On 4/16/2015 8:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
krw wrote:

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. ;-)

I've never heard of it being free, but if the retailer does not update their
shelf pricing and it's labeled at a lower price than what they are currently
trying to sell for, you get the lower price.


I got a free pizza from Price Chopper and a free piece of cheese from
Stop & Shop.

On 4/16/15 12:29 AM, Bill wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

I can assure you is wasn't the same price for 50 years.
If they are guilty of taking advantage of idiots, it's the idiots' fault.
I can't advocate for taking advantage of idiots.


If people are too stupid to see the volume or weight CLEARLY written on
the package and then blame the company for ripping them off, then
*that's* the problem with our society, not the size of the mayo jar

Maybe the right question is to ask whether the mayo jar was changed with
the intent "to deceive".


Again, how can you deceive someone by clearly labeling exactly how much
is in the jar? I'm not aware of any law requiring mayonnaise makers to
sell it in quart jars.

There's only so much we can do to protect the stupid from themselves.


--

-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 Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 10:51:55 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 8:39 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you.

Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the contents and the price fits this definition.

de·ceive
dəˈsēv/
verb

- (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.

- (of a thing) give a mistaken impression.

Don't talk about the legality or the sleaziness of the practice, focus only on the "deception" aspect.


What do you call it? The intent is to reduce the package size and hope
the customer does not notice we are making more money. Use all the
fancy word you want, but that is the intention.

How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that is sad.

They "hope" the customer does not notice?

How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?

I can just picture those board room strategy meetings. "Shh...don't tell anybody, but we're going to reduce the mayonnaise package size again, label it correctly but not lower the price. Those idiot shoppers will never notice. Heck they haven't noticed it yet. We haven't heard a word about it, so we're good to go. 30 oz this week, 28 oz next week. Eventually, all we'll ever need to ship is those little squeeze packages. Gawd, those consumers are such idiots."

The "intention" may be to make more money but it is not to *deceive* the buying public. I don't know how many different ways it can be said, but if a consumer is "deceived" by a clearly labeled package, then they are the ones at fault, not the company selling the product.

On 4/16/15 9:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:34 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/15/2015 9:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years,
most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it
becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to
raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is
called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices
until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO.


It's either hit the shrink ray (the popular term used) or increase
prices.

Which would YOU prefer?

Either way, the price is raised. Am I going to use less mayo on a
sandwich? No, at the end of the year I'm going to buy the same
quantity be it in 4 big bottles or 5 smaller ones. I'm also being
forced to pay for that extra package so it is even worse.

How often do you downsize rather than increase the price. Next year
it will be 28 ounce jars, then 26, 24, 22 ----soon they will be
selling mayo in half ounce packets.


You're not being *forced* to do $h!t. Go to Costco or Sam's Club and
buy it in a 50 gallon drum if you eat that much. I think I saw a 72oz
container at Kroger last time I was there.

While you're at it, take a look at what people in developing nations
have to do to simply survive every day before bitching so much about
what size jar your mayo comes in. :-p


--

-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

"John McCoy" wrote in message
. ..

Bill wrote in
:

John Grossbohlin wrote:

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".

Considering the manpower required to keep the shelves stocked
with all those little bags and boxes, and the losses from the
parts thrown on the floor by people frustrated at finding them
in the wrong bins, they probably do take a loss on them.

I suspect that's part of the reason my local HD replaced an
aisle of hinges, latches, and similar hardware with motor
oil and windshield wipers. Bigger packages, thus less labor
to keep stocked. (that, and random addle-headed thinking by
management - with an auto parts store on the other side of
the intersection, who's going to go to HD for auto parts?)

Interesting... in recent times my local Home Depot has increased the
fastener selection and the amount of shelf space dedicated to it...

On 4/16/15 9:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:15 AM, -MIKE- wrote:


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.



When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years,
most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it
becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to
raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is
called deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices
until they got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO.

I can assure you is wasn't the same price for 50 years. If they are
guilty of taking advantage of idiots, it's the idiots' fault.

