, not a tool distributor.

As far as less in the package, regardless of what that might be, it will certainly continue on and will get worse. With the $15 an hour movement gaining steam it is only a matter of time before one of our more "forward thinking" states adopt that.

And how very sad. When reading the reasoning behind the $15 movement I was embarrassed for all involved. Flipping burgers, job site labor, working at a car wash, working as a bus boy etc., used to be considered entry level jobs. They showed you how to work (show up on time, take some training, learn to do work you don't like, how to work well with others, the importance of your given task) and taught the importance of a given task. You had an opportunity to start building a history of showing up on time when scheduled, taking some training, and showing yourself to be a worthwhile employee to others. You developed a history that showed you were reliable, capable, and worth training, so your employer (or someone else!) would hire you at a better rate of pay after proving yourself in the slightest way.

Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum wage employees.

And for those of you that aren't employers, take it from me. When the minimum goes up for burger flippers, all wages will go up. The guys running the cash register at your local burger joint that are making $12 will certainly want to be paid at least $20. One of the army of "assistant managers" at said burger joint will no doubt want to be raised from his $20 an hour price tag to $25 or more.

So many of the low paying jobs WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE CAREERS, and you weren't ever going to make a livable wage to support yourself doing them. These jobs were set up in an econonic model that allowed the employer the latitude to work with the lowest common denominator of the employee pool. When I started as a laborer more than 40 years ago, I had a clear understanding that I would never support myself with that wage (minimum). It made me want to learn, made me want to progress, and certainly made me volunteer for all the overtime I could get. I knew I was screwed on the bottom rung of the ladder, but then worked hard enough to get as far away from it as possible.

I feel bad for employers that have to maintain that kind of work force. Good employees are worth what you pay them. I always pay top dollar and always have, but that is my choice. But it is difficult to imagine paying guys that have no work history, and no training double the minimum wage for just showing up. Around here, there are still a lot of high school kids that work at the fast food places. I cringe at the thought of hiring today's high school kids to do anything for $15 an hour...

But I am afraid for all employers it is just a matter of time. THEN we will see how much coffee is in the bag, how many fries you get, and how much more self service we will all be doing at our vendors of choice.

Robert



Raising minimum wage is simply a way for the government to take focus
away from inflation. When the government prints more money to pay it's
bills the dollar buys less. It is a cycle that leads to no good.

On 4/15/2015 1:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Absolutely correct but not a freaking living that competes with the
Jones's. Not every one can be paid the same, they simply not skilled
enough to do so. Those people either move to an area of the count4ry
that is not so freaking expensive to live or take two jobs.


Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some
pocket money.

Exactly, and that is a shame that these adults did not make the most of
opportunities presented to them other than government hand outs.


Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr
federal minimum wage.

They also cant afford $500,000.00 homes and yet that is where many live.


If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

It will fail. Why do you think all minimum wages have to be raised?
Government is the first place to look. Government raising minimum wage
is simply to shift focus away from the **** poor job it is doing.
Raising minimum wage, in a nut shell, for a very short time shifts the
balance in favor of the little guy. Then several months later more
money is printed to pay off debt for a scheme, that it has sold it's
citizens, THAT IS MISERABLY FAILING.

The top 1% pays for it? ROTFLMAO LOL. WE ALL PAY FOR IT. An
immediate price increase of everything will happen. It always has and
it always will.


It's just Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" in reverse.

Yes the least deserving get the biggest pay increases.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" have proven to be a disaster unless
you are in the top 1%.

Wasn't for me, and any one else I personally know.


A $15/hr minimum wage will help the economy recover from the TDE
of the last 30 years.

That is partly why the economy is where it is today.

Until people are actually paid for what they contribute to the
betterment of society thigs will always get worse because the government
is always going to have a "fix it" plan for something that does not exist.
Raising minimum wage is only teaching people to rely on the government.

On 4/15/2015 11:28 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com writes:
John McCoy wrote in
:


I'm with you on that one - and it's become epidemic in
the grocery stores, where almost everything now comes
in some odd size, like 14.7oz in a package that used to
hold 16oz, at the same or higher price.

There are some products, like Chobani yoghurt, that I
just don't buy any more because the small size is too
small to be useful.

