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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
2
(1)
2
My NOSE is NUMB!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @10:38PM
I'm a big ol' lib greenie but... huh? Bulk pricing doesn't only apply to milk and bulky items. Also applies to public transport tickets, marijuana and carbon credits ;)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @10:46PM (4 children)
I can walk or bike to Costco, Walmart and other stores and I know which stores have the best deals. Get fucked!
It's called self-control. Leave it to treefucker to argue that you wipe your ass with more squares of toilet paper just because you buy in bulk.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:43PM (3 children)
How do you carry bulky things home when you walk three miles (5 km)? And how when you bike?
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:49PM
One of these carts. https://www.walmart.com/ip/4-Wheel-Deluxe-Folding-Shopping-Cart-Black/10929357 [walmart.com]
Or a rickshaw, or a wide three wheeled bicycle. There are many options.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)
I use a backpack to carry as much as I can and can put a second bag on the front of the bike or just carry it. I can overstuff the backpack and secure the zippers with a keychain ring to keep the bag from opening and items spilling out. If I have something too bulky or heavy I settle for the bus. Sometimes I grab a 27 quart Sterilite container at Walmart instead of a bag to carry extra things. If you take the bus when nobody rides it, like at 1 AM, nobody will care even if you are lugging around a bulky box or a 105 qt Sterilite with some light items in it.
To get a change of propane tank, I just walk with it. It's a little less than a mile to the hardware store.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday October 04 2017, @09:45PM
Since when do buses run at 1 AM? Last I checked, bus service in my city [fwcitilink.com] shut down from roughly 9 PM to 6 AM.
(Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Monday September 25 2017, @10:49PM (2 children)
Bettridge thwarted!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:33AM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:36PM
The title asks two questions. "No" is the correct answer to the second question.
(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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:01PM
If there weren't "highways and the parking lots" then all shopping of non-perishable items would have to be in bulk.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Monday September 25 2017, @11:03PM (2 children)
It sounds like the author of the article needs to understand
the difference between what we can and cannot change in our
daily lives. If the only way for you to make a living is to work somewhere
in a suburb where you need a car, then buying bulk might make sense.
Anything can be done badly. Buying fresh garlic by the pallet is probably
not a good idea. Buying toilet paper in bulk is probably a good idea.
Yeah, poor people can't do it. They can't do a lot of other things either.
That's the definition of poor.
Do you know what a city with dense housing
and good public transit is? It's buildings and transit bought in bulk.
Efficiency is good, even if it exists within a larger framework
that isn't efficient. The "green" folks are right to address issues with
that larger framework. I think it makes less sense to criticize practices
that help us cope within that framework. If the framework becomes
more efficient, these processes will go away all by themselves without
them being addressed.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 25 2017, @11:30PM
On the other side, it's increased transportation and storage cost for food, higher concentration of waste to treat/dispose, lack of greenery/heat-islands, increased risks of transmissible epidemics (jumping into flu-season on another one sneezing on you in the public transport?), social issues (homelessness, increased level of everyday stress), military strategy considerations (strategic bombing of Hamburg), etc.
Not saying that the cities are bad, I'm saying there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:03AM
Challenge accepted! Here, hold my beer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:10PM
Sometimes it is worth it. Sometimes not.
I many times can buy smaller packages and come out ahead. per oz/unit pricing is better.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday September 25 2017, @11:10PM (18 children)
A couple times a year I'll piggyback on a friend for things like tomato sauce, diced tomatoes, and such. But I don't have anywhere to store the toilet paper Costco wants me to buy. Likewise, veggies are useless to me. Who cares if I save 20% if I throw 50% of them into the trash? I can freeze the meat, but I've got a small freezer. Not to mention cutting a 10 lb hunk of meat into 3 hunks I'll use at a time. The gas lines are always a good 20 minutes. I'm fat, none of their clothes fit me.
That said, as they no longer require American Express things change. I can save $10/3 months on my prescription drugs. I'll no longer need to bug a friend when I'm out of tomato paste. I'm perfectly capable of dividing 10 lbs of meat into 3 packages.
My prescriptions expire in November, I suspect I'll be joining Costco then. I'll just be very effin careful when shopping.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Monday September 25 2017, @11:21PM (8 children)
I dont know where you hail from. But in my state it is the law that they cant require a membership to buy drugs, glasses, smoke, or hooch. You might not require a membership.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday September 25 2017, @11:25PM (7 children)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the law here too. I just feel guilty taking taking advantage of their price when not a member.