If people are too stupid to see the volume or weight CLEARLY
written on the package and then blame the company for ripping them
off, then *that's* the problem with our society, not the size of
the mayo jar.



Of course it wasn't the same price. I don't have a problem with
that. Everything has gone up, including my wages.

Yes, the weight is clearly on the package, but the purpose of the
change is to deceive. You did not answer my question. Do you check
every container every time you buy groceries? Every bottle of
ketchup, can of soup, jar of mayo? Sure, you will catch it at some
point, but it is easy to get snookered one time.


You know something, even IF it could be proven there was clear *intent*
to deceive, like they found emails back and forth in the company saying
that, a judge would laughingly throw the case out because there was
absolutely NO deception.

Not everyone is so brainwashed and mind-numb that they never again look
at the package contents of a product after having done so once back in
1957.


I bought a 6 pack (bottles) of a particular beer I wanted to try.
Picked up the carrier, paid, took it home. At the dinner table I
took a look and the bottle is only 11.2 ounces. Honestly, would you
have thought to check? Beer has been in 12 ounce bottles since I was
a kid and now it is 11.2. Sleazy, IMO. No, I did not buy any more
of it.

Check that label again. I'd bet you a dollar it was bottled in the UK
or Canada.
Aren't you a fan of the metric system? Because that's what's to blame
for that. 11.2oz is 330ml, which rounds of to 1/3 of a liter.

Once again, no one's trying to deceive you. I'm not aware of any US
breweries making the switch yet. But it wouldn't surprise me in the
least, since all of the "Big 3" US beer manufacturers are now foreign
owned companies.


--

-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 Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:05:05 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/15/2015 10:45 PM, wrote:


I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
it's not "the american way"


"greatest country on earth" is a temporary honor. It is slowly changing
like it has for every powerful nation in history. Not happening next
year, but it is happening.
That's why it was in "quotes"

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:52:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What is different? See my other post bout inflation and comparitive
value. My $1.55 per hour then is equal to $11.89 today. Minimum wage
has not kept up.

Same here. My first full time job in 1955 paid $47 a week. That's equal
to $412 a week now. That's $10.30 an hour. Washington has the highest
minimum wage in the country and it's only $9.47.

Our state had a minimum wage increase a few years ago and the usual
suspects - restaurant owners - were frothing at the mouth about the dire
consequences. I talked to a couple of managers I knew and got their
staffing and meals served statistics. Turned out the "catastrophic"
increase amounted to about ten cents per meal served!

In todays paper, I see the Republicans are once again wanting to remove
the estate tax for the top 0.2% of estates those with over 10 million
dollars for a couple. 5 million for one person. But they hate a minimum
wage increase.

I wonder how many of the righteous right on this news group get Social
Security and Medicare while they castigate big government?

"Bill" wrote:
I'm sure any gains achieved by the changes to procedures will be
passed along to the consumer too. Thanks! Maybe we should compare
the relative EPS?
---------------------------------------------------------
Check out a book by James F Lincoln called "Incentive Management".

Written in the 1930's, describes management practices used by Lincoln
Electric to be completive and still be profitable.

One of Lincoln's basic theorems involved cost savings.

Any cost savings derived from a process improvement was to be shared
3 ways. 1/3 to the customer, 1/3 to the employees and 1/3 to the
company.

Lincoln's annual Christmas bonus program was infamous for it's secrecy
but
bonus amounts greater than one's annual salary were reported.

The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.

Lew

On 4/16/2015 12:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that is sad.

They "hope" the customer does not notice?

How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?

But they did get away with it for a long time. It did take a while for
people to notice.

On 4/16/2015 12:42 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:


I wonder how many of the righteous right on this news group get Social
Security and Medicare while they castigate big government?


I'm still working (20% retired) and collect SS and have Medicare and a
supplement. I paid into it and I'm taking it. My healthcare coverage
has never been better. The SS right now is just fun money.

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 1:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that is sad.

They "hope" the customer does not notice?

How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?

