Hello, All!

Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
(in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
$5!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" wrote:
>
> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> arithmetic.

Has nothing to do with doing math... it's all about being
programmed. Madison Ave. has long ago programmed people to consider
the higher number of items at any price as the better buy than one
item at any price. The higher number of items offered the less likely
people will look at the final price... doesn't even have to be 10 for,
that's why 2 fers are so successful... many times I've seen 2 fer $1
when one cost 49 cents. And if you present two of those items at the
register it will not charge you 49 cents each, the register is set to
charge the 2 fer price only... it's all about programming.

James Silverton wrote:
> Hello, All!
>
> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one (in fact
> its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel oranges marked
> "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw it was "10 for $10" or
> a dollar each. Don't people do the simple arithmetic.

No, obviously they don't.

Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
after being raped by sub prime lenders.

And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...

We are so screwed.

Kathleen wrote:
>
> James Silverton wrote:
> > Hello, All!
> >
> > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one (in fact
> > its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel oranges marked
> > "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw it was "10 for $10" or
> > a dollar each. Don't people do the simple arithmetic.
>
> No, obviously they don't.
>
> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
> one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
> after being raped by sub prime lenders.
>
> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
>
> We are so screwed.

Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources. The rest of us
who can assess the facts adapt and are doing just fine. We can also
figure unit prices on our groceries too...

You're correct. You are so screwed.


"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> James Silverton wrote:
>> Hello, All!
>>
>> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one (in fact
>> its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel oranges marked
>> "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw it was "10 for $10" or
>> a dollar each. Don't people do the simple arithmetic.
>
> No, obviously they don't.
>
> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another one
> looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes after
> being raped by sub prime lenders.
>
> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
>
> We are so screwed.
>

James Silverton wrote:
> Hello, All!
>
> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> $5!
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
Happens all the time. I don't generally need or want 10 of (or 5 of)
whatever they're trying to rope the consumer into buying. Fact is they're
counting on people not calculating the unit price. I don't buy into 2-fer
deals unless the per-unit price is significantly less with the 2-fer deal
*and* it's something on my list or at least something I know I'll use.

I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
departments. They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
it's rung up at the checkout. Most people are too timid to say take that
off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!

Jill

Pete C. wrote:

>
> Kathleen wrote:
> >
> > James Silverton wrote:
> > > Hello, All!
> > >
> > > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> > > (in fact its prices are usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > arithmetic.
> >
> > No, obviously they don't.
> >
> > Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with
> > another one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic
> > economy crashes after being raped by sub prime lenders.
> >
> > And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
> >
> > We are so screwed.
>
> Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
> intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
> parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources.

You mean you get the actual facts from sources like the experts who
explained why housing boom would never go down? Or the Russian ones
who explained why Afghanistan would be easy to control? Or the US ones
who explained that once the US sent a few advisors into Vietnam, South
Vietnam would have no trouble winning?

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Pete C. wrote:
> Kathleen wrote:
>> James Silverton wrote:
>

Don't people do the simple arithmetic.

>> No, obviously they don't.
>>
>> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
>> one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
>> after being raped by sub prime lenders.
>>
>> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
>>
>> We are so screwed.
>
> Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
> intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
> parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources. The rest of us
> who can assess the facts adapt and are doing just fine.

Sounds like you are getting your information from Dubya.
And you actually talk about "ignorant sources."

gloria p

"jmcquown" wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>
> > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> > (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> > makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> > $5!
>
> Happens all the time. �I don't generally need or want 10 of (or 5 of)
> whatever they're trying to rope the consumer into buying. �Fact is they're
> counting on people not calculating the unit price. �I don't buy into 2-fer
> deals unless the per-unit price is significantly less with the 2-fer deal
> *and* it's something on my list or at least something I know I'll use.
>
> I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
> departments. �They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
> it's rung up at the checkout. �Most people are too timid to say take that
> off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!

I wouldn't pay $5 for any cantaloupe either unless it has a nipple.

"jmcquown" wrote:

> I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!

In Vancouver I recall seeing cantaloupes priced at about $70
Canadian each. They were square. That is to say, cube-shaped
with somewhat rounded edges; obviously grown into a box to
achieve this shape.

The target market was wealthy Asian transplants and tourists.

