"-MIKE-" wrote:

Not when it's clearly labeled as being smaller.
---------------------------------------
Helps if your eyeballs are calibrated to read barcode.

Lew

On 4/15/2015 9:27 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
Can you still lift a 40# bag?


I have to; that's what a bag of salt for the softener weighs and SWMBO
allows no excuses for running out of soft water. :-(

On 4/16/2015 4:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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?

No flipping clue, and those extra 14ml, cost a mint, I buy bottles for a
reason. :-)

On 4/16/2015 4:54 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
On 4/16/2015 4:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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?

No flipping clue, and those extra 14ml, cost a mint, I buy bottles for a
reason. :-)

Actually my best guess would be the cans are made in the US, and bottles
are made in Canada. Then they are sort of both 12oz, depending on US or
UK ounces.

Gramps' shop wrote:
Can you still lift a 40# bag?
------------------------------------------------------------
"Max" wrote:


I have to; that's what a bag of salt for the softener weighs and
SWMBO allows no excuses for running out of soft water.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

There is always the old hand scoop.

Takes a little longer but the back doesn't complain as much.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:

Not when it's clearly labeled as being smaller.
---------------------------------------
Helps if your eyeballs are calibrated to read barcode.

Lew

Too bad you don't live in a state that requires unit pricing on the shelf.
Geeze - I thought you guys on the west coast had everything figured out...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:35:47 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.
The ideal, in my way of looking at it, is minimum wage for no more
than 3 months "probation" after which you pay a "living wage". If in 3
months they don't convince you they are worth a "living wage" find
someone who is.
Might convince some to actually put some effort into a job.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:32:50 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.



Sadly it doesn't work that way. There are not enough jobs paying a
living wage to employ at lot of hard working marginal employees., and
too many employers that are just too happy to take advantage of those
who need a job too badly to complain.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions. Lew


Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill

On 4/16/2015 3:04 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


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?

Fair enough, I'll get some ice in the cooler.






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.

In this case you are probably right. I've not run into the metric
bottles yet.



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

You do bring up an interesting point. It has to cost a bundles to
change from a 32 oz to 30 oz between tooling for the glass,
recalibrating filling machines, changing case sizes. All cost that is
passed on to the consumer.

On 4/16/2015 3:05 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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. ;-)


We can argue definitions for weeks. The intent is to make more money
and have the customer not notice. Sleazy at least, IMO, the intention
is to deceive. Your option to agree or not. The want the customer to
think it is business as usual.

On 4/16/2015 3:20 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
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.



You still did not answer my question.

On 4/16/2015 4:54 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:

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?

No flipping clue, and those extra 14ml, cost a mint, I buy bottles for a
reason. :-)


One reason cans are 12 ounces is standardization. There are millions of
machines sized to dispense 12 ounce cans.

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 3:05 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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. ;-)


We can argue definitions for weeks. The intent is to make more money
and have the customer not notice. Sleazy at least, IMO, the intention
is to deceive. Your option to agree or not. The want the customer to
think it is business as usual.

Why are you responding to a question I asked of dadiOH?

On 4/16/2015 12:32 PM, 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.


ASSuming, of course, that there are other jobs to move on to?

On 4/16/2015 6:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions. Lew


Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill

It is better to be a CEO than to work for one.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-p...inues-to-rise/
From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937
percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially
greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical
worker’s compensation over the same period.
The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1
in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and
was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s,
1980s, or 1990s.

On 4/16/2015 1:57 PM, Baxter wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news


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

Too bad the myth doesn't match the reality. Fact is, capitalism *requires*
costs, including labor costs, to be held to the absolute minimum.


Well, not ABSOLUTE minumum, but minimum PRODUCTIVE costs.

Absolute minimum production costs = zero.
But then there is no production.

On 4/16/2015 1:30 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Why?

On 4/16/2015 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.

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




You seem to have a pretty low opinion of "most people", dadiOH.

So I' curious...
Are you part of "most people"

On 4/16/2015 2:04 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

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



Interesting subject...

In San Antonio, soda was commonly available in 3 liter bottles.
When we moved to Dallas, the biggest bottles are 2 liters.

"John McCoy" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 4/15/2015 5:46 PM, John McCoy wrote:

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.

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.

Quality is a subjective term - what one person perceives is
not what another would. For instance, Bill would probably
perceive my prior post as low-quality, because I typed "Bill"
where I should have typed "Bob". You might consider it to
be of adequate quality, because it conveyed the information
it was intended to, irrespective of the name used.

Apropos of the drill press, it's fair for Bob to say it's of
lower quality, because it's less fit for his purposes. It's
not capable of performing with an accessory that's commonly
used with a drill press (to wit, anything with a morse taper).
Someone else who doesn't use such accessories would likely
say the drill press has adequate quality.

John

Jim,

That was hysterical.

Sincerely,
Bill

On 4/16/2015 6:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 3:04 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

You do bring up an interesting point. It has to cost a bundles to change
from a 32 oz to 30 oz between tooling for the glass, recalibrating
filling machines, changing case sizes. All cost that is passed on to the
consumer.



GLASS? What's that?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2015 3:05 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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. ;-)


We can argue definitions for weeks. The intent is to make more money
and have the customer not notice. Sleazy at least, IMO, the intention
is to deceive. Your option to agree or not.
The want the customer to think it is business as usual.

That's a very good way of putting it. Customer has her or his guard
down, get's home, starts taxes as usual, and notices Turbo Tax Deluxe no
longer handles a Schedule D, etc., without an "upgrade". I regard it as
fraudulent (but I'm not a lawyer...)

On 4/16/2015 11:42 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
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?


That's all covered in economics 101, Larry.

