6 ms·

I don’t know what you’re downvoted. I have a curated list of recipes I have been cycling through over the past 6 or 7 years. They’re things I like to cook and t

I don’t know what you’re downvoted. I have a curated list of recipes I have been cycling through over the past 6 or 7 years. They’re things I like to cook and the family likes to eat. Two years ago we consistently spent about $110 per week on groceries. We are now consistently spending about $140 per week.

gruez 3y ago
Sure, you might think you're buying the same thing, but are you really? I can imagine endless reasons that would cause your grocery expenditures to silently increase without you being actively aware of it. For instance, maybe you switched to a more upscale brand and/or variety (eg. free range eggs), or your family's appetite increased (ie. puberty). Without detailed records it's hard to take such anecdotes at face value.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  >Without detailed records it's hard to take such anecdotes at face value. Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. When you do the math, it's a little too late now, the currency has lost more face value than the "anecdotes". It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. And that's when the economists have a truly neutral agenda. Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Sometimes the most accurate data is recorded but it's so sensitive that it's not the least bit available, so might as well not have been recorded anyway. Edit: not my downvote, I understand where you're coming from.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. For much of the 2000s and 2010s, people thought crime was on the way up, despite statistics that say otherwise. Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. >It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. Examples of those "situations"?
    - danaris 3y ago
      > Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. And you don't think there might be some fundamental differences between crime rates and grocery prices? Like, perhaps, the fact that every household has to buy groceries all the time, and is likely to get some kind of a feel for how the prices are fluctuating, while to most people, crime rates are primarily observable by what the media reports, not by any objective criteria? And even then, they're unlikely to be particularly connected to those numbers, since they have very little direct impact on how most families live their lives, so it's easy to have an incorrect impression and just let that persist despite years of actual evidence to the contrary (that they never have to directly interact with)?
    - fuzzfactor 3y ago
      >Examples of those "situations"? That is a worthwhile consideration. I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to perfectly describe reality. For example let's go full anecdata, and go big why not? But no random choice. This is groceries, how about the biggest? Wal-Mart is one of those companies I have studied structurally for decades, since the time their approach was limited to expansion only using small stores in relatively rural areas nationwide where they really did sell for less before building the strength to arrive at their first "superstore" in a "big city". Back in 1982 my buddy was a manager in one of those small stores in a small industrial town and they were quite frugal. But they already had the most advanced computerized operation of anybody by far, fully networked and an envy of anyone wanting a distributed retail operation today. Sears and K-Mart didn't even come close, even up until the end. It was very interesting to find out how it was to be bussed to Bentonville, Arkansas every year to personally meet with Walton and be empowered by Sam to go back home and "do your best, we're behind you 100%". Turns out when I had later moved to an industrial suburb of a big city, that's where Wal-Mart decided to build their first superstore. The one where they first started selling, you know, groceries. Most people know now they are the biggest, but you gotta start somewhere. Who knew if it was going to last. It was quite experimental at first, and has gotten less so every year, I still go to the same store whenever I can. Very consistent Wal-Mart shopper, more so than most with nothing to be embarrassed about. Remember when they were first selling guitars? It