Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The small increase is used as an illustrative example. Sure, lots of people can afford to pay the small increase but multiply it out over a wide range of expenses and people living paycheck to paycheck have a problem.

Remember the famous statistic that some huge percentage of Americans can't afford a modest unexpected expense? If you have $2 in your pocket or on your EBT card are you going to get the 32 oz box for $2.10 or the 28 oz for $2?

It's fashionable to condemn the manufacturer for reducing the size to keep it affordable but it's a let them eat cake attitude.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Say the box of oatmeal 32 oz is $2. But thanks to Donald Trump withdrawing us from the Paris accords the Chinese have increased emissions causing a drought or flooding in Iowa boosting the price of oats. The oatmeal manufacturer can boost the price or reduce the size of the box. A small price increase doesn't effect most customers but poor or those living on a fixed income who could afford $2 may not be able to afford $2.10. For them stretching a 30 oz box might be the only viable alternative. But hey, why not rail against evil capitalism instead of giving people options.

Originally Posted by pjohns

Perhaps you have placed your finger--albeit inadvertently--upon the problem: Too many Americans are, as you said, "living paycheck to paycheck."

I strongly believe in the pay-yourself-first method. It works like this:

When one gets paid--however meager the amount may be; and whatever one's expenses might be--one should pay oneself first. Which is to say, one should set aside a set amount--say, 10 percent of the net pay--into savings.

Then, one should set aside enough money to pay all the monthly bills.

Next, one should set aside enough money to purchase food for the month.

Next, one should set aside enough money to purchase gasoline for the month.

And lastly, one should set aside enough money for entertainment for the month (if there is any money left over).

Too many people, I think, do this sort of thing upside-down.

Originally Posted by jimbo

Again, that assumes only one choice. That's almost always not true.

If I have $2 in my pocket and want something that costs $2.10, I might buy the store brand for $1.75 or go to the store next door and buy the same product for $1.90

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

That's certainly a classic and worthwhile budgeting discipline. Care to comment on the merit of a manufacturer reducing the size of a product so the price remains the same meaning it will fit within the budgeting discipline you describe?

Originally Posted by pjohns

As I mentioned previously: Why could a person not simply eat smaller portions if the price were increased, rather than just doing so if the product were downsized?

Moreover, you have simply ignored the fact--as I mentioned, in my prior post--that I was speaking of body wash and kitchen trash bags, rather than food.

(In all fairness, I also mentioned the downsizing--albeit not recently--of a bag of sugar, from five pounds to a mere four pounds. But although sugar is, technically, a food, I rather doubt that anyone would purchase a bag of sugar as a means of survival.)

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

If you can't afford the more expensive purchase price then you can't eat at all. The same dynamic applies to body wash and trash bags. The choice is between no body wash or trash bags and making do with a smaller quantity. Sure, you aren't going starve without these products but reduced quantity at the same price allows the less affluent to continue to use these products.

Originally Posted by jimbo

No, it's a matter of indifference. The boxes are clearly marked, and at least in Virginia the price/ounce must be posted on the shelf. The fact is most people don't care.

On a side note. Most people don't know or care that that green can of cheese contains sawdust, the salt box contains sand, and Corned Beef is pumped with 20% water. Check the box the next time you buy.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

If you can't afford the more expensive purchase price then you can't eat at all. The same dynamic applies to body wash and trash bags. The choice is between no body wash or trash bags and making do with a smaller quantity.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Sure, you aren't going starve without these products but reduced quantity at the same price allows the less affluent to continue to use these products.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

No, it assumes we are talking about the same product from the same manufacturer. All sorts of scenarios can be introduced to avoid discussing the merits of a manufacturer reducing quantity. There is probably a food bank or charity kitchen where someone can get oatmeal for free but that has nothing to do with reduced quantity for the same price.

I don't know where you live but there aren't grocery stores next door to each other around here. That means transportation cost to go to another store.

Even Walmart doesn't have store brands for everything. My pension doesn't go as far as it used to but I'll still hold out for not a speck of cereal.