And yeah, I know that kind of thinking went out in the 80s when MBA's started invading management. But I was raised that way.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Monday September 25 2017, @11:43PM (2 children)
Don't feel guilty about taking advantage of Costco! That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard! Taking advantage of Costco should warm the cockles of your heart.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:21AM (1 child)
I just use the gift card trick for those bulk stores. If someone gets you a gift card, they will let you into the store. You can get whatever you want and pay the remainder of your bill in cash, card, etc. The secret is to make sure one of your items is a gift card....
(Score: 2) by Snow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:32AM
Ooh, that's pretty clever!
(Score: 2, Informative) by insanumingenium on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)
This isn't a little fraternal organization organizing a group buy by fronting the value of the whole order to the wholesaler and trusting that their members will reimburse them. Though even in this especially sympathetic case, I have never seen a group buy turn down more buying power.
This is one of the largest retailers in the world running their day to day retail business. It isn't like the membership fees have anything to do with how this business is offering goods at these prices, their shoppers tend to spend way more than their membership fees every single trip. If anything by adding to their bulk buying power you are enriching their membership.
As the article points out, one of the real effects of those membership fees is to limit access to life improving goods. Saving money on prescriptions could be the difference between eating cat food and Kraft dinner that month. Even if I saw an ethical dilemma, in that position, I think my choice is obvious.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:31AM (2 children)
Even the gift card trick works moderately to the business's advantage (which is yet another reason not to treat it as an ethical dilemma). They don't get the $50 or so per year, but they do get a repeat customer which what they wanted all along.
(Score: 1) by j-beda on Wednesday September 27 2017, @06:25PM (1 child)
Costco's membership fees do seem to be a significant source of their profits:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071015/3-reasons-costco-has-membership-fees.asp [investopedia.com]
"....
In the volatile world that is the grocery business, Costco has a way to ensure a steady source of income: membership fees. In 2016 alone, the company's 86.7 million members worldwide brought in $2.6 billion in membership fees.
Revenues from membership fees are great. Aside from a few minutes of an employee’s time, plus the cost of the card and subsequent promotional mailings, managing membership isn't too costly. As such, Costco’s $2.6 billion in membership fee revenue is almost entirely profit.
When you consider that in 2016, Costco’s operating income was only $3.6 billion, you can see why the company needs membership fees to stay in business. Thankfully, its membership numbers keep growing: they were up 8% in 2014, 6% in 2015 and 9% in 2016. "
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @07:54PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:46PM (7 children)
If you have a problem using or storing vegetables, get a pressure canner. You can process them and store them at room temperature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:19AM
Lettuce.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:00AM (5 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:10AM (2 children)
Not quite true. Canning vegetables yourself preserves a lot more of the nutrition than buying canned vegetables because those are subject to much more intensive preservation. Also, canning makes sense with store-bought if you buy the vegetables in season when they're cheapest. It's also a factor if you care about zero-impact, low carbon footprint living. Canned vegetables produce a measurable waste stream, but with canning you use the vessels over and over for generations.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:54PM (1 child)
Only if you're buying locally produced vegetables. Most of the stuff I see in shops has come several hundred miles to get to my shelves. The extra fuel burned to move it loose at high speeds (before it goes off) rather than densely packed at slow speeds in a tin is likely to offset any energy or carbon savings.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:21PM
I was mostly thinking of the packaging, but the carbon to move your veg from Chile to America is about the same if you move a lot or a little, so better a lot, once, for what you need, than a little, many times, on demand.
You are right that locally grown is still better that way.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:08PM (1 child)
My friend buys a bag of apples that he forgets to use. Instead of letting it decay, I peel them and can them in a watery syrup. Now the shelf life has been extended from a couple of weeks to years.