John

I quit buying Hostess Ding Dongs many years ago after they made them

I quit buying them when I got old enough to understand
the difference between good food and cardboard :-)


LOL... I was going to say something like that... Glad some one did. ;~)

On 4/15/2015 1:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/14/2015 10:20 PM, Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What bugged me
was when I got home I found out there are now only 28 bags in the box
instead of 30! Along with the price increase, it bugged me...lol
There are cheaper options, and will be choosing one of them. My new
choice is unlikely to involve either Lowes or Hefty.
I understand most of your sentiment Bill, but I wouldn't put the heat on
Lowe's. They're just a retailer - not a manufacturer. They can only
sell
what the manufacturer produces - and they have to do that at some profit
level.

We'll see if they notice when I buy in bulk online and remove them both
from my radar.

I was just thinking today how the availability of credit, along with
poor judgement on the part of many consumers, has advanced car prices to
where they are today. Make people pay cash and see what happens! ; )
Is that a "silly" notion? If so, perhaps only because we have been
marketed to so much that we think a certain way?

Mike, It seems to me that the corps you are looking out for want an
"ever-increasing" profit level.

Is that fair to the person on a fixed income (basically spending "old
money")?



Has anyone noticed how buying in larger quantities is more expensive per
pound than smaller quantities? We have noticed that "2" 16# bags of dog
food are less expensive than "1" 30# bag of dog food. And that 30# bag
used to be 40#.

This may be true in some cases, but I'd be willing to wager that in most cases, the price per pound/ounce/each etc. is lower for the larger size option. I always review the unit pricing label before making a selection to know for sure.

However, one also has to consider how a coupon can factor into this. In many cases, the use of a coupon can reduce the price of the smaller size option to a point where the unit pricing is lower than with the larger size. It all depends on the ratio of the coupon value to the price of the product.

On 4/15/2015 1:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/14/2015 10:20 PM, Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What
bugged me was when I got home I found out there are now only
28 bags in the box instead of 30! Along with the price
increase, it bugged me...lol There are cheaper options, and
will be choosing one of them. My new choice is unlikely to
involve either Lowes or Hefty.
I understand most of your sentiment Bill, but I wouldn't put
the heat on Lowe's. They're just a retailer - not a
manufacturer. They can only sell what the manufacturer
produces - and they have to do that at some profit level.

We'll see if they notice when I buy in bulk online and remove
them both from my radar.

I was just thinking today how the availability of credit, along
with poor judgement on the part of many consumers, has advanced
car prices to where they are today. Make people pay cash and see
what happens! ; ) Is that a "silly" notion? If so, perhaps only
because we have been marketed to so much that we think a certain
way?

Mike, It seems to me that the corps you are looking out for want
an "ever-increasing" profit level.

Is that fair to the person on a fixed income (basically spending
"old money")?



Has anyone noticed how buying in larger quantities is more
expensive per pound than smaller quantities? We have noticed that
"2" 16# bags of dog food are less expensive than "1" 30# bag of dog
food. And that 30# bag used to be 40#.

This may be true in some cases, but I'd be willing to wager that in
most cases, the price per pound/ounce/each etc. is lower for the
larger size option. I always review the unit pricing label before
making a selection to know for sure.

Yes, that is the exception but I found this one and others on other
occasions, but it happens more often than you think. And as I have said
in other posts, the unit pricing label is not always right either.
If I suspect a strange pricing matrix I always compare the actual
container weight to the price.



However, one also has to consider how a coupon can factor into this.
In many cases, the use of a coupon can reduce the price of the
smaller size option to a point where the unit pricing is lower than
with the larger size. It all depends on the ratio of the coupon value
to the price of the product.


No coupon used in this example.

On 4/15/2015 1:55 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:46:01 AM UTC-4, John Grossbohlin wrote:

Up to a point this is true. However, stores like Home Depot, Lowes,
Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and other high volume stores often have products
packaged to their specs and labeling. In some cases items sold at those
stores vary slightly from what is available elsewhere and carry different
SKU numbers. The latter eliminates the problem of them having to price match
other stores as nobody else has that exact product and SKU.

That's shocking! I can't believe that any reputable company would play such games.

Home Depot:

http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/pro...58d6b3_400.jpg

Lowes:

http://images.lowes.com/product/conv...0375000419.jpg



Exactly, same product different label.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 4/15/2015 11:48 AM, krw wrote:

Except that *is* the money used for entertainment and such. I don't
know about you, but most people have a hierarchy of bills (roof over
head, food in belly, heat, lights, ..., garbage bags, ..., credit
cards..., then toys ;-). What's left over is the entertainment
budget. Save in any of the above and there's money left to play.

