SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The entire big box economy is a big honking subsidy to people with cars living in the suburbs by the poor, the singles, the seniors, the urban, the cyclists.
It only works because of the highways and the parking lots and the infrastructure paid for by everyone (road taxes do not cover the cost of the roads) and enjoyed by the drivers. The companies charge twice as much for small packages as big ones because they can; the purchasers without cars and access to the big boxes, the ability to drive between the Walmart and the Costco and the Price Club, don't have a choice.
Read on for Treehugger's reasons. Is bulk buying bad after all?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Does Buying in Bulk Save Money, or is it a False Economy?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 111 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sulla on Monday September 25 2017, @10:56PM (33 children)
There is so much I want to complain about from this article, but I think this paragraph sums it up
The rest of the article is about how big box stores are biased against old people, young people, people with small cars or no car, people who are poor, etc. The reasons for this are that the deals are good but only people with cars can get them because of convenience, also that the deals are bad because you are forced to buy more than you need. Another thread running through the whole thing is that buying in bulk means shopping less and shopping all at one place so less gas is used and we don't end up paying the real price for gas.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:05PM (10 children)
Plus, toilet paper is always a bad example for this for one very good reason: TOILET PAPER NEVER GOES BAD." Sure, I'd get this argument with food and other stuff that expires, but a lot of bulk sales are on things that either don't expire or expire months later. Finally, the whole argument of "It doesn't work for me, hence it is bad and should be banned or never work."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:16PM
Oftentimes things are still perfectly good well beyond their expiration dates. Also, if you store things properly, you can stop food from going bad so quickly. The fact that the author complains about bugs getting into food and food going stale indicates to me that they're not storing things properly.
The nonsense about the supposed biases of buying in bulk has nothing to do with whether it is cheaper in the long wrong; it is just off-topic.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Osamabobama on Monday September 25 2017, @11:16PM (2 children)
Toilet paper and ketchup (probably called American Sauce elsewhere...)
I remember buying ketchup at Costco once, and not needing the gallon bucket, I opted for the three-pack of quart-size bottles. It kept for years...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:52PM
After 10 years unopened, mine turned brown. I called Heinz and they said it was still edible.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:37AM
I call it Sriracha sauce! ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:53AM (5 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:43AM (3 children)
Ikea's not wrong, here. Storage is the key. We get those mega packs of TP, paper towels, etc. We put in extra storage to contain it. We live in an apartment in Brooklyn, so we are supposedly people "who don't have room." Yet, we manage.
I didn't pay extra for the storage, either. I built it using lumber people leave out on the street all the time in New York, and finished it with trim and a coat of paint so you can't tell. Of course that takes creativity, some basic skills, gumption, and a general lack of expectation that whining until other people give it to me for free is the way to go. Sadly most of those qualities are lacking in the big city, and certainly among the poor in the big city.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:51PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:28PM
I don't know how it is where you are, but poor people in New York City don't move around all that much. In public housing they're there in that spot for generations. With rent control/stabilization, they can't afford to move any place else.
There is the different class of poor, the homeless, for whom mobility is high. But then, we're not really talking about whether bulk shopping and storage thereof makes sense for them. They're more worried about the portability you're talking about. Even then, though, homeless in a city like New York could do much better for themselves if they were resourceful. There's so much wealth here in terms of cast-off material and foodstuffs that a Cro-Magnon person would think he had died and gone to heaven. Even a native American would do just fine here because the things they ate are still readily available as the modern New Yorkers consider them weeds or beneath them and don't touch them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:01PM
It's not "extra" storage if the volume is part of your original volume. Yes, a pretty cabinet is neater than just piling things up in the basement, but it still takes up part of the living space that you are paying for. In NYC volume is indeed precious (I grew up in Manhattan, and my son lives there now).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:42PM
If you are in a neighbourhood with 6 flats, they all can buy that 36-pack together, and each one gets 6 of those rolls. Everyone saves, nobody has to store an excessive amount of paper, and in addition the neighbourhood relations are strengthened by the cooperation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday September 25 2017, @11:54PM (7 children)
This is just irritating on so many levels. It's 30 cents more because really, pretty much everything about the cost of corn starch is in packaging and logistics. How much do you think actual corn starch costs? For fuck sakes, you can buy a 50 pound bag of it for $15. And if you need it by the ton, you'll be paying far less than $15/50 lb.
As packages get smaller, the cost of packaging and distribution just becomes greater and greater. Let's go the other way, let's say we made a 4oz container... a 2oz container... 1/2 oz container. The price reductions are going to flatline somewhere well above zero, because making, and shipping, and stocking, and shelving, and collecting payment for each container costs something, even if the containers were empty. And that doesn't even talk about wringing enough profit from a sale to make it worth the effort.
