Up untill a week ago Nofrills carried these “three packs” of salmon for $10. Now the same pack contains two for the same $10. I thought it felt light when I bought it yesterday.

This comes to about $0.02 increase per gram, and a $1.10 price increase overall. Or a 11% increase in price overall. Meanwhile inflation is at 6-7%?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    If you don’t think suppliers are using inflation to justify robber-baron price hikes, I guess you missed the part where companies are posting record profits.

    • Agent_of_Kayos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Huzzah for our current system of capitalism that insists a company is only doing good if each quarter has record profits. What’s bad with doing “good enough?”

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Inflation drives all the numbers up. If money inflates to half the value but you maintain the same profit margins, you’ll make record profits despite the finances having functionally remained exactly the same.

      Workers are also making record wages. It doesn’t mean much if you don’t consider how much the money is actually worth, as we’ve all been discovering over the last few years.

      • variants@possumpat.io
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        so why not just lower the profit margins? also give me some of them record wages please, all I got was a bottle of champagne for all the work weve done and record profits but also raises in pay are frozen because of the turbulent times

        • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          You got champagne? All I got was runaround, brand new policies pulled out of thin air, and creative counting to deny seniority benefits. Turns out, I’ve worked for the same place 30 years when it inflates their retention and longevity numbers for the oversight agencies. I’ve also worked there for only a year (started a new position last year) when it suits them to deny a published benefit. The completely mindboggling part? These two countings were in the same email.