But they did get away with it for a long time. It did take a while for
people to notice.

Wait...I'm confused. Are you no longer saying that the companies are trying to deceive us?

As of about 2 hours ago your claim was "The intent is to reduce the package size and hope the customer does not notice we are making more money."

Have you now backed away from that assertion?

On 4/15/2015 8:17 PM, krw wrote:
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. ;-)

Unit price label and the break down of the price of per oz or lb for a
unit are two different things. I agree that the price you pay for a
unit has to be correct but I have never heard of a break down showing
the price per weight or quantity of measure of "a prepackaged unit"
being a punishable offense.

On 4/16/2015 7:46 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
krw wrote:

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. ;-)

I've never heard of it being free, but if the retailer does not update their
shelf pricing and it's labeled at a lower price than what they are currently
trying to sell for, you get the lower price.



One of the grocery stores in Houston used to, may be still does, give
you the item if they price rang up wrong. That was not law but just
their policy.

On 4/16/2015 12:26 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


I bought a 6 pack (bottles) of a particular beer I wanted to try.
Picked up the carrier, paid, took it home. At the dinner table I
took a look and the bottle is only 11.2 ounces. Honestly, would you
have thought to check? Beer has been in 12 ounce bottles since I was
a kid and now it is 11.2. Sleazy, IMO. No, I did not buy any more
of it.

Check that label again. I'd bet you a dollar it was bottled in the UK
or Canada.
Aren't you a fan of the metric system? Because that's what's to blame
for that. 11.2oz is 330ml, which rounds of to 1/3 of a liter.

You owe me a buck. It is made about 40 miles from me. It may be a
metric bottle though.
http://spencerbrewery.com/?success=ok



Once again, no one's trying to deceive you. I'm not aware of any US
breweries making the switch yet. But it wouldn't surprise me in the
least, since all of the "Big 3" US beer manufacturers are now foreign
owned companies.

I've not take the time to check, but in the past, imported beer was in
12 ounce bottles sold in the US. Could have changed as I don't buy that
much beer, I do buy one from Canada and it is 12 ounces.

On 4/15/2015 4:01 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"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.

Look at the economy. Or in your case, gas prices.



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

And inflated wages contribute to inflated prices. Don't you see that if
wages go up the company HAS to charge more for its product?

You simply cannot reward low performance with higher pay. This is why
we are where we are. The government politicians promise, what cannot be
afforded with out creating inflation, to get votes. They absolutely do
not do it for the betterment of the country or the economy.

On 4/15/2015 5:57 PM, Baxter wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in :

Lew Hodgett wrote:
wrote:


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?

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.



And yet here we are again with the government and its sheep followers
buying into needing a minimum wage increase again. There would be no
need for any wage increases for the sake of giving out trophies if the
government would get out of the economy business, quit giving away tax
dollars, and live within its means like we have to do.

John McCoy wrote:

I suspect that's part of the reason my local HD replaced an
aisle of hinges, latches, and similar hardware with motor
oil and windshield wipers. Bigger packages, thus less labor
to keep stocked. (that, and random addle-headed thinking by
management - with an auto parts store on the other side of
the intersection, who's going to go to HD for auto parts?)


As bizarre as the reasoning seems - they really do that more in an effort to
take your money while you are in the store, and not because bigger is easier
to stock. I absolutely never heard anything like that in any management
meetings in retail. In fact - this is the only place I have ever heard such
a thing. It just is not a real world, daily consideration. They look to
sell what people buy, and to have that on the aisles to capture your money
while you're in the store. It's that simple and the other thoughts about
people, weights, etc. are just rubbish.

--

-Mike-

On 4/15/2015 9:45 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:22:35 -0400, krw wrote:

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.
A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
$12.00.
It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
improve the economy.

I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
it's not "the american way"

You simply cannot reward low productivity. If the workers were worth
more the they would be paid more or they could move on.

-MIKE- wrote:

You're not being *forced* to do $h!t. Go to Costco or Sam's Club and
buy it in a 50 gallon drum if you eat that much. I think I saw a 72oz
container at Kroger last time I was there.