Well that is how you and I think but is a sad statement that most people
pay for their fun before their necessities.

I'm pretty sure the use of 'most' in that sentence is hyperbole.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some
pocket money.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr
federal minimum wage.

If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
of living (except for the 1% of course then why haven't the two dozen +
raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?

The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.

On 4/15/2015 3:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 4/15/2015 11:48 AM, krw wrote:

Except that *is* the money used for entertainment and such. I don't
know about you, but most people have a hierarchy of bills (roof over
head, food in belly, heat, lights, ..., garbage bags, ..., credit
cards..., then toys ;-). What's left over is the entertainment
budget. Save in any of the above and there's money left to play.

Well that is how you and I think but is a sad statement that most people
pay for their fun before their necessities.

I'm pretty sure the use of 'most' in that sentence is hyperbole.



Way too many.. ;~)

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:09:08 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Has anyone noticed how buying in larger quantities is more expensive
per pound than smaller quantities? We have noticed that "2" 16# bags
of dog food are less expensive than "1" 30# bag of dog food. And that
30# bag used to be 40#.

Actually - I have not noticed any such thing, but then again, I've not
looked at it in decades. I guess we became ingrained to believe that
bulk resulted in lower price per unit.

I've been seeing more and more of that at the grocery store. Seems it
started 2-3 years ago. And I've also found quite a few unit price
markers that are wrong. We've gotten to where if the cheapest choice
isn't obvious we calculate the unit price ourselves.

On 04/15/2015 11:41 AM, Richard wrote:
On 4/14/2015 9:46 PM, Bill wrote:


Went to Lowes the other day to buy another box of Hefty 39-gallon 1.3
mil "Steel-Sak" garbage bags. From my records, I have observed these
price increases:

2009, $9.99
2010, $10.98
2011, $11.99
2015, $12.99

The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What bugged me was
when I got home I found out there are now only 28 bags in the box
instead of 30! Along with the price increase, it bugged me...lol There
are cheaper options, and will be choosing one of them. My new choice is
unlikely to involve either Lowes or Hefty.



Guys, this is NOT price increases.

This is inflation at work.

And it's about to skyrocket!


Who among us really believes or government can spend trillions of tax
dollars without this happening?

You mean trillions of borrowed dollars.



Fools




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"dadiOH" wrote:

Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better
standard of living (except for the 1% of course then why haven't
the two dozen + raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished
that end?
--------------------------------------------
Try inflation for starters.
----------------------------------
The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.
------------------------------------------
Think you will have to find a little proof.

Inflation is the fox in the hen house when it comes to higher prices.

Lew

On 4/15/15 2:08 PM, Leon wrote:
On 4/15/2015 10:37 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/14/15 11:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote:

Went to Lowes the other day to buy another box of Hefty
39-gallon 1.3 mil "Steel-Sak" garbage bags. From my records, I
have observed these price increases:

2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99

The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What
bugged me was when I got home I found out there are now only 28
bags in the box instead of 30! Along with the price increase,
it bugged me...lol There are cheaper options, and will be
choosing one of them. My new choice is unlikely to involve
either Lowes or Hefty.
---------------------------------------------------------- Been
to the supermarket lately.

The favorite way for retail consumer products to get a price
increase is to maintain the package size while reducing the
quantity of the product in the package.

As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now
56 oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz
but the box sizes for these items have remained constant.

Lew


Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging? You guys are
acting like they're trying to pull on over on you.

You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly
marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a
feed trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it.


Keep in mind that label details are not always correct. The pricing
is, but not always the price per oz. or lb. I see that every time I
take the time to check those labels.


The package shows the volume or weight clearly marked.
The price is also clearly marked, somewhere.
That's the end of their responsibility.
They're not responsible for people getting confused by inflation or not
being able to do 4th grade math. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 4/15/15 1:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs
with the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers
that suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to
be paid a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if
any), skill level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer
will be required to pay almost double what they are paying now for
minimum wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------


If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some pocket money.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support a
family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr federal minimum wage.

If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

It's just Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" in reverse.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" have proven to be a disaster
unless you are in the top 1%.

A $15/hr minimum wage will help the economy recover from the TDE of
the last 30 years.

Off the box.