Everyone has bought fruits and vegetables that they have ended up throwing away. Canning [uga.edu] gives you an extra choice for foods you have an excess of, and the jars do not need to be stored in a refrigerator. You can even can your own meats and stock.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:45AM
From casually reading the story, it may well be that Mr. Treehugger doesn't have access to a nice enough kitchen along with his other, many tribulations, though he apparently does store cooking ingredients long enough for them to spoil or become bug-ridden. I certainly would hope that should he go this route, he learns about proper canning (and cooking in general) before risking food poisoning.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:02AM
I started buying vegetables from a local greengrocer a couple of years ago when I realised that buying them every day or two meant that I didn't throw any away, but buying them in the supermarket meant that I had a load that I didn't eat in time. They cost more, but the total amount that I'm paying is about the same and the vegetables are nicer.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @11:13PM (1 child)
This article author completely fails economics 101. Things in bulk are cheaper for two reasons:
1) People who can buy large amounts of stuff are very desire-able as a customer (due to #2 below), so have relatively stronger purchasing power as compared to people who buy small amounts of stuff.
2) It's less work for to sell large amounts of things a couple of times, than small amounts of stuff lots of times. As an extreme example, most people would prefer to earn 80% of a $1000 sale, than 100% of a $100 sale.
By the author's same arguments, I should be able to call Kraft Foods, Samsung Electronics, and REI and buy everything at wholesale prices. I have just as might right to a bulk discount as Walmart does. Never mind I just want one TV.
I'll also note that if he thinks that there really is a lot of price gouging going on, he is more than able to create a competing business which caters to cities and pull a Walmart. It's been done before. If he's willing to put his money where his mouth is, then he could be the next billionaire... That's assuming he's not just an ignorant ideologue running his mouth off about stuff he doesn't understand.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday September 25 2017, @11:27PM
Of course, his investors would want to incorporate this into their risk model.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by krishnoid on Monday September 25 2017, @11:31PM
They extend warranties on electronics for an additional year. If the manufacturer can't help you with an issue, and then Costco support can't help you either, they will refund you the entire amount with very little hassle and make the manufacturer eat the cost. If you're unhappy with the other products they sell, they'll also take the products back with almost/no hassle.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:28AM (7 children)
The guy is correct about our car-based infrastructure being subsidized by all the people who don't have cars or use them much, however his whole diatribe against bulk pricing is just stupid and completely ignorant of basic economics. Small quantities of things incur more overhead, and every transaction carries a cost, so it's advantageous to a seller to sell larger quantities to a small number of customers rather than tiny quantities to a large number of customers. Moreover, this is seen in B2B as well: suppliers give bigger discounts to companies that buy in bulk, and they negotiate pricing based on unit quantity.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:03AM (3 children)
Thing is, we all subsidize things we don't use. It's called society. If childless taxpayers were exempt from property tax, schools would go broke. If gasoline tax monies didn't help pay for chronically unprofitable public transit, the subways would stop. Articles like this seem meant to inspire class warfare rather than address some glaring injustice.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:43AM (2 children)
Eh, gasoline tax monies don't even pay for much more than 50% of the roads. The rest of the expense for roadbuilding and maintenance is paid for out of general revenues, from income, property, and sales taxes. Roads are chronically unprofitable also!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:05AM (1 child)
Roads are a huge net benefit. Better logistics means that the whole of society benefits. Now, we could argue about the relative merits of different forms of transport - horses for courses, after all - but roads would make everybody's life better even if there weren't purpose-directed taxes supporting their construction and maintenance.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:26AM
Rail is a huge net benefit, but somehow we've moved away from those efficiencies to moving cargo around on the highways and roads. Moving cargo by water is a huge net benefit, but we've moved away from those efficiencies to moving cargo around on the highways and roads. Roads are a relatively inefficient way to move cargo, but the cost is subsidized. Socialism at work.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
Really? No. Not even close.
But perhaps you would like to compare it to the fraction of the cost of cyclist infrastructure paid for by cyclists. After all, that would be a big fat zero, wouldn't it.
The vehicle infrastructure is well proven to return a high net gain to an economy.
As to the rest of this rant. It is just more topical snowflake wants everything their way without making the effort required. What they mean is they have not made the efforts required to get the benefits, and want the benefits anyway.
The only correct response is to tell them to fuck right off.. And that is the polite version.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:16AM
Not sure about where you live, but here cycle lanes are paid for out of property taxes. Most people don't cycle more than 10 miles from where they live, so the taxes are generally paying for cycle lanes that they can use. The proportion of the lanes that are paid for by cyclists depends on where they live and that varies hugely between locations, but here around 50% of people cycle to work as their primary means of transport and more cycle less regularly - there are very few people who don't cycle at all. And, of course, everyone benefits from improved air quality in the city.