Rich people invest their money (to make MORE money!)

Poor people don't.

Go figure.

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:32 PM, 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.


ASSuming, of course, that there are other jobs to move on to?

Every year, 1000s and 1000s of people make their own jobs.

On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions. Lew


Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill


Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.

On 04/16/2015 04:23 PM, Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:32 PM, 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.


ASSuming, of course, that there are other jobs to move on to?


Apparently congress thinks so. They want to expand the H1B numbers by a
bunch. Of course, these aren't minimum wage jobs, so any US minimum
wage applicants for these jobs will have to step up their game.


--
"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

Richard wrote:
You seem to have a pretty low opinion of "most people", dadiOH.

If you buy the same item over and over and over for a lengthy period, do you
check the unit price each time? I sure don't. And I don't care if the
package contains less for the same price...that's because I know inflation
is ever with us (in recent decades). That doesn'y meanI don't think the
practice is sneaky, I do.

I have a low opinion of a lot of people. Many of them are those who feel
entitled to all life's goodies just because they were born. Others are
those who enrich themselves by running over everyone in their way and/or by
deceit and lies. Still others are those who whine and moan about their
condition but do nothing to alleviate it. I have a low opinion of those who
price their goods or services depending upon what they think the current
sucker - pardon, customer - will pay. I have a VERY low opinion of those in
office who sell out to whomever. There are more but you get the idea.

So I' curious...
Are you part of "most people"

Of course not, I am way smarter

--

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

Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.
Lew


Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill


Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.


Productive traders, sometimes, are a little like a parasite --like lawyers.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
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?

Yeah, you convinced me

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. ;-)

Depends...what side is General Bullmoose on? I'm with him

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:55:51 +0000, Baxter 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.

Sure you did. If you paid the max into SS all your life and die before
you hit 80-something. Medicare? Fat chance. Compare what you're
getting and what you're paying, including supplement, against what a
private plan would cost you.

Try doing the arithmetic before you make wild claims like that.

"-MIKE-" wrote:

Not when it's clearly labeled as being smaller.
---------------------------------------


Lew Hodgett wrote:

Helps if your eyeballs are calibrated to read barcode.
------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Too bad you don't live in a state that requires unit pricing on the
shelf. Geeze - I thought you guys on the west coast had everything
figured out...
------------------------------------------
Unit pricing on the shelf is alive and well here on the left coast, if
you
can read it.

The type size is so SMALL that you need to get on your hands and knees
to read the bottom shelf.

Shelves at eye level are another matter. With some effort, those tags
can
be read.

The only way to realistically read and understand the info is to grab
an item
and find a scanner on the sales floor and read it.

These days, if I'm going to shop at a big box store, first thing I do
is grab a
sales associate, describe what I need and have them take me to the
item.

Same thing applies to Mom-Pop operations.

Then their little taser type pistol takes over and reads the sales tag
for me.

Everybody is happy. I get what I need without wasting time, the
associate
gets to demonstrate their skills and the company gets an order.

It's up to me to recognize when a reduction in size has been made
since
the last time the item was purchased.

Lew

"Richard" wrote:

GLASS? What's that?
----------------------------------------
Still got "long necks" in Texas don't they?


Lew

On 4/16/2015 6:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:32 PM, 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.


ASSuming, of course, that there are other jobs to move on to?

Every year, 1000s and 1000s of people make their own jobs.


with 300 million people here, that's insignificant.

On 4/16/2015 6:58 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Richard wrote:
You seem to have a pretty low opinion of "most people", dadiOH.

If you buy the same item over and over and over for a lengthy period, do you
check the unit price each time? I sure don't. And I don't care if the
package contains less for the same price...that's because I know inflation
is ever with us (in recent decades). That doesn'y meanI don't think the
practice is sneaky, I do.

I have a low opinion of a lot of people. Many of them are those who feel
entitled to all life's goodies just because they were born. Others are
those who enrich themselves by running over everyone in their way and/or by
deceit and lies. Still others are those who whine and moan about their
condition but do nothing to alleviate it. I have a low opinion of those who
price their goods or services depending upon what they think the current
sucker - pardon, customer - will pay. I have a VERY low opinion of those in
office who sell out to whomever. There are more but you get the idea.

So I' curious...
Are you part of "most people"

Of course not, I am way smarter



Then why aren't you checking the prices that you see to think shouldn't
change?

On 4/16/2015 7:16 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Richard" wrote:

GLASS? What's that?
----------------------------------------
Still got "long necks" in Texas don't they?


Lew


Ok. Got me on that one.
I was thinking soda.

On 4/16/2015 7:03 PM, Bill wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 5:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The point is that the customer shared the wealth of cost reductions.
Lew


Was a change of sentiment required to help achieve 8-digit CEO salaries?
It seems like things may no longer be running in accordance with "the
book" you mentioned.
Internet technology at our fingertips, such as is facilitating our
conversation, might be an exception.

Bill


Not true, Bill.

Check out the incentives paid on Wall street to productive traders.


Productive traders, sometimes, are a little like a parasite --like lawyers.


So are some posters...

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:18:55 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

It is, or at least was, in NY. It was considered fraud (false
advertising). I haven't lived in NY for twentish years, so they may
have changed the laws (but I doubt it).

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:04:12 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

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.

Absolutely correct. Employers would be forced to pay what the job was
worth. No more, no less. People would be able to work for what
they're worth. No more, no less.

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".

The government hammock.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:26:28 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/16/2015 6:39 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 4/16/2015 12:32 PM, 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.


ASSuming, of course, that there are other jobs to move on to?

Every year, 1000s and 1000s of people make their own jobs.


with 300 million people here, that's insignificant.

So you think those 299,998,000 have a right to the 2000's income?