4 ms·

The bit about choices reminds about the soda cup debacle from when Bloomberg proposed limiting the size of soda containers that some venues could sell. Everyon

by imgabe 10y ago

The bit about choices reminds about the soda cup debacle from when Bloomberg proposed limiting the size of soda containers that some venues could sell. Everyone griped about how it limited their "freedom of choice", but nobody asked about why those particular sizes were the choices available in the first place. 7-11 and others decided that they could add a $0.05 more soda and charge $0.25 more and make more money. People would buy it because look, you get 50% more for only a quarter! Meanwhile the choice of buying less was never presented as an option.

Jtsummers 10y ago
And nevermind that most places have free refills on drinks anyways. So the total quantity of soda you consume isn't restricted unless it's take-away.
- aethos 10y ago
  That's true, but I would assert that if you gave two people a small cup and big cup, the one with the larger would still drink more, even with free refills. More refills needed for the same amount if soda, more distance to walk, more time, etc.
pessimizer 10y ago
> Meanwhile the choice of buying less was never presented as an option. What do you mean here? There were always multiple sizes of soda. Bloomberg was the one who was introducing the restriction, requiring someone who wanted more than a particular size to buy it in two separate cups. I must be parsing this incorrectly.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  In NYC, most soda drinkers are stopping by their corner bodega/deli and buying a bottle, then walking/taking the subway somewhere. I feel like in this particular case, the goal was to force soda manufacturers to sell 16oz bottles rather than 20oz bottles, thus reducing the amount most people consume in a single purchase. EDIT: I'm wrong, a reply below clarified the intent and also that bottles were exempt. Back when I drank soda regularly, I often felt like 20oz was a little bit too much. A 12oz can felt about right, but in NYC it's a lot less convenient because you must finish it immediately upon opening.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    That makes total sense for bottled soda, but for 7-11 sodas (which were what was mentioned in the comment I replied to), or fast food sodas (which were mentioned often at the time the law was proposed), there were always various sizes. They got cheaper by volume as they got larger, but 1) that's the same as every product, and 2) there's overhead in cup and the labor of filling it that stays fairly flat as the size increases. Wasn't the Bloomberg law intentionally meant to corral people into drinking less soda by forcing people who wanted to drink more to carry two cups? The law, rather than the opposition to it seems like an explicit, intentional example of the OP. edit: I don't drink soda, and I'm not a libertarian.
    - Nav_Panel 10y ago
      I don't have a refutation for your first point regarding fast food, although according to Wikipedia[0], 7-11, being a grocer and thus state-regulated, would be excluded from the sizing law. > The law, rather than the opposition to it seems like an explicit, intentional example of the OP. Indeed. However, we must note that using techniques described in the OP aren't necessarily bad: merely that when the values of these large (not-always-tech) companies do not align with their customers, consumers are manipulated toward actions that ultimately run counter to their (presumed) values, such as their physical, financial, and emotional well-being. If a government, which ideally represents the values of its constituency, chose to regulate using these same principles, the result could be a net benefit for society. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_Drinks_Portion_Cap_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_Drinks_Portion_Cap_Rule
  - imgabe 10y ago
    The law exempted canned and bottled sodas. It was targeted at things like the Big Gulp, and movie theater sodas, where the small size starts at about 24oz.
    - Nav_Panel 10y ago
      I did not know this. Makes sense but also seems fairly weak/overly specific given it basically only targets movie theaters.
- imgabe 10y ago
  The small size for a movie theater soda often starts at about 24oz. Getting less than that is not an option. There's been studies that when you put more food or drink in front of someone, they'll consume, even if they aren't particularly hungry or thirsty. Hence, the inflated soda sizes were adding thousands of extra calories that people otherwise wouldn't have wanted.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Thanks, I didn't think about the massive movie theater tankards. Seems like that could be solved by requiring that they offer a smaller size, rather than requiring that they not offer a larger one. I've always thought that government could help a lot just by requiring that they sell tap water in cups of the same size as the cups of sugar water, and at cost. As it is, the choice is usually between a thimbleful of water, or a bottled water that is (other than being wasteful, environmentally horrible, and sending money to those same sugar water companies) sometimes more expensive than the soda.
- _lce0 10y ago
  I have joked many times that I would gladly pay more to have less food served. I find most served dishes are too big for me, and end up sharing w someone.. but sometimes that's not an option, so it will be good not to waste half of the food, even of it cost more to me.
  - philovivero 10y ago
    With a little planning, you can eat the food that tastes best freshly-cooked, then take the remainder home for left-overs. If I'm eating solo, I'm always taking food home with me.
rcfox 10y ago
There was an amusing parody of that in an episode of Parks and Rec: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLUwBot8B0#t=13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLUwBot8B0#t=13s

by imgabe 10y ago

Jtsummers 10y ago

And nevermind that most places have free refills on drinks anyways. So the total quantity of soda you consume isn't restricted unless it's take-away.