Lew


The only place that works is in Fantasyland.
What happens when burger flippers start making $15/hr?
Every skilled/educated laborer is going to require more because they
don't "deserve" (your word) to make the same as someone doing what a
trained monkey could do.

That raises the price of everything and all of a sudden, $15/hr buys the
same as $7.50/hr did and we start the whole process over.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

krw wrote in news:8e4tiatitn86fvmvkokamr148sa7tbcc8a@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:46:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

I'm with you on that one - and it's become epidemic in
the grocery stores, where almost everything now comes
in some odd size, like 14.7oz in a package that used to
hold 16oz, at the same or higher price.

...and there is a unit pricing sticker on the shelf right under the
box. ...and calculators can be had in the dollar store (or free on
your cell phone).

Yeah, I can do the math in my head, thank you.

In any event, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that
a) increasing the unit price by decreasing the amount of
product in the same size package is duplictious; and b)
weird sized quantities are simply inconvenient in many
cases.

It's like buying a little package of 3 screws. How often
do you need 3? More often you need 2 or 4. But somewhere
along the line the package downsized to 3.

John

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
What does that have to do with quality? They downgraded the features,
but that does not mean the quality of the product is affected at all.
You have the terms confused.

Quality has to do with tolerances, grades of material, proper
assembly.

In some contexts, "quality" means "fitness for a certain
purpose". In this case the older product was more fit for
Bill's purpose, and thus the newer is of lower quality.

John

John Grossbohlin wrote:

...and without mentioning that they also are a very low grade bolt or
screw! I've been sticking to a local hardware store for most of my
fasteners as they stock higher quality fasteners for the professionals
to whom they cater. The funny thing is that the better quality
fasteners at the local hardware store are often significantly less
expensive than the poor quality stuff at Home Depot and Lowe's. Home
Depot and Lowe's have got to be making a killing on fasteners!



I think they offer them more as a "convenience" than as a profit
center. Like a "loss leader".

Mike Marlow wrote:
Mr.E wrote:

Look at the mayonnaise jars- now 30 oz. instead of 32 oz.
Sauers just succumbed to this and I am looking at other brands for the
first time in years.
I quit Unilever over their "Just Mayonnaise" fiasco. No more
Lipton,Knorr or other Unilever for me.
If enough of us over react, this bs will not be acceptable.
That's the principle behind consumer driven markets but the problem is that
seldom (to the point of almsot never...) do consumers band together to
create enough of a force to drive things like this.

It did in the case of Intuit's Turbo Tax Deluxe.

Leon wrote:
On 4/15/2015 8:00 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Mr.E wrote:

Look at the mayonnaise jars- now 30 oz. instead of 32 oz.
Sauers just succumbed to this and I am looking at other brands for the
first time in years.
I quit Unilever over their "Just Mayonnaise" fiasco. No more
Lipton,Knorr or other Unilever for me.
If enough of us over react, this bs will not be acceptable.

That's the principle behind consumer driven markets but the problem
is that
seldom (to the point of almsot never...) do consumers band together to
create enough of a force to drive things like this.



As long as consumers don't get into money used for entertainment and
sports they are not likely to worry about a few extra dollars for the
same product.

That's funny! I assume you mean to include beer too (as part of
entertainment).

-MIKE- wrote:
On 4/14/15 11:45 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote:

Went to Lowes the other day to buy another box of Hefty 39-gallon
1.3 mil "Steel-Sak" garbage bags. From my records, I have observed
these price increases:

2009, $9.99 2010, $10.98 2011, $11.99 2015, $12.99

The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What bugged
me was when I got home I found out there are now only 28 bags in
the box instead of 30! Along with the price increase, it bugged
me...lol There are cheaper options, and will be choosing one of
them. My new choice is unlikely to involve either Lowes or Hefty.
---------------------------------------------------------- Been to
the supermarket lately.

The favorite way for retail consumer products to get a price
increase is to maintain the package size while reducing the quantity
of the product in the package.

As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56
oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the
box sizes for these items have remained constant.

Lew


Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging?
You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you.

You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly
marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed
trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it.


They didn't go "out of their way" to note that the product was changed
(similar to Turbo Tax Deluxe, this year).

On 4/15/2015 11:12 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:




Exactly, this is simply the manufacturer raising prices if the price
for "similar" sized product remains the same. Take a look at coffee.
You used to buy that by the pound, now by the 12 oz. bag.