While you're at it, take a look at what people in developing nations
have to do to simply survive every day before bitching so much about
what size jar your mayo comes in. :-p

+1

--

-Mike-

On 4/15/2015 10:31 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/15/2015 9:45 PM, wrote:

A "living wage" would increase business, because more people would
be able to afford to buy products. $7.50 is NOT a living wage. Nor is
$12.00.
It would increase prices somewhat, for sure - but overall it WOULD
improve the economy.

I KNOW it will never happen in the "greatest country on earth" because
it's not "the american way"



I'm not convinced it would cause prices to increase.
Might actually (or eventually) cause prices to decrease.
Increased production does that.


Yyou think giving a raise across the board would increase production?

In the formula that works you give a raise after the employee has proven
to be more productive. Give a raise with out improved performance to
begin with and there is no incentive to do better.

On 4/15/2015 10:27 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
Can you still lift a 40# bag?



LOL, Yes but I certainly do not want to. I always prefer double packs
of half the weight.

Leon wrote:

Unit price label and the break down of the price of per oz or lb for a
unit are two different things. I agree that the price you pay for a
unit has to be correct but I have never heard of a break down showing
the price per weight or quantity of measure of "a prepackaged unit"
being a punishable offense.

Huh, Leon? Unit pricing is exactly that - it shows the price per pound, or
ounce, or whatever the baseline unit is. Maybe Texas does not have unit
pricing but we sure as hell do up here and you're just not right in what you
say above. As for "punishable" - I have no idea what anyone has been
talking about with respect to that except that shelf lables (if they are
under otherwise priced) are deemed to be the selling price. Never heard of
any other kind of "punishment".

--

-Mike-

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 11:10:20 AM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:31:06 -0700
"Bob La Londe" wrote:

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

I haven't looked at prices for benchtop drill presses
is there a wide range of prices
how much lower is 'harbor fright'

sounds like a series of fortunate events or are you not going to
get one at all now

I left the coupon on the box for the next guy.

coupon's only good for that tool?
what's the story with that

You've never heard of "product specific" coupons? Allow me to enlighten
you...

http://origin-cdn.coupons.com/static...c/565919_2.gif

Yep. In this case the product specific coupon was much less than the sale
price and a 20% coupon. It was even a little lower than the sale price and
a rarer 25% coupon.

Leon wrote:

You simply cannot reward low productivity. If the workers were worth
more the they would be paid more or they could move on.

Now there's a thought. They don't like their current wage they should quit
en masse. That should show their greedy, blood sucking employers.

Naturally, they will all be expecting to go on unemployment while they
search for a job that will pay them what (they think) they are worth.
Whoops, no unemployment if you quit without just cause. Stingy, blood
sucking employers aren't "just cause".

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:34 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/15/2015 9:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


When people have been buying quart bottles of mayo for 50 years,
most don't look at the jar size every time they buy. Then it
becomes 30 ounces for the same retail price. The purpose it to
raise revenue and hope the customer does not notice. It is called
deception. Perfectly legal. Many people have not notices until they
got home. Sleazy way of doing business, IMO.


It's either hit the shrink ray (the popular term used) or increase
prices. Which would YOU prefer?

Either way, the price is raised. Am I going to use less mayo on a
sandwich? No, at the end of the year I'm going to buy the same
quantity be it in 4 big bottles or 5 smaller ones. I'm also being
forced to pay for that extra package so it is even worse.

How often do you downsize rather than increase the price. Next year
it will be 28 ounce jars, then 26, 24, 22 ----soon they will be
selling mayo in half ounce packets.

Steal them from the fast food places. While you are there, fill up on
catsup and mustard. And next time you eat out, don't forget the crackers


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

-MIKE- wrote:

Again, how can you deceive someone by clearly labeling exactly how
much is in the jar? I'm not aware of any law requiring mayonnaise makers
to sell it in quart jars.