was no coincidence they had a $100 model. Anyway there is a difference between a 97 cent item and a $1.00 item, but its' not just the 3 cent difference, which is not functionally part of the equation since it has already been figured in in advance. Even though it is only about a 3% margin, it's groceries and there have been centuries to go as low as you can go, and no lower. Lots of these items are produced in close partnership with suppliers when Wal-Mart makes a deal for them to scale up and supply all stores if the manufacturer can meet the price target Wal-Mart requires. These 97 and $1 items are both "one dollar items" with slightly different terms. And they stayed that way, as designed for the duration of the bonanza-for-billionaires' ZIRP era. There are lots of $2, $3 and much more price-target merchandise, and Wal-Mart is (was) the king of "rollbacks". They don't mention that word any more these days, but I have seen a rare rollback or two in a store since covid which could give support to the idea that Wal-Mart is accurately taking the pulse of the consumer situation as good as could be accomplished right now. In my observation the $1-target products stayed the same for only 6 months after increasing costs ruined everything people had been counting on for most of the 21st century. Then jumped to $1.24 to reflect a late start into an undeniable 12% effective overall dollar inflation, with allowance to avoid another price increase unless the inflation rate changes much or lasts longer than two years. "$2 items" went to $2.48, etc. And that's just a "single point" of nothing other than one person's pure anecdata. So in essence I'm trusting the Wal-Mart economists whoever they are, more than anyone else. They seem to have done OK so far. And I'm a below-average observer myself, I don't get out nearly as much as I should ;)
  - Izkata 3y ago
    > Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Off the top of my head example: shrinkflation. Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down. The BLS is well aware of this and it's already factored into CPI calculations. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflation-and-its-impact-on-inflation.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...
      - fuzzfactor 3y ago
        Do you remember when & why CPI calculations first were made by BLS? There are clues all over but this page has some good info itself: https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/His...
        gruez 3y ago
        How is this relevant to shrinkflation and/or whether the BLS is accounting for it in their calculations?
        fuzzfactor 3y ago
        If the BLS approach as developed under crisis conditions is not very realistic to begin with, it makes it more difficult to trust their indicated trends, much less accuracy of their numbers. It could even be at the point where BLS misindication, and shrinkflation's misrepresentation, are symptoms of the same disfunction to the same degree.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  Yes, I am sure. Read exactly what I wrote, we cycle the same list of recipes (we have 60 or so to choose from that we like). We keep to the same brands (Bush's beans are the best, for example). And, yes, I keep detailed records - scanned pdfs of my CC bills as well as receipts from Publix. A person who would have a curated list of recipes their family likes, would probably do this, no? Will I share them with you to prove all this? Hell no.
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    >Will I share them with you to prove all this? I bet it would be delicious ;) But no need, as shown in my other comments an accurate bit of anecdata can be revealing enough for me, and there's no reason to hesitate accepting this as the real hard-core record-keeping-based measurement of grocery cost beyond which most people are doing. I don't doubt the accuracy of the ~30% decline in purchasing power but what can not really be pinpointed is time, like how long it took for double-digit dollar inflation to be reached before it was reflected in your documentation. My closest guess is 30% over 2 years so about a 15% yearly rate is what you've had I would estimate.
lotsoweiners 3y ago
I’d love $140. I slummed it and grocery shopped at Walmart today and still almost spent $300. Only bought one $25 item that I wouldn’t have bought at the normal grocery store.