This really can't be understated. One of the few things that pretty much all economists agree on is that the best way of improving the economy of a developing country is to build roads.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:01PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:15AM (5 children)
Why do most stores only sell Vaseline in big honking jars? I don't need that much. Is it a gimmick to get us to pay more, or are people doing something odd and massive with Vaseline that I don't know about? #IdontGettit
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:36AM (3 children)
Never had a baby or a girlfriend I see.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:28AM
"a girlfriend I see"
or a boyfriend, but I read they prefer Crisco.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:52PM (1 child)
Only ever had invisible girlfriends, huh? :-)
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday September 28 2017, @12:36AM
Ah, a message from planet ignorance....
Hey, dumbass, many chicks use massive quantities for makeup removal.
The fact you can only think of one use speaks volumes.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:08AM
How do you think meatballs stay together, magic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:17AM
Has the absolute rudest shoppers of them all. But I guess it's better than the floor show at Walmart.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:42AM
Buying in bulk has always been cheaper. The reasons are packaging and handling, which several posters have already explained.
This guy is a victim of a couple generations of crappy education in economics. His parents, and grandparents, and maybe his great-grandparents had access to CONVENIENCE packaging and sizing. Great-great grandma probably went to the store once or twice a year, and brought home a fifty-pound, or a hundred-pound burlap bag of flour. As time passed, flour was packaged in ever smaller containers, which are more convenient to handle - but most definitely cost more per ounce of flour. Cost conscious home makers were aware of that increasing cost per ounce, so they would opt for the larger bags of flour. Those less cost conscious would opt for the easier-to-handle convenience. Of course, spending more money per ounce of flour left a little less money available for other things, but that was "acceptable".
So, today, he rants against those who are aware of the real cost of convenience, because they have advantages that he is unable to take.
Hey, Treehugger - blame your parents and your teachers for your Catch-22 position. For my part, I'll continue to make purchases by the case whenever it is justified. You buy the can of baked beans, I'll buy the case, and enjoy the ten cents per can difference. That $2.40 that I saved will stay in my checking account, until I need it for something else.
(Score: 3, Informative) by goodie on Tuesday September 26 2017, @01:43AM (1 child)
Alright, I did not RTFA and I don't care to after looking at the comments so this comment probably digresses off topic. To me, arguments about toilet paper etc. make no sense because those products have virtually no expiry dates. If you have the space and the will, do whatever the hell you want (ok I do chuckle when I see people come in with 4 carts that they fill with the same item :D). You can argue that you save on transportation costs, packaging etc. so you could probably argue that it's good for the planet (tm)!
Bulk purchasing is more delicate when you deal with perishable foods (cue the muffin trays at Costco!). For example, I buy only a few items at Costco: organic olive oil (2 liter bottles, because I use quite a bit for cooking), toilet paper, paper towels, as well as a few other items (e.g., organic flour which they finally have in large bags at my location). I don't buy my meat there unless I have say a barbecue over the weekend and I know that I will go through it all. At some point, I did buy perishable items and would make portions, bag and freeze. Did I save money? Hard to say to be honest, between the freezer bags, labor etc. It's like everything else you buy: sometimes you'll get a good deal, sometimes you won't. You just have to know and over time, you know how much something will be worth in 2/3 places and can decide on the spot. Fruit I can definitely say I wasted money. We like to eat a diversity of fruit so buying a 5 kg bag of oranges is a waste of money for us, especially since the items are in a closed package and you can't really pick. I like to hand pick my fruit and veggies, call me weird.
Now, a new practice that "fancy" grocery stores around my house have been using for a year or so is the infamous "$2.99 for one; $2.50 each if you buy 3 or more". Often, I go to these stores when I am in need of something and I need it soon. In those instance, I know I will get ripped off so I do ask myself whether buying 3 items would make sense to bring the price closer to what I'd pay in another store. BUT, the caveat is that in the other store, I would have just bought 1 item, not 3... So now I would have to figure out where to store the stuff, make sure we eat it before it goes bad etc. So I just tell myself fuck it, I can afford the extra $0.50. It's a waste of money but I've had shelves full of stuff that I never ate in the paste so now I consider that it's not money saved, it's waste avoided more than anything.