I wouldn't exactly call it "deception", more like "they won't notice a
slightly smaller jar so we can give them less for the same $$". Sure,
people can check the unit price but most people would never do that for an
item they buy regularly. IOW, the sellers are hoping their customers won't
notice a slightly smaller package. Deception, no; sneaky, you bet.

At least the potato chip folks have the "Contents may settle" admonition on
their mostly air filled packages.

DerbyDad03 wrote:


Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers
are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you.

Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain
to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the
contents and the price fits this definition.

de·ceive
d?'sev/
verb

- (of a thing) give a mistaken impression.

That doesn't fit, how? A slightly smaller container certainly gives a
mistaken impression.

On 4/16/2015 1:18 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 1:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that is sad.

They "hope" the customer does not notice?

How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?

But they did get away with it for a long time. It did take a while for
people to notice.

Wait...I'm confused. Are you no longer saying that the companies are trying to deceive us?

As of about 2 hours ago your claim was "The intent is to reduce the package size and hope the customer does not notice we are making more money."

Have you now backed away from that assertion?


They are still trying, but many (not all) have caught on. There are
still some getting deceived, as was the original intent. They are not
suddenly going back to the old size though. You wont' see "Now 32
ounces, yeah, you caught us" .

On 4/16/2015 1:33 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

You're not being *forced* to do $h!t. Go to Costco or Sam's Club and
buy it in a 50 gallon drum if you eat that much. I think I saw a 72oz
container at Kroger last time I was there.

While you're at it, take a look at what people in developing nations
have to do to simply survive every day before bitching so much about
what size jar your mayo comes in. :-p

+1


Not bitching about the size, just the marketing tactics.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 6:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/15/2015 10:05 PM, krw wrote:


Raising the minimum wage would save billions in subsidies to
McDonalds and Walmart (etc) employees.

Absurd.


I'm not sure Back a couple of centuries ago (1963) I had a minimum
wage job and was able to support myself, pay for college and buy a 2
year old car.

Today, many minimum wage workers are getting subsidized healthcare
and food stamps.

What is different? See my other post bout inflation and comparitive
value. My $1.55 per hour then is equal to $11.89 today. Minimum
wage has not kept up.

How much per hour are the subsidies worth?


Food stamps, (SNAP) is $180/month, healthcare is about $500+ based on
local plans here for a single. That works out to about $4.37 per hour
for 40 hours, 4 weeks. Comes out of our taxes.

Which brings the total for minimum wage and subsidies pretty much in line
with what you earned in 1963. You seemed to do OK, so why all the
hullabaloo among the minimum wage earners for more money? They going to
give up the subsidies (yeah, sure)?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:52:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I wonder how many of the righteous right on this news group get Social
Security and Medicare while they castigate big government?

ME..ME. I do. But what does that have do do with anything? I bought and
paid for those. Against my will though. If I'd had my druthers, I'd
rather have eschewed SS and taken care of myself; I did anyway but could
have done WAY better if I'd been able to use the SS tax that the feds forced
upon me.

Ditto medical for most of the time. Now, not so much, costs have just
gotten way out of hand.

What is it about big government that you find so endearing?


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 4/16/15 12:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:26 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


I bought a 6 pack (bottles) of a particular beer I wanted to
try. Picked up the carrier, paid, took it home. At the dinner
table I took a look and the bottle is only 11.2 ounces.
Honestly, would you have thought to check? Beer has been in 12
ounce bottles since I was a kid and now it is 11.2. Sleazy, IMO.
No, I did not buy any more of it.

Check that label again. I'd bet you a dollar it was bottled in the
UK or Canada. Aren't you a fan of the metric system? Because
that's what's to blame for that. 11.2oz is 330ml, which rounds of
to 1/3 of a liter.

You owe me a buck. It is made about 40 miles from me. It may be a
metric bottle though. http://spencerbrewery.com/?success=ok


Looks like a good beer!
Instead of a buck, how about I buy you one of those if we ever meet up?