But again - that's not a retailer's domain. That's the domain of the
"manufacturer". The retailer simply passes these new realities on to the
consumer.



Sometimes it is the retailer when it comes to coffee. I buy Kona direct
from a grower (Smithfarms.com by the pound and other types from Armeno
Coffee and it is the full pound. Others do sell 12 ounce bags. The
supermarkets have no choice and often sell smaller bags.

On 4/15/2015 11:37 AM, -MIKE- wrote:

As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56
oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the
box sizes for these items have remained constant.

Lew


Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging?
You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you.

You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly
marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed
trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it.


Sure, we can read and that is why we are bitching about it. I'd rather
pay the higher price and get the former half gallon of ice cream instead
of buying 1 1/2 quarts. In a year's time I have to buy 16 packages
instead of 12 to get the same amount of product. It is a waste of
packaging material too.

Try putting a quart of home made soup in a 30 ounce mayo jar.

The manufacturer is attempting to deceive.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
The manufacturer is attempting to deceive.

I think that is the key point! We expect better behavior from *our*
nation's corporations.

Bill wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
The manufacturer is attempting to deceive.

I think that is the key point! We expect better behavior from *our*
nation's corporations.

Let me rephrase that:

We expect better behavior from *our* national corporations.

On 4/15/2015 3:05 PM, Leon wrote:


Well that is how you and I think but is a sad statement that most people
pay for their fun before their necessities.

Many years ago I worked for a company that made hobby products (mostly
doe model airplanes) When the economy went bad and unemployment went
up, so did out sales. No work time, so, more time for hobby.

On 4/15/2015 6:57 PM, Baxter wrote:


Because those raises have not been big enough. In real terms, the minnimum
wage today buys far less than the minimum wage of 1973. Real wages have
fallen even as productivity has gone up.

see chart: http://tinyurl.com/qador9y

The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.

Proof of this is lacking. And those few instances where it did occur, the
raise in wages was greater than the raise in prices.


In 1963 I had a minimum wage job. Using an inflation calculator, I'd be
making $11.89 today, yet the Fed is a mere 7.50. Started out at the
bottom and left seven years later as a manager of 40 people.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Bill wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 6:31:29 PM UTC-4, Bob La Londe wrote:
Harbor Fright Down Grades Quality Again

I've got a couple Harbor Fright Drill press. One is a floor model.
Its not
wonderful, but its atleast 15 years old and it works. Once you
learn a few
tricks you can drill decent holes. The other is a 12 speed bench
model. In
some ways its better than the floor model. I keep a tapping head in
that
one. I tap a lot of 10-32 holes in aluminum with it. It was the
smallest
least expensive drill press I could find that had a regular MT2
taper, and
it works great for what I use it for. Tapping holes.

A buddy from another newsgroup gave me a good deal on another
tapping head a
little bigger than the one I had. I figured I would set it up, and
just
leave a 1/4-20 machine tap in it since that's the second most common
hole I
tap. I was thinking another one of those Harbor Fright 12 speed bench
toppers would do the trick, so I started hunting for a coupon or a
sale.
Finally I found an outfit that would "sell" me a coupon for it for $5.
Since it would save me $40 if it wasn't bogus I figured it was worth
a shot.
I printed my coupon and checked on-line to make sure the coupon code
was
good. Off to Harbor Fright to buy my drill press. There were none on
display, but there was one below in a box. I opened up the box to
make sure
everything was there, and noticed the head didn't look right. I checked
further and found it doesn't have an MT2 taper anymore. Its got
that stupid
fixed BT16 spindle taper instead. The one that is on the smaller
cheaper
drill presses. Just to be double sure I looked at the manual.
Yep. They
downgraded the unit a LOT and didn't lower the price.

I left the coupon on the box for the next guy.
Hmmm...downgraded the unit and didn't lower the price. Where have I
heard that before?

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Bost...nsumer_g01.jpg



Went to Lowes the other day to buy another box of Hefty 39-gallon 1.3
mil "Steel-Sak" garbage bags. From my records, I have observed these
price increases:

2009, $9.99
2010, $10.98
2011, $11.99
2015, $12.99

The price increase didn't bug me that much this year. What bugged me
was when I got home I found out there are now only 28 bags in the box
instead of 30! Along with the price increase, it bugged me...lol
There are cheaper options, and will be choosing one of them.
Since there was so much interest, I did the calculation just for fun.
This years increase represents a 16.1% price increase, in the price of
each bag, before sales tax. Feel free to double-check. I think that the
extent of the effective price increase will not be noticed by more
shoppers (which of course, I think is part of the strategy of
implementing it this way). I've typed this the following sentence in
other forums: When our nations corporations "go to war" against it's
citizens, we can be less proud as a nation.