It also happens that sometimes the bulk item is more expensive per lb/qt or whatever then individual units that are on sale on a given day. Some places give you a price per unit on the label (in very small letters). Check those out if you haven't, it gives a completely different picture of the pricing structure or multiple items, it's quite interesting actually.
And remember: just because they stick a fat label on the display, it does not mean that it's cheaper. Stores love those fake sales. They discount 1 item of which they have low stock and keep others at the same price (after inflating the price so that it now looks cheaper). If you do the groceries every week, you become immunized to these scummy tactics. When my wife comes with me to the store, she thinks stuff is on the sale when it's actually more expensive than it usually is. Marketing's a bitch!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:51AM
That's our experience also. We switched the family to a ketogenic diet a year ago because I was diagnosed with pre-diabetes. My dad died from a diabetic coma so it gave us the push we needed to switch to a healthier way of eating. So, basically, you can eat meat and veg. No carbohydrates or sugars at all, no artificial sweeteners beyond Stevia or anything that will monkey with your blood sugar.
So when we go into Costco now, we buy as you do, the olive oil, the TP, paper towels, the coconut oil. Everything else seems like "poison," "poison with nuts," "glazed poison," "crunchy poison," "poison with poison sauce," "dried poison," etc. There's very little that's healthy there. And you look at the customers in the aisles, who are struggling with their weight, and the connection seems obvious: The bulk stores are selling obesity.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:07AM
...believe that buying in bulk won't stick around. Wow, what a call to action to right that injustice! I guess the next time I'm loading 36 rolls of toilet paper into my SUV, I'll look around the parking lot smugly and think, "This will all go away in the future!" and look forward to living in my enlightened sardine can, enjoying my 8 ounces of corn starch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:35AM (1 child)
I don't want to end the author's way of life in a crowded, expensive urban area. Why is he trying to end mine in the burbs? Fascist! Let people have choices and let them live their lives in peace.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:51AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:17AM (17 children)
Warning: This is a bit of a <RANT>
Here's why we buy in bulk, or relative bulk:
We buy things on sale, and as in-bulk as reasonably possible. Items are much less expensive sometimes; that's when we buy those things. We buy plenty. We save plenty. A lot of money. This applies to items ranging from toilet paper to steak. We vacuum pack and freeze steaks; we just stack toilet paper. We actually have a proper inventory of what's in the house, and we shop to maintain the inventory, not to get an item we need one particular day.
Sales are designed to bring you in and get you to impulse purchase other things. We don't do that. We buy the stuff that's on sale, stuff we specifically need, and we leave. Most of the time, we only buy sale items.
We have a very large home (bought very inexpensively, btw - and low taxes - it's an old church I built an interior into), and storage is not a problem at all. Nor is power; the freezers and refrigerators are almost always running on solar power. We also have enough liquidity at this relatively late time in our lives to be able to buy whatever we want, when we want.
These two things give us significant financial leverage that is not afforded to most people. We spend less; we get more; we shop less; our level of convenience remains high. There are environmental benefits. Less packaging. Less use of fuel. There are convenience benefits: "Do we have any X?" "Yes, we do." We have emergency supplies. We don't suddenly run out of critical things requiring trips for one or two items. We spend less time shopping and more time doing fun things. As far as food goes (and all this certainly doesn't just apply to food) we have a very wide choice of menu at any one point in time. There are a few (very few) exceptions to buying in bulk, notably fresh vegetables and fruit, neither of which are all that important as compared to canned or frozen supplies of nominally non-fresh items in various degrees of stasis. But almost everything non-fresh can be stored long term one way or another, and the exceptions can be picked up in a single trip every week or two, depending on the season. Refrigeration is great for extending storage lifetimes, and many things simply don't have a shelf-life issue that is of any significance. Some fresh things that don't store long term well - baked goods, for instance - can be made from items in long term storage, while buying them premade tends to be a poor choice, economically speaking. And of course, fresh baked good warm from the oven, as compared to the stuff you get at the store in a plastic bag... it's a total win. There are all kinds of fabulous specialized devices to make bread, pizza, etc., and there are even more fabulous devices to make prep of food in general faster, easier, more convenient, more enjoyable on every level (I'm talking about sous vide cookers, smart pressure cookers, crockpots, etc.) A sous vide steak makes all other methods of preparing steak look like something done clumsily in a cave, just as one for instance.