gruez 3y ago

Sure, you might think you're buying the same thing, but are you really? I can imagine endless reasons that would cause your grocery expenditures to silently increase without you being actively aware of it. For instance, maybe you switched to a more upscale brand and/or variety (eg. free range eggs), or your family's appetite increased (ie. puberty). Without detailed records it's hard to take such anecdotes at face value.

fuzzfactor 3y ago
>Without detailed records it's hard to take such anecdotes at face value. Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. When you do the math, it's a little too late now, the currency has lost more face value than the "anecdotes". It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. And that's when the economists have a truly neutral agenda. Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Sometimes the most accurate data is recorded but it's so sensitive that it's not the least bit available, so might as well not have been recorded anyway. Edit: not my downvote, I understand where you're coming from.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. For much of the 2000s and 2010s, people thought crime was on the way up, despite statistics that say otherwise. Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. >It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. Examples of those "situations"?
  - danaris 3y ago
    > Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. And you don't think there might be some fundamental differences between crime rates and grocery prices? Like, perhaps, the fact that every household has to buy groceries all the time, and is likely to get some kind of a feel for how the prices are fluctuating, while to most people, crime rates are primarily observable by what the media reports, not by any objective criteria? And even then, they're unlikely to be particularly connected to those numbers, since they have very little direct impact on how most families live their lives, so it's easy to have an incorrect impression and just let that persist despite years of actual evidence to the contrary (that they never have to directly interact with)?
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    >Examples of those "situations"? That is a worthwhile consideration. I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to perfectly describe reality. For example let's go full anecdata, and go big why not? But no random choice. This is groceries, how about the biggest? Wal-Mart is one of those companies I have studied structurally for decades, since the time their approach was limited to expansion only using small stores in relatively rural areas nationwide where they really did sell for less before building the strength to arrive at their first "superstore" in a "big city". Back in 1982 my buddy was a manager in one of those small stores in a small industrial town and they were quite frugal. But they already had the most advanced computerized operation of anybody by far, fully networked and an envy of anyone wanting a distributed retail operation today. Sears and K-Mart didn't even come close, even up until the end. It was very interesting to find out how it was to be bussed to Bentonville, Arkansas every year to personally meet with Walton and be empowered by Sam to go back home and "do your best, we're behind you 100%". Turns out when I had later moved to an industrial suburb of a big city, that's where Wal-Mart decided to build their first superstore. The one where they first started selling, you know, groceries. Most people know now they are the biggest, but you gotta start somewhere. Who knew if it was going to last. It was quite experimental at first, and has gotten less so every year, I still go to the same store whenever I can. Very consistent Wal-Mart shopper, more so than most with nothing to be embarrassed about. Remember when they were first selling guitars? It was no coincidence they had a $100 model. Anyway there is a difference between a 97 cent item and a $1.00 item, but its' not just the 3 cent difference, which is not functionally part of the equation since it has already been figured in in advance. Even though it is only about a 3% margin, it's groceries and there have been centuries to go as low as you can go, and no lower. Lots of these items are produced in close partnership with suppliers when Wal-Mart makes a deal for them to scale up and supply all stores if the manufacturer can meet the price target Wal-Mart requires. These 97 and $1 items are both "one dollar items" with slightly different terms. And they stayed that way, as designed for the duration of the bonanza-for-billionaires' ZIRP era. There are lots of $2, $3 and much more price-target merchandise, and Wal-Mart is (was) the king of "rollbacks". They don't mention that word any more these days, but I have seen a rare rollback or two in a store since covid which could give support to the idea that Wal-Mart is accurately taking the pulse of the consumer situation as good as could be accomplished right now. In my observation the $1-target products stayed the same for only 6 months after increasing costs ruined everything people had been counting on for most of the 21st century. Then jumped to $1.24 to reflect a late start into an undeniable 12% effective overall dollar inflation, with allowance to avoid another price increase unless the inflation rate changes much or lasts longer than two years. "$2 items" went to $2.48, etc. And that's just a "single point" of nothing other than one person's pure anecdata. So in essence I'm trusting the Wal-Mart economists whoever they are, more than anyone else. They seem to have done OK so far. And I'm a below-average observer myself, I don't get out nearly as much as I should ;)
- Izkata 3y ago
  > Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Off the top of my head example: shrinkflation. Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down. The BLS is well aware of this and it's already factored into CPI calculations. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflation-and-its-impact-on-inflation.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...
    - fuzzfactor 3y ago
      Do you remember when & why CPI calculations first were made by BLS? There are clues all over but this page has some good info itself: https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/His...
      - gruez 3y ago
        How is this relevant to shrinkflation and/or whether the BLS is accounting for it in their calculations?
        fuzzfactor 3y ago
        If the BLS approach as developed under crisis conditions is not very realistic to begin with, it makes it more difficult to trust their indicated trends, much less accuracy of their numbers. It could even be at the point where BLS misindication, and shrinkflation's misrepresentation, are symptoms of the same disfunction to the same degree.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
Yes, I am sure. Read exactly what I wrote, we cycle the same list of recipes (we have 60 or so to choose from that we like). We keep to the same brands (Bush's beans are the best, for example). And, yes, I keep detailed records - scanned pdfs of my CC bills as well as receipts from Publix. A person who would have a curated list of recipes their family likes, would probably do this, no? Will I share them with you to prove all this? Hell no.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  >Will I share them with you to prove all this? I bet it would be delicious ;) But no need, as shown in my other comments an accurate bit of anecdata can be revealing enough for me, and there's no reason to hesitate accepting this as the real hard-core record-keeping-based measurement of grocery cost beyond which most people are doing. I don't doubt the accuracy of the ~30% decline in purchasing power but what can not really be pinpointed is time, like how long it took for double-digit dollar inflation to be reached before it was reflected in your documentation. My closest guess is 30% over 2 years so about a 15% yearly rate is what you've had I would estimate.

lotsoweiners 3y ago

I’d love $140. I slummed it and grocery shopped at Walmart today and still almost spent $300. Only bought one $25 item that I wouldn’t have bought at the normal grocery store.