aethos 10y ago
That's true, but I would assert that if you gave two people a small cup and big cup, the one with the larger would still drink more, even with free refills. More refills needed for the same amount if soda, more distance to walk, more time, etc.

pessimizer 10y ago

> Meanwhile the choice of buying less was never presented as an option. What do you mean here? There were always multiple sizes of soda. Bloomberg was the one who was introducing the restriction, requiring someone who wanted more than a particular size to buy it in two separate cups. I must be parsing this incorrectly.

Nav_Panel 10y ago
In NYC, most soda drinkers are stopping by their corner bodega/deli and buying a bottle, then walking/taking the subway somewhere. I feel like in this particular case, the goal was to force soda manufacturers to sell 16oz bottles rather than 20oz bottles, thus reducing the amount most people consume in a single purchase. EDIT: I'm wrong, a reply below clarified the intent and also that bottles were exempt. Back when I drank soda regularly, I often felt like 20oz was a little bit too much. A 12oz can felt about right, but in NYC it's a lot less convenient because you must finish it immediately upon opening.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  That makes total sense for bottled soda, but for 7-11 sodas (which were what was mentioned in the comment I replied to), or fast food sodas (which were mentioned often at the time the law was proposed), there were always various sizes. They got cheaper by volume as they got larger, but 1) that's the same as every product, and 2) there's overhead in cup and the labor of filling it that stays fairly flat as the size increases. Wasn't the Bloomberg law intentionally meant to corral people into drinking less soda by forcing people who wanted to drink more to carry two cups? The law, rather than the opposition to it seems like an explicit, intentional example of the OP. edit: I don't drink soda, and I'm not a libertarian.
  - Nav_Panel 10y ago
    I don't have a refutation for your first point regarding fast food, although according to Wikipedia[0], 7-11, being a grocer and thus state-regulated, would be excluded from the sizing law. > The law, rather than the opposition to it seems like an explicit, intentional example of the OP. Indeed. However, we must note that using techniques described in the OP aren't necessarily bad: merely that when the values of these large (not-always-tech) companies do not align with their customers, consumers are manipulated toward actions that ultimately run counter to their (presumed) values, such as their physical, financial, and emotional well-being. If a government, which ideally represents the values of its constituency, chose to regulate using these same principles, the result could be a net benefit for society. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_Drinks_Portion_Cap_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_Drinks_Portion_Cap_Rule
- imgabe 10y ago
  The law exempted canned and bottled sodas. It was targeted at things like the Big Gulp, and movie theater sodas, where the small size starts at about 24oz.
  - Nav_Panel 10y ago
    I did not know this. Makes sense but also seems fairly weak/overly specific given it basically only targets movie theaters.
imgabe 10y ago
The small size for a movie theater soda often starts at about 24oz. Getting less than that is not an option. There's been studies that when you put more food or drink in front of someone, they'll consume, even if they aren't particularly hungry or thirsty. Hence, the inflated soda sizes were adding thousands of extra calories that people otherwise wouldn't have wanted.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Thanks, I didn't think about the massive movie theater tankards. Seems like that could be solved by requiring that they offer a smaller size, rather than requiring that they not offer a larger one. I've always thought that government could help a lot just by requiring that they sell tap water in cups of the same size as the cups of sugar water, and at cost. As it is, the choice is usually between a thimbleful of water, or a bottled water that is (other than being wasteful, environmentally horrible, and sending money to those same sugar water companies) sometimes more expensive than the soda.
_lce0 10y ago
I have joked many times that I would gladly pay more to have less food served. I find most served dishes are too big for me, and end up sharing w someone.. but sometimes that's not an option, so it will be good not to waste half of the food, even of it cost more to me.
- philovivero 10y ago
  With a little planning, you can eat the food that tastes best freshly-cooked, then take the remainder home for left-overs. If I'm eating solo, I'm always taking food home with me.

rcfox 10y ago

There was an amusing parody of that in an episode of Parks and Rec: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLUwBot8B0#t=13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLUwBot8B0#t=13s