This kind of prep, buying and storage leverage is just one more factor in the various advantages afforded to those who are more liquid, as opposed to those who aren't. There are many others. For instance, the financial and taxation systems are incredibly friendly to leveraging with money - accountants, loopholes, investments, etc. When I buy something - car, home, land - I just buy it. I don't pay interest to anyone, so I pay (often considerably) less than someone who takes out a loan, and I get even further ahead. I can take advantage of opportunities for financial gain just because I want to. I don't pay interest to credit card companies. Etc. My mother most emphatically told me to be the lender, not the borrower, and that was truly excellent advice, if quite difficult to take advantage of early on. I can (and do) engage in charity for those causes I feel are worthy, and that's specifically more enabled as opposed to less because we throw less money out the window, right down to buying toilet paper at retail.
I am 100% down with the idea that it's unfair as all hell. In my younger years (I'm 60+) these advantages were not available to me, and there was a significant financial and convenience impact as compared to now, one that I was well aware was holding me back. I regret that these advantages I have today are not available to those who are not (as) liquid; but that doesn't mean I'm not going to take advantage of them now that I can. I vote with an eye towards leveling the playing field when the opportunity arises, which is not that often, because...
The system is specifically tailored to favor people with money. The citizens continuously elect people with more money, as opposed to less (the average net worth of a US congresscritter is somewhere north of a million dollars.) Why anyone would then expect regulation and/or laws to favor those at lower income levels, I literally have no idea, and my speculation on why people allow themselves to be tricked into voting this way when there is a choice of an even slightly more "regular person" candidate is anything but complementary. The election that resulted in Gianforte here in Montana recently is a prime example of this. The people picked a (very) rich person who has a long history of screwing them, and hard, over someone who was pretty much a regular guy and might very well have actually had their practical interests in mind. It's mind-boggling to me. Ready, fire, aim - "oh hey, was that my (other) foot?"
</RANT>
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:37AM (9 children)
What's more, the guy's from New Jersey. Who better to understand the frontier culture, the farmers, the ranchers, the loggers, the miners of Montana than a Jersey Shore Italian who thinks jug handle turns are normal? It's insane. It's almost literally an episode of South Park.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:51PM (8 children)
I recall looking this up [wikipedia.org] before the last time this assertion was made. He's actually from San Diego (born 1961), moved to Pennsylvania ("at a young age"), then New Jersey (~1979), then Montana (1994 to present). He's lived longer in Montana than he has in any other state, including New Jersey.
He's got some strong negatives (such as the temper that led to him punching a reporter), but funny how people obsess over New Jersey and wealth.
His opponent [wikipedia.org] in the special election, a Rob Quist, while native Montanan, had the usual Democrat baggage: single payer health care, protecting Obamacare, reverse Citizen United, and bought in to climate change mitigation. If I were voting in that election, I certainly would have gone with the Libertarian candidate.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday September 28 2017, @01:02AM (7 children)
"single payer health care, protecting Obamacare, reverse Citizen United and bought in to climate change mitigation."
Ah, so supporting policies that are good for the populous are "baggage."
Got it.
(for the record, I don't support the right of center Democratic party either. But since our choice is currently right of center or right of right, well, lesser evils and all that...)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @05:09AM (6 children)
They're also bad for the populace. It's impossible to think about such stuff, if you never consider the costs.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday October 07 2017, @04:31AM (5 children)
"It's impossible to think about such stuff, if you never consider the costs."
Actually it's quite easy if you consider the costs.
The costs are far higher in the long run without them.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 07 2017, @05:31AM (4 children)
Keep in mind that you're speaking of "single payer health care, protecting Obamacare, reverse Citizen United and bought in to climate change mitigation". The first is a slow moving train wreck. It only looks good worldwide because the US approach looks so bad. But throughout the developed world, health care costs are increasing faster than the economies are, including the single payer systems. That can't continue forever.
Obamacare doesn't even have the virtue of being able to hide behind a worse health care system. The price for the ability of some people to pay for what they need, is now everyone pays even more for insurance than they did before.
Citizen United is simply a protection of First Amendment rights and equal protection under law. You do like the freedom to say what you think, right? So do representatives of corporations.
