Comment by socializer
5 hours ago
And yet, supermarkets existed in the year 2000, selling products at comparable or lower inflation-adjusted prices, without any of this connectivity.
Yes, a lot of it exists to squeeze a bit more of a margin out of the business, but come on. The alternative isn't going back to the Middle Ages, it's shaving 0.1% off the profit margin. It's OK to wonder if the risk is worth it.
Grocery stores infamously have some of the lowest margins in all of retail and typically hover in the 1-3% range. As a sector they have about zero room for inefficiency and have to be this aggressive about chasing operating cost reductions.
The increased profits that have occurred in recent decades have landed with the big food companies, not with the retail chains selling their products at very little margin.
Wonder the margins on those $9 boxes of Cheerios at major California grocers.
They did promise to increase the cost of breakfast a couple years ago.
[dead]
Yeah, I worked at one during that time. The amount of food we threw away on a regular basis was incredible.
Except that in this case, the possibility of something like this probably is worth it, because system vulnerabilities are solvable problems, while ignoring the ability to improve system efficiency is a static stance. A lot of things have driven up the price of groceries since that time. You mention "comparable or lower inflation adjusted prices", but this hides the fact that the inflation adjusted basket of groceries in the US is near inflation (105% vs a baseline of 94%), while the input costs to that supply chain (like labor, and diesel) have gone up faster. The efficiency isn't doing nothing, grocery prices would almost definitely be higher without it.
> because system vulnerabilities are solvable problems
If only…
That's why I spoke of them in the plural. Obviously the possibility of a system hack (presumably) won't ever completely go away, but individual vulnerabilities as they appear in specific systems are usually tractable problems, especially if you narrow it to things that one wants solved rather than all possible vulnerabilities regardless of severity or accessibility.
> system vulnerabilities are solvable problems
Which apparently why after >2000yrs of effort from both sides we now, finally!, have locks that no lockpicker can compromise.
That's not what "vulnerabilities are solvable problems" means, except maybe for cybersecurity maximalists who believe that, "bro, add passkeys, and just one more thing, attestation, and W^X, and ..., and there will never be vulnerabilities".
Vulnerabilities will always exist. Systems will always be hackable. You solve the problem by patching what you can, and cleaning up after what gets exploited, if and when it gets exploited.
> the inflation adjusted basket of groceries in the US is near inflation
You must not mean what you have said here. If so, you are double-dipping.
I think it's an interesting question.
I would be interested to know what the damage caused by this attack is compared to savings over a system where thermostats need to be adjusted on-site.
That's the work that goes into hiding the "other half" of the inflation (i.e. the 2x diff between reported inflation and what you can actually see in your life).
How would you stay in business if your competitor was offering 20% off your prices because they had better logistics and tracking? Ask consumers to eat the cost due to their latent demand for, uh, inefficient delivery and food spoilage?
Are you saying that stores in the 2000s were throwing away 20% more of their total revenue than they are today? That sounds crazy, especially given that the prices - again - seem pretty much the same or higher if you correct for inflation.
But more to the point, there's plenty of grocery stores that ask 20% more than their competitors and are doing just fine; in fact, constant price changes and promotions make it impossible for consumers to really compare if Safeway is cheaper than Whole Foods, so people usually go to the place that's physically closer, has better selection, or better vibes. I can't even know if a 12-pack of Coca-Cola is going to be $6.99 or $9.99 today.
Coca cola is a bad example as it does not require refrigeration during transport and does not spoil fast (at all?).
Choose your own number, but it has to be large enough that supermarkets decided the CapEx was worth it, and also large enough that once one did it, the rest followed suit.
1 reply →
There are numbers between 0.1% and 20%
This is already the case in the grocery market. There are various leaner and more efficient operators offering the same goods for lower prices, sometimes a lot lower than just 20%. However most people don't think to shop at the various Grocery Outlet's or Food4Less's. Working class is wise to it but not really further up the class ladder. They don't think much at all and reflexively go to their ralphs, which plays the opposite game where they have higher prices such that they might occasionally mark them lower and make you think you are getting a deal. Some people are even going to erewhon.