On 4/15/2015 5:46 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
What does that have to do with quality? They downgraded the features,
but that does not mean the quality of the product is affected at all.
You have the terms confused.

Quality has to do with tolerances, grades of material, proper
assembly.

In some contexts, "quality" means "fitness for a certain
purpose". In this case the older product was more fit for
Bill's purpose, and thus the newer is of lower quality.

John


A quality item (an item that has quality) has the ability to perform
satisfactorily in service and is suitable for its intended purpose.
It may not suite Bill's need, but if the new design performs to the now
intended purpose, it is of equal quality.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 5:46 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
What does that have to do with quality? They downgraded the features,
but that does not mean the quality of the product is affected at all.
You have the terms confused.

Quality has to do with tolerances, grades of material, proper
assembly.

In some contexts, "quality" means "fitness for a certain
purpose". In this case the older product was more fit for
Bill's purpose, and thus the newer is of lower quality.

John


A quality item (an item that has quality) has the ability to perform
satisfactorily in service and is suitable for its intended purpose.
It may not suite Bill's need, but if the new design performs to the
now intended purpose, it is of equal quality.

If it was of equal quality, why would Bill prefer the old box?

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:40:29 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

krw wrote in news:8e4tiatitn86fvmvkokamr148sa7tbcc8a@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:46:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

I'm with you on that one - and it's become epidemic in
the grocery stores, where almost everything now comes
in some odd size, like 14.7oz in a package that used to
hold 16oz, at the same or higher price.

...and there is a unit pricing sticker on the shelf right under the
box. ...and calculators can be had in the dollar store (or free on
your cell phone).

Yeah, I can do the math in my head, thank you.

In any event, that's irrelevant.

It's certainly not irrelevant. If the unit price is given, who cares
whether a large box is more expensive than two smaller boxes? You're
*given* all the information. You don't even need to think.

What is relevant is that
a) increasing the unit price by decreasing the amount of
product in the same size package is duplictious; and b)
weird sized quantities are simply inconvenient in many
cases.

Caveat Emptor. As long as you're given the information, deal with it.

It's like buying a little package of 3 screws. How often
do you need 3? More often you need 2 or 4. But somewhere
along the line the package downsized to 3.

But you know there are only three screws. So what? Buy a box of a
hundred and stop screwing around! ;-)

On 4/15/15 6:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:37 AM, -MIKE- wrote:

As examples a half gallon size (64 oz) box of ice cream is now 56
oz, and a 5 oz box of Irish Spring bath soap is now 3.75 oz but the
box sizes for these items have remained constant.

Lew


Aren't these things clearly marked on the packaging?
You guys are acting like they're trying to pull on over on you.

You can see the price and the quantity or weight or volume clearly
marked on the labels. You're not stupid cows sauntering over to a feed
trough ever day gulping down whatever was shoveled into it.


Sure, we can read and that is why we are bitching about it. I'd rather
pay the higher price and get the former half gallon of ice cream instead
of buying 1 1/2 quarts. In a year's time I have to buy 16 packages
instead of 12 to get the same amount of product. It is a waste of
packaging material too.

Try putting a quart of home made soup in a 30 ounce mayo jar.

The manufacturer is attempting to deceive.


Deceiving you buy clearly labeling the product with the amount and a
price.
Make perfect sense.
Every village needs idiots.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:23:57 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/15/2015 11:40 AM, krw wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:40:02 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/15/2015 10:20 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
On 15 Apr 2015 15:08:01 GMT
Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

is cheaper and sometimes it's not. The only way to know for sure is
to pull out the calculator and crunch some numbers.

good stores show cost/ounce right there

i have asked several times at one store why they have no cost/unit
shrugged me off

we don't care, we don't have to


This is true but they could also "not post the correct calculation per
oz or lb. to steer you towards what they want you to buy. I have seen
that. If it really matters to you it is best to make the calculations
yourself.

"They" can also be on the receiving end of huge fines.