And climate change mitigation has a terrible record. To date, attempts to reduce greenhouse gases emissions have been negligible in impact (even under theoretical, ideal circumstances), costly, often widely violated (usually coupled with a disinterest in enforcing the mitigation policy), and frequently with ulterior motives. For example, US corn ethanol subsidies (which were just a cynical gift to US agribusiness), Energiewende in Germany (and the corresponding policies in Denmark) which doubled their cost of electricity and forced dependence on foreign energy sources, and the dysfunctional carbon emission credit markets in Europe (which have repeatedly had violations and fraud occur in the markets with a sluggish response by regulators which seems more driven by public embarrassment than any concern for the integrity of these markets).
But sure, assert without evidence that these things are somehow better in the long run.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday October 07 2017, @10:41AM (3 children)
"But sure, assert without evidence that these things are somehow better in the long run."
Don't be an ass.
It's not like you were an overflowing font of evidence. This was merely a discussion of opinion. I unfortunately have neither the time nor the inclination to provide links that you will just ignore anyway.
I respectfully disagree with you, especially about climate change and citizens united, and hell, lets throw the unpatriotic patriot act in there as well.
I don't completely disagree with you on healthcare, it is a huge mess, it would of worked a hell of a lot better before the R's added 150 plus amendments to be certain it couldn't be fully financed. And prices were rising even faster before the ACA. And deliberately sabotaging it since the Creamsicle Charleton got in just makes me nauseous. That is not what the government should be doing. I do feel it should be a right, not an option.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and they all stink.
I bid you a good day.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:15AM (2 children)
So will you claim that the Patriot Act is net beneficial for the public as well? I don't agree since it is an encroachment on human freedom for some marginal and often purely theoretical security gain.
First, Obamacare was supposed to save bunches of money and not require extensive financing. That's a bit of goalpost moving after the fact.
Also keep in mind who had the supermajority at the time the law was passed. It wasn't the Republicans. They didn't have the power to put those amendments in. Amusing how the Republicans can no longer muster that unity now that it's their turn at the feeding trough and are facing similar difficulties for their own attempts at health care reform.
Very graceful concession there. I don't agree, of course. Platitudes like this ignore that some people have thought a lot more about their opinions than others. We have ways to evaluate the strength of arguments rather than merely saying that all are equal because.
Well, what was wrong with the evidence that I provided? We have, for example, plenty of history of global warming treaties which advocating harsh cutbacks of greenhouse gases emissions for minuscule improvement. We have significant experience with the failures of Obamacare now.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:32PM (1 child)
You know, it's unfortunate that I don't have the time to debate this in depth. But I at this time I only have a few hours a week free as I'm covering about half of my bosses shifts right now while he recovers from knee surgery.
This discussion will undoubtedly come about in another article when I actually have time.
"Very graceful concession there."
Dude, develop a sense of humor. And your opinion has no more, or less, merit than mine. After all, I see you as being just as misinformed as you see me, but echo chambers are boring, and I thank you for taking the time to reply without the rhetoric and name calling that generally occurs here and elsewhere.
Also, I never said your opinion was bad, only that I disagree and haven't the time to go in-depth. However you seemed to insinuate I should link to my evidence while for the most part you simply stated yours.
But lighten up man. The pendulum swings to and fro....because the middle is where we need to be, we simply differ in how we interpret the information we receive. I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm a realist, I know that is unlikely. I just enjoy a good debate. Thank you.
See ya in the funny papers.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 09 2017, @04:49AM
We also see from the graph that Obamacare did nothing to reverse the increase of spending in the US and let us keep in mind that the recession also would have slowed health care spending in the US even in the event of no change to health care policy. That's not a lot to show for allegedly reforming health care and 2000 pages of bad law.
As to the Citizens United case, read the court ruling. You'll get the actual arguments they use. I think it's outrageous that so many justices (though fortunately a minority) could choose to ignore the Constitution in order to get the "right" outcome.
And climate change mitigation has a record. Look it up. Also, look up what proponents think victory is. You'll see stuff like bragging about making changes in peoples' behavior or raising awareness of the problem while acknowledging that their mitigation policy didn't actually do anything. Lot of cognitive dissonance there. My previous post on the matter has a few subjects to start with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:35PM (6 children)
The system is specifically tailored to favor people who believe they have a future. Who don't live hand to mouth. Who don't depend on others constantly. Who are willing to work for a savings. Who spend little or no time complaining, and a maximum of time adding value.
