5 ms·
Strongly disagree - the price increases were possible because people are strongly resistant to decrease their quality of life. e.g.: they'll pay significantly m
by dbspin 2y ago
Strongly disagree - the price increases were possible because people are strongly resistant to decrease their quality of life. e.g.: they'll pay significantly more of their income to maintain the same level of diet and travel up to the maximum they can afford (and beyond with debt). Rather than scaling back spending and reducing social status and leisure. This isn't even irrational, as status is linked to concrete health benefits (e.g.: Whitehall studies on cardiovascular health). There's been price matching across the food and service industries, due to consolidation and oligopoly - themselves a result of financialisation. So you have the whole food industry for example, responding to the supply shocks of covid by increasing price - then realising that demand elasticity doesn't apply if they act in unison.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago> ...then realising that demand elasticity doesn't apply if they act in unison. So you're not actually disagreeing?
- datavirtue 2y agoYou have companies like Kroger whose prices are out of control. One way to save significant money is to avoid them if you can. If they have a competing grocer it is always drastically cheaper...free tank of gas per shopping trip cheaper. They are salivating over this Albertsons merger. Easy money. Thank the gods for Walmart.
- prepend 2y agoConsolidation and oligopoly aren’t new in the past 4 years. What is new is the trillions of cash injected into money supply. Greed is constant. Consolidation started in the 90s and the same 4 grocery companies have owned the market for 15-20 years. They only have ability to increase prices because consumers have more cash to spend. They would have loved to do this 5 years ago, but random $30k household income families of 4 didn’t get $16k handed out to them. (Two $2k/person stimulus rounds in 2020 and 2021)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dbspin 2y agoThis is happening cross nationally - and very few nations gave out covid payments similar to the US. Side node - this is just a strange lens, for most people in Ireland (where we did receive covid payments) they were making up for work which had evaporated. Why is it always assumed to be additional to income in the US?
- prepend 2y agoNot true actually. Many/most countries did massive increases in money supply. [0] I don’t know exactly how each country compares to the US and was only using the US because of others in thread and that’s what I know best. In the US it’s assumed to be additional income because you can measure money supply and see the increase. So it’s a correct assumption because there’s just much more cash. If it was replacement, then money supply would stay level. Also, in the US direct cash payments weren’t need based. Everyone got them despite income or necessity. Personally, I stayed employed, got overtime, and got $8k+ in direct cash deposits. Just an anecdote, but everyone I know got similar payments. So it always seemed odd to me that yuppie programmers got wads of cash. The rationale made sense as they needed to help people quickly and qualifying would slow things down. But this is a macro example of inflation drivers. So anyone with basic economics training would recognize this example. Arguing otherwise seems silly, without lots of evidence. Corporate greed is constant and universal. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/government-stimulus-and-relief-efforts-to-fight-the-covid-19-crisis-5113980 https://www.investopedia.com/government-stimulus-and-relief-...