Once again, no one's trying to deceive you. I'm not aware of any
US breweries making the switch yet. But it wouldn't surprise me in
the least, since all of the "Big 3" US beer manufacturers are now
foreign owned companies.

I've not take the time to check, but in the past, imported beer was
in 12 ounce bottles sold in the US. Could have changed as I don't
buy that much beer, I do buy one from Canada and it is 12 ounces.


My point in all this is that the 11.2oz bottle isn't, nor has it ever
been, a technique used to deceive the consumer. It's simply the "metric
system" in action.

How do you explain those evil cola companies giving away an extra 3-1/2
ounces in every 1/2 gallon of soda!? :-p


--

-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 Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 2:23:00 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:


Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers
are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you.

Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain
to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the
contents and the price fits this definition.

de·ceive
d?'sev/
verb

- (of a thing) give a mistaken impression.

That doesn't fit, how? A slightly smaller container certainly gives a
mistaken impression.

Wait...in your response to Mike you said "I wouldn't exactly call it "deception"" and "Deception, no; sneaky, you bet".

Are you now saying "Deception, yes" because you feel it fits that definition?

Changing your mind is OK. :-) I'm just trying trying to make sure I know where you stand on this issue. I may not agree with you, but I can't say that until I know which side you're on. ;-)

On 4/16/15 1:18 PM, dadiOH wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

Again, how can you deceive someone by clearly labeling exactly how
much is in the jar? I'm not aware of any law requiring mayonnaise
makers to sell it in quart jars.

I wouldn't exactly call it "deception", more like "they won't notice
a slightly smaller jar so we can give them less for the same $$".
Sure, people can check the unit price but most people would never do
that for an item they buy regularly. IOW, the sellers are hoping
their customers won't notice a slightly smaller package. Deception,
no; sneaky, you bet.


I say if people are too stupid no notice and so naive as to "fall for
it," then that's just Darwinism in action.
While we're at it, let's get an entire segment of the population so
hooked on mayonnaise and all this other fattening stuff that we create
an evolutionary change in their DNA that makes them so obese the entire
sub-species goes extinct from heart failure.

We're half way down that path already. If this natural selection also
weeds out the people who have so little stress in their lives that they
see this "deception" as an actual problem that needs to be dealt with,
that's icing on the increasingly smaller portions of cake. :-D


--

-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 4/16/15 1:22 PM, dadiOH wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:


Here we go again with the same ridiculous assertion that consumers
are being deceived by smaller packages. I'll make this easy for you.

Here's is the definition of "deceive". Do us all a favor and explain
to us how a clearly marking a container with the weight of the
contents and the price fits this definition.

de·ceive
d?'sev/
verb

- (of a thing) give a mistaken impression.

That doesn't fit, how? A slightly smaller container certainly gives a
mistaken impression.


Not when it's clearly labeled as being smaller.


--

-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 Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:18 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 1:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

How I wish you were kidding me, but I'm pretty sure you are not, and that is sad.

They "hope" the customer does not notice?

How long as this practice been going on? How many articles, TV stories, internet blogs, usenet groups, etc. have covered this issue? Do you honestly think that the companies marketing the smaller packages are sitting around "hoping" the consumer doesn't notice?

But they did get away with it for a long time. It did take a while for
people to notice.

Wait...I'm confused. Are you no longer saying that the companies are trying to deceive us?

As of about 2 hours ago your claim was "The intent is to reduce the package size and hope the customer does not notice we are making more money."

Have you now backed away from that assertion?


They are still trying, but many (not all) have caught on. There are
still some getting deceived, as was the original intent.

You'll just never get it will you?


They are not
suddenly going back to the old size though. You wont' see "Now 32
ounces, yeah, you caught us".

Nor would I expect them to, but if they did, I would expect a higher price and I would not feel deceived. It's really a very simple concept.

Baxter wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:52:03 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I wonder how many of the righteous right on this news group get
Social Security and Medicare while they castigate big government?