--
Also 60+, dirt poor yet also in a large cheaper-than-average home with all kinds of bulk (and freely found) stuff everywhere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:19PM (5 children)
No. Absolutely not. You're confusing success with effort. You're also ignoring inherited and gifted connections, position, wealth and power. And luck.
There are many, many people who try very hard, are absolutely standup members of society, but do not succeed due to factors well beyond their control. These people are no less worthy than someone just like them, but who becomes wealthy.
Sure, it'd be great if we could ensure that the worthy were the ones that "rose to the top" and only the unworthy failed to do so. We'd then have a metric like the one you propose where reward was sanely in proportion to success. But we can't even come close to doing that, and because we cannot do so, it is amoral – at the very least – to disadvantage those who do not do so. Likewise, it is un-sane to encourage legislators and rule makers to arrange the system to operate to formally disadvantage the less fortunate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @05:19AM (4 children)
If one actually looks at people who do succeed, they're usually in this category, they just choose to try again. Failure is not permanent.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday September 28 2017, @06:34PM (3 children)
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, the number of tries notwithstanding.
Success does not indicate worthy any more than failure indicates unworthy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @11:41PM (2 children)
How much is "sometimes"? I think this is a pretty mealy mouthed reply. And the number of tries does matter.
Nobody said otherwise. The people who tend to succeed on a regular basis also tend to fail on a regular basis. So IMHO if there is any sense of worthiness from risk taking, it would be in higher numbers of both successes and failures. I'm also not clear on why anyone in this thread thinks that buying in bulk is remotely relevant to risk taking. It's rather a straightforward case of planning and budgeting at the individual and small family level in order to take advantage of economies of scale.
For example, as was noted, bugs in dry goods like flour as described in the story indicates poor preservation technique (when I had that problem it was because I was just rolling up bags rather than properly sealing them in air-tight containers or ziplocks, switching to the later completely eliminated the problem) not some sort of success versus failure thing. There are certain things even an individual can buy in bulk as long as they take proper precautions. I wouldn't buy vegetables in bulk, but dry goods, frozen meat, cans, etc can keep for a long time.
My view is that it is pointless to complain that the system favors those with money or a little foresight. Instead, we should be asking, "How can I take advantage of this situation?" A lot of these services supposedly oriented towards rich people also work just fine for people who figure out how to use them and piggyback off the rich people (such as buying in bulk or trading on the stock market, to give another example).
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday September 29 2017, @05:57AM (1 child)
It varies with the case, obviously. Expecting specifics on this when speaking generally about the circumstance is absurd.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 29 2017, @01:19PM
For example, there's been some real ugly problems due to the subsidizing of US student loans (so that more people would have a college degree which is generally considered a good thing) such as education inflation over the past half century at several times the natural inflation rate and special non-dischargeable debt rules for student loans because of the unintended consequence of students declaring bankrupt after getting through college.
What we know is that high debt loads for young adults is bad (because that can stick around and even grow over the course of a life time), yet US society has deliberately created such a situation in order to help young adults. That creates a lot of problems for the person trying to succeed.
This is typical of government policy in the US and elsewhere. It creates a public good because some people are having hard luck, which in turn creates various incentives to cheat or exploit the system for gain. Then several heavy-handed regulations are created to deal with the cheating/exploitation which in turn adapts to the changing regulatory environment, and so on. You end up with a complex public good or service that requires considerable work to access for the people the program is supposed to help, a number of authoritarian impositions on personal freedom and promiscuous data collection, and a complex ecosystem of cheaters and exploiters working the system (often allowed to continue unimpeded as long as they don't rock the boat).
So even if a genuine case of someone trying and always failing is found, doesn't mean that this someone or we are better off by attempting to do something about it.
To summarize my attitude about success and failure, sure not everyone starts at the same level, but there is still more than enough opportunity to try for even the poorest. And the economy itself has a variety of ways to equalize wealth after the fact. Just because you started life rich, doesn't mean you'll stay rich. I also don't buy that people repeatedly trying and failing is a big enough problem that we have to do anything about it. You can always find anecdotal stories in an imperfect world. Even if we do want to fix something about that situation, we need to keep in mind that our intervention can and often does make things worse rather than better.