Yet I have never ever heard of this happening. I have heard of problems
where the price label does not match the register receipt but never
where the cost per oz. or lb. are incorrect. Most people simply look at
the total price and that is the price that has to be correct.

It happens all the time in NY. I don't know if they still have the
law, but at one time if the unit price label was wrong, the item was
free. It was known as an "incentive" to get it right. ;-)

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:49:18 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Absurd. Not all workers require a "living wage" (whatever that is).
It is absurd to expect that all jobs that need doing would require
someone who "needs" a "living wage".

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some
pocket money.

So what? They should have held that entry level job when they were a
pimply faced kid.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr
federal minimum wage.

Bull****.
If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

It's just Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" in reverse.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" have proven to be a disaster unless
you are in the top 1%.

A $15/hr minimum wage will help the economy recover from the TDE
of the last 30 years.

Off the box.

Lew

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:12:43 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs with
the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers that
suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to be paid
a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if any), skill
level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer will be
required to pay almost double what they are paying now for minimum
wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some
pocket money.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support
a family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr
federal minimum wage.

If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

Lew, if raising the minimum wage would enable all to enjoy a better standard
of living (except for the 1% of course then why haven't the two dozen +
raises in it over the last 70 years accomplished that end?

The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.

....and decrease employment.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:32:58 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 4/15/15 1:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


snip
Now, the $15 an hour folks want the most menial jobs, the jobs
with the least skill level, the jobs that provided by employers
that suffer all those that come and go as first time employees to
be paid a "livable" wage. Regardless of their work history (if
any), skill level, employment history or lack thereof, an employer
will be required to pay almost double what they are paying now for
minimum wage employees.
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------


If a job has to be done, then it deserves a living wage to get it
done.

Not all entry level jobs are done by pimple faced kids looking for
some pocket money.

Many of these people earning a minimum wage are trying to support a
family unit which isn't going to happen at $10/hr much less the
$7.50/hr federal minimum wage.

If the $15/hour minimum wage gets enacted it will raise the standard
of living of the whole economy except for the top 1% which will be
asked to pay for it.

It's just Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" in reverse.

Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" have proven to be a disaster
unless you are in the top 1%.

A $15/hr minimum wage will help the economy recover from the TDE of
the last 30 years.

Off the box.

Lew


The only place that works is in Fantasyland.
What happens when burger flippers start making $15/hr?
Every skilled/educated laborer is going to require more because they
don't "deserve" (your word) to make the same as someone doing what a
trained monkey could do.

What really happens is that a $50/hr engineer figures out how to make
a machine that flips burgers, that costs only $10/hr to own. Mr.
Burgerfliiper now has no entry level job at all but he does have the
government to live off of for life.

That raises the price of everything and all of a sudden, $15/hr buys the
same as $7.50/hr did and we start the whole process over.

The only thing raising the mnimum wage does is raise all prices.

...and decrease employment.

If you are going to use phrases like "the only thing" in discussing
economics, you are not an expert in economics...

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:05:45 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/15/2015 11:48 AM, krw wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:36:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 4/15/2015 8:00 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Mr.E wrote:

Look at the mayonnaise jars- now 30 oz. instead of 32 oz.
Sauers just succumbed to this and I am looking at other brands for the
first time in years.
I quit Unilever over their "Just Mayonnaise" fiasco. No more
Lipton,Knorr or other Unilever for me.
If enough of us over react, this bs will not be acceptable.

That's the principle behind consumer driven markets but the problem is that
seldom (to the point of almsot never...) do consumers band together to
create enough of a force to drive things like this.



As long as consumers don't get into money used for entertainment and
sports they are not likely to worry about a few extra dollars for the
same product.

Except that *is* the money used for entertainment and such. I don't
know about you, but most people have a hierarchy of bills (roof over
head, food in belly, heat, lights, ..., garbage bags, ..., credit
cards..., then toys ;-). What's left over is the entertainment
budget. Save in any of the above and there's money left to play.

Well that is how you and I think but is a sad statement that most people
pay for their fun before their necessities.

I don't think it's anywhere near "most people". But if/when that is
the case, it really doesn't matter what the entertainment costs. It'll
still come before other expenses.

Nothing borrowed here.
It's "taken" in the form of taxes

What's YOUR share of the US debt?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews


http://www.foxnews.com/tax-calculato...t-federal-debt