In 1991 those were closer to 30 cents.
Comment on Mars Bar from the 1990s found during house clearance - shrinkflation in action
ulkesh@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Factoring in 35 years of inflation. A $0.50 mars bar in 1991 is $1.21 today. The cost of a Mars bar today is at least $1.50 USD (after converting from UK pounds) and that’s being generous.
Companies are greedier than ever and there seems to be no stopping it (meaning because of the oligarchy in the US, Congress will never do a damn thing about it, and certainly the spoiled man-baby’s executive branch will do nothing about it), and no end in sight of it.
Fuck them all.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
ulkesh@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I was 12, so I didn’t have 3 cents to rub together, let alone 30. I assumed it was similar to candy bars when I was in high school, which were about $0.50 at the time.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
I was only like 9, but I remember that shit. Lol.
Least those were the prices here in the Midwest. Thirtyish cent candy bars, 25 cent bags of small chips, 35 cent cans of coca cola, 59 cents for a 20 ounce. If hamburger was a dollar a pound, it’s because it wasn’t on sale that week.
ulkesh@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
You clearly have a better memory than I :)
Folstar@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
That’s the official inflation numbers, which are lies. It’s an open secret that in the 90s there was a political movement among the owners to artificially lower reported inflation (see: Boskin Commission for example) because it would boost the economy (on paper) while letting them absorb the gains.
Underreporting by 1-2% a year doesn’t seem like much until you do it for several decades. Looking at actual inflation instead of the reported lie, that mars bar is closer to $2 today. Shrinkflation had to happen to keep the bigger con going. Most businesses will, of course, cheat the margins at every instance.
TLDR; shrinkflation is a symptom, not the disease
PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au 2 weeks ago
We’ve had the technology to stop this since 1791. Arguments about maturity could be made that put an industrial version as late as 1917.
That’s still over a century ago.
theparadox@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I would also be surprised if the cost of production, now using cheaper ingredients and far more automation, hadn’t also decreased.
Airfried@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Oh absolutely. Productivity has tripled in many western countries during that time. Wages never kept up with that but prices sure did…
PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au 2 weeks ago
Don’t say it in cop voice. Say:
Airfried@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
We’re saying the same thing. The productivity surplus is getting stolen by the Epstein class. I’m not trying to sugarcoat anything.
TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Does infinite growth mean eternal shrinkflation? Will it ever plateau? Or collapse?
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Shrinkflation implies a customer base that would either go elsewhere or without. I’m sure you’ve seen the efforts to eliminate all competition (establishing trusts, i.e. mega mergers) and weaseling into contracts like government that can’t be avoided.
When your audience has no choice, you have no limits.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I visited a chocolate confection assembly plant. The only things humans do now is random tasks like flip the random bar that for sone reason fell odd obto conveyor or shift the skewed box on the pallet, or open the door for a shipment.
The rest was automatic, from the pipes running chocolate throughout the plant to the final gluing and boxing.
The costs are materials, and the factory operation cost, labour is almost nothing. So to increase profit they really can only cheapen or lesson the materials
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Not to mention less cacao