It's just basic economics. It's not 'unfair'. And its not a subsidy of the poor to the suburbanite, any more than the suburbanite paying an (exorbitant!!) $3.29 for a paltry 16oz container is a subsidy on the restaurant buying it in 50 lb bags? Or the processed food manufacturer getting it by the rail car for... well do can you even imagine what they pay "per oz"? LOL I wouldn't be surprised to see it drop below a 100th of a penny at that scale.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:13AM
You would think treehugger would understand that less packaging means less environmental impact.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:56AM (5 children)
>It's 30 cents more because
that's what the market will bear. Packaging and logistics be damned, pricing is about what people will pay, and buyers of anything in a grocery store will pretty much pay $3 for pretty much anything. Same deal for grape jelly, it's a great lesson for my son who's just starting to buy stuff in the store, he reaches for the small jar of jelly that's priced at $2.69 because it's at a convenient height, in a handy package, even though there's one the same brand and flavor twice the size on the bottom shelf for $2.89. Meanwhile, the wife won't buy anything with HFCS in it, so she gets to pay minimum $3.99 for a medium jar of jelly - because "health food."
Last time I knew anything about grocery margins, overall the margins are very thin and competitive like 1% overall profit, but item per item throughout the store they vary wildly. Produce was mostly sold at a loss due to spoilage, and many competitive items were sold at a loss to draw customers from other stores, but then the profit was made by inclusion of high margin items alongside the losses. Coupon commandos are clear proof that not every cart that leaves the store is profitable, and not all of that coupon money is reimbursed from the vendors - the chain eats a lot of it, and even the local stores.
So, re: TFA mega stores - last time we did a cost-analysis for our household, it wasn't worth the annual fees. Maybe if you ignored the annual fees you might see some per-ounce or per-roll savings compared to the normal grocery stores, but no way did those savings add up to the $40/yr (and climbing) annual fee plus added mileage to get to the big box store, and that bulk purchasing demanded additional storage space in the house, which itself isn't free. I'm sure there are specific cases where it's a good deal, if you use industrial quantities of diapers or something, but for the most part Costco was just an interesting place to shop that had the occasional weird deal that seemed attractive at the time, like a $200 oak file cabinet or a leather office chair.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:25AM (1 child)
If you guys are really into jams and jellies, I'd recommend getting a good supply of cans, a big ole pot and make them yourself. You can get fruit by the pound at insane deals at the right time of season, even in regular grocery stores. The nice thing is that you can get plenty of variety in both the fruit type (e.g. apple, grape, peach and oranges) and preserve variant (e.g. jam, jelly, butter, conserve, marmalade), because most have a shelf life of a year when stored properly (but be careful if you decide on a spread and certain confits).
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:03AM
You can make marmalade by zesting limes, lemons, and oranges, too. Gets extra mileage out of the citrus.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:07PM (2 children)
Costco offers an Executive membership. $110 a year. Costs $55 more than the regular one. Why do it?
It is guaranteed to pay for itself. If you don't buy enough stuff to have the 2% rebate of the Exec. membership kick back to you $110 or more, your membership cost is refunded.
Also, the "occasional weird deal" you suggest is more like the "always the best price" every day. Briefly, if it is at Costco it will be very high quality and very best price.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:23PM
Costco also has gas stations which are generally 10c/g+ cheaper in my area - that alone covers much of the cost of a membership.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:04AM
Thank you to the Costco regional marketing manager.
That's a new plan since the last time we played the game - I do note that even $55 is way up from the $30 we started at.
As for "guaranteed lowest price, every day" - that's what all the groceries around here do, so if you're ready to clip adverts or otherwise "prove it" and take time out with customer service, and find the same brand and size of whatever at another store, they'll all comp you that $0.20 per can of beans in exchange for how much of your time, and theirs?
Our Costco had good prices on about 3/5 of their groceries, matching local groceries on about 1/5, and remarkably high prices per ounce on the other 1/5 - at that time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Fluffeh on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:00AM (13 children)
Quite frankly, a whole heap of this article doesn't make logical sense at all.
You need toilet paper, you don't need a specific quantity. The 6 or 36 is merely the available quantity you have stored. I don't know about you, but I don't change my use of toilet paper if there is a whole stack of it in the corner of the bathroom.
On a serious note, I have worked in supply chain for a number of years. A surprising amount of the cost of a product comes from how much it is handled. These costs rarely change with the quantity of product inside (except for really bulky products, which have a higher % storage/transport cost as less fits on a pallet). The corn starch is however a perfect example.
The cost of the product (the actual corn starch, not the packaging or supply chain cost or anything else) shows as $450 per metric ton on Alibaba. Converting that into a price per ounce is $0.012757272 dollars per ounce.
Therefore the 8 ounce packet actually has about 10 cents of corn starch in it.
The 16 ounce has about 20 cents of corn starch in it.
Sounds about damned right if you ask me. This is assuming all other things are equal - which of course they won't be, but this is a simple nitpick with the whole methodology of this POS craptacular article.
This is nothing shy of the author having a big whinge and cry if you ask me. Suck it up cupcake, move on. The world isn't there to be fair to you.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:57AM
If I have a new 36 pack I’ll be a bit bolder on taco night.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:58AM (11 children)
Maybe he should worry more about the vast amount of money Walmart gets from taxpayers instead of paying their workers properly. [msnbc.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:41AM (10 children)
Because employing poor people is bad, thus we would never want to subsidize that.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:39PM (9 children)
Quite right, taxpayers are much better off giving billions in aid to the richest among us, they are much more likely to make good use of all that extra money.