ME..ME. I do. But what does that have do do with anything? I
bought and paid for those. Against my will though. If I'd had my
druthers, I'd rather have eschewed SS and taken care of myself; I
did anyway but could have done WAY better if I'd been able to use
the SS tax that the feds forced upon me.

Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight not so good. Plus SSI was there for
you had you needed it all your working years - investments not so
much.

Nope - but insurance sure as hell was.

--

-Mike-

On 4/16/2015 3:04 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/16/15 12:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:26 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


I bought a 6 pack (bottles) of a particular beer I wanted to
try. Picked up the carrier, paid, took it home. At the dinner
table I took a look and the bottle is only 11.2 ounces.
Honestly, would you have thought to check? Beer has been in 12
ounce bottles since I was a kid and now it is 11.2. Sleazy, IMO.
No, I did not buy any more of it.

Check that label again. I'd bet you a dollar it was bottled in the
UK or Canada. Aren't you a fan of the metric system? Because
that's what's to blame for that. 11.2oz is 330ml, which rounds of
to 1/3 of a liter.

You owe me a buck. It is made about 40 miles from me. It may be a
metric bottle though. http://spencerbrewery.com/?success=ok


Looks like a good beer!
Instead of a buck, how about I buy you one of those if we ever meet up?



Once again, no one's trying to deceive you. I'm not aware of any
US breweries making the switch yet. But it wouldn't surprise me in
the least, since all of the "Big 3" US beer manufacturers are now
foreign owned companies.

I've not take the time to check, but in the past, imported beer was
in 12 ounce bottles sold in the US. Could have changed as I don't
buy that much beer, I do buy one from Canada and it is 12 ounces.


My point in all this is that the 11.2oz bottle isn't, nor has it ever
been, a technique used to deceive the consumer. It's simply the "metric
system" in action.

How do you explain those evil cola companies giving away an extra 3-1/2
ounces in every 1/2 gallon of soda!? :-p

Bottles of beer here in Canada have been 341 ml for a long time, if you
do the conversion that is 11.5 US Fluid ounces, or 12 UK Fluid ounces.
Go figure.

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 3:47:54 PM UTC-4, FrozenNorth wrote:
On 4/16/2015 3:04 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 4/16/15 12:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:26 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


I bought a 6 pack (bottles) of a particular beer I wanted to
try. Picked up the carrier, paid, took it home. At the dinner
table I took a look and the bottle is only 11.2 ounces.
Honestly, would you have thought to check? Beer has been in 12
ounce bottles since I was a kid and now it is 11.2. Sleazy, IMO.
No, I did not buy any more of it.

Check that label again. I'd bet you a dollar it was bottled in the
UK or Canada. Aren't you a fan of the metric system? Because
that's what's to blame for that. 11.2oz is 330ml, which rounds of
to 1/3 of a liter.

You owe me a buck. It is made about 40 miles from me. It may be a
metric bottle though. http://spencerbrewery.com/?success=ok


Looks like a good beer!
Instead of a buck, how about I buy you one of those if we ever meet up?



Once again, no one's trying to deceive you. I'm not aware of any
US breweries making the switch yet. But it wouldn't surprise me in
the least, since all of the "Big 3" US beer manufacturers are now
foreign owned companies.

I've not take the time to check, but in the past, imported beer was
in 12 ounce bottles sold in the US. Could have changed as I don't
buy that much beer, I do buy one from Canada and it is 12 ounces.


My point in all this is that the 11.2oz bottle isn't, nor has it ever
been, a technique used to deceive the consumer. It's simply the "metric
system" in action.

How do you explain those evil cola companies giving away an extra 3-1/2
ounces in every 1/2 gallon of soda!? :-p

Bottles of beer here in Canada have been 341 ml for a long time, if you
do the conversion that is 11.5 US Fluid ounces, or 12 UK Fluid ounces.
Go figure.

Yet the cans are 355 ml, or 12 US Fluid ounces

http://www.thebeerstore.ca/beers/canadian

The question I have is: Why is 12 oz common for both cans and bottles in the US, yet cans and bottles in Canada are different sizes?