We can't trust poor people to invest sensibly, they just throw their money away on food and shelter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:32PM (8 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:55PM (7 children)
What I am advocating is preventing corporations from paying their employees wages so low they can't afford to live, forcing taxpayers to pick up the slack.
The above is a pretty good example of exactly that, isn't it?
Based on what I remember of your post history, you're well aware of all that, but choose to argue anyway. I suspect you've probably had more satisfying arguments than this, but I hope I've been some fun.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:27AM (4 children)
And that is the problem. When you prevent employers from doing that, you prevent employees from earning those wages. That makes the problem worse. For example, consider Puerto Rico. Over half the population has left the island. That's due in large part to forcing businesses to pay wages much higher than the Puerto Rico norm. So rather than having a low paying job that allows for a modest living in a low living cost region, they now have moved to low paying jobs in the mainland US with higher costs of living.
In other words, minimum wage didn't increase wages in Puerto Rico, it helped depopulate Puerto Rico. That incidentally should be an object lesson for any attempt to hold poor countries and regions to the standards of the developed world.
One-size-fits-all minimum wages force people out of low cost parts of the region affected and into the higher cost areas - which incidentally have higher market wages and hence are less harmed by minimum wage policies.
I believe we'll see another example of this in practice with the new minimum wage law that's being slowly implemented [usatoday.com] in California. I've made a prediction [soylentnews.org] about Fresno, California. If the minimum wage of $15 per hour gets implemented in 2022, then the city will see its first time ever reversal of population growth by 2027. I picked this city because a) almost half its current population makes less than $15 per hour, and b) it has seen growth since its founding in 1880. A decline in population will indicate something big happened - such as unemployed workers moving to other cities to find a job.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:43AM (1 child)
That's what I thought.
You think something will happen, so it definitely will, despite the evidence [stuff.co.nz] against your feelings. [theguardian.com]
Even the Federal Reserve are not convinced. [frbsf.org]
Pretty sure you've taken a position and like to argue despite being wrong a lot.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:26AM
Unemployment is a poor measure of how desperate the situation is getting because employment is the first thing most people take care of, when they are unemployed. It's like using starvation as a measure of wealth. It doesn't take much wealth to to where starvation isn't a factor. Similarly, it takes a certain amount of effort and ability to get employed. Past that, you don't have an idea of how well the worker is doing.
Further, there are a host of confounding factors. A key one is migration. If someone moves out of Puerto Rico to get a job in New York state, they count as not unemployed whether or not one includes them in the study population. But they had to undergo the tribulation of migrating and finding a job outside of Puerto Rico.
A universal, one-size-fits-all minimum wage is destructive to the poorer, but lower cost parts of a region. For example, if Puerto Rico were subject to a $15 per hour US-wide minimum wage, I think it'd destroy a good portion of what economy is left. Manufacture, tourism, finance, etc are all things that compare poorly as it is between Puerto Rico and either its neighbors or the US mainland. Higher labor costs won't make that better since they're competing with parties either not subject to minimum wage (non-US locals) or which already have an income distribution well over minimum wage (Florida and rest of US mainland, resulting in a decline in Puerto Rico's cheaper wage advantage over those places).
We would see yet more migration elsewhere until the reduced pool of labor fell into balance with the new, much lower demand for labor.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 01 2017, @03:47AM (1 child)
Bullshit. The reason Puerto Rico is so poor and people have to leave is that the USA screws it over, with laws like the Jones act.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 01 2017, @04:10AM
Minimum wage is more law like the Jones act.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:03AM (1 child)
No, I think it's an example of two subtle fallacies. First, that this is bad because you can label it as corporate welfare. But we see that the result, if it really is corporate welfare, is to encourage companies like Walmart to employ poor people. So it's a good sort of corporate welfare as opposed to the variety of dysfunctional and perverse behavior usually associated with corporate welfare, and you should be happy to subsidize it. But of course, you re not because it is better to spite a company and its millions of hapless workers than to back down on an unfounded ideological assumption.
Let's also keep in mind that usually these sorts of labor games benefit labor unions which just another sort of corporation (sometimes with slight legal differences). So your approach to get rid of corporate welfare, is just itself corporate welfare - just welfare of different parties than the alleged earlier welfare.
Then there's the observation that there's always going to be someone who pays workers the lowest. Thus, your supposed sore point never goes away and never gets better. You can always point to these businesses as the latest "subsidy" recipients and thus, automatically generate yet another demand for more regulatory thrashing.
This second fallacy is one of scale. There is no sense of scale here, no sense of a threshold or goal that we should be shooting for. Living wage can be set arbitrarily high. Companies that pay low enough to trigger social programs can always be considered to benefit from the "subsidy". There is no metric by which you can say things are better much less that they are good enough.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:16AM
My point here is not that this is a useful observation, but rather it's just as valid a conclusion given the same level of reasoning you put into your assertion that social programs are corporate welfare because companies employ people who use social programs.