Steve

Puester wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Kathleen wrote:
> >> James Silverton wrote:
> >
>
> Don't people do the simple arithmetic.
>
> >> No, obviously they don't.
> >>
> >> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
> >> one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
> >> after being raped by sub prime lenders.
> >>
> >> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
> >>
> >> We are so screwed.
> >
> > Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
> > intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
> > parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources. The rest of us
> > who can assess the facts adapt and are doing just fine.
>
> Sounds like you are getting your information from Dubya.
> And you actually talk about "ignorant sources."
>
> gloria p

Another ignorant twit I see.

I'll give you a clue - if you mindlessly drink the cool aid purveyed by
either the "left" or the "right" you are indeed screwed.

Those of us who don't follow the babbling of the wings know how to find
the facts, analyze them and take the appropriate actions to position
ourselves to come out ahead.

Because I'm not a clueless winger of either persuasion, I've not been
affected by the stock market follies, tech bubble, housing bubble or
sub-prime scams. I'm not all up in arms because gas prices have
increased to about where they should be from the abnormally low prices
of the last decade or so. I'm not sitting in a micro-mansion worth $250k
with a $750k mortgage on it. I've not taken out second mortgages to buy
some status symbol car or HDTV. I'm also not buying into the claims that
we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
health insurance.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:23:10 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Puester wrote:
>>
>> Pete C. wrote:
>> > Kathleen wrote:
>> >> James Silverton wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Don't people do the simple arithmetic.
>>
>> >> No, obviously they don't.
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
>> >> one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
>> >> after being raped by sub prime lenders.
>> >>
>> >> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
>> >>
>> >> We are so screwed.
>> >
>> > Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
>> > intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
>> > parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources. The rest of us
>> > who can assess the facts adapt and are doing just fine.
>>
>> Sounds like you are getting your information from Dubya.
>> And you actually talk about "ignorant sources."
>>
>> gloria p
>
>Another ignorant twit I see.
>
>I'll give you a clue - if you mindlessly drink the cool aid purveyed by
>either the "left" or the "right" you are indeed screwed.
>
>Those of us who don't follow the babbling of the wings know how to find
>the facts, analyze them and take the appropriate actions to position
>ourselves to come out ahead.
>
>Because I'm not a clueless winger of either persuasion, I've not been
>affected by the stock market follies, tech bubble, housing bubble or
>sub-prime scams. I'm not all up in arms because gas prices have
>increased to about where they should be from the abnormally low prices
>of the last decade or so. I'm not sitting in a micro-mansion worth $250k
>with a $750k mortgage on it. I've not taken out second mortgages to buy
>some status symbol car or HDTV. I'm also not buying into the claims that
>we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>health insurance.

Yabbut, but you're still an asshole, and I'm afraid there is nothing
that can be done about that.

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:23:10 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Puester wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >> > Kathleen wrote:
> >> >> James Silverton wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't people do the simple arithmetic.
> >>
> >> >> No, obviously they don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
> >> >> one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
> >> >> after being raped by sub prime lenders.
> >> >>
> >> >> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
> >> >>
> >> >> We are so screwed.
> >> >
> >> > Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
> >> > intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
> >> > parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources. The rest of us
> >> > who can assess the facts adapt and are doing just fine.
> >>
> >> Sounds like you are getting your information from Dubya.
> >> And you actually talk about "ignorant sources."
> >>
> >> gloria p
> >
> >Another ignorant twit I see.
> >
> >I'll give you a clue - if you mindlessly drink the cool aid purveyed by
> >either the "left" or the "right" you are indeed screwed.
> >
> >Those of us who don't follow the babbling of the wings know how to find
> >the facts, analyze them and take the appropriate actions to position
> >ourselves to come out ahead.
> >
> >Because I'm not a clueless winger of either persuasion, I've not been
> >affected by the stock market follies, tech bubble, housing bubble or
> >sub-prime scams. I'm not all up in arms because gas prices have
> >increased to about where they should be from the abnormally low prices
> >of the last decade or so. I'm not sitting in a micro-mansion worth $250k
> >with a $750k mortgage on it. I've not taken out second mortgages to buy
> >some status symbol car or HDTV. I'm also not buying into the claims that
> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
> >health insurance.
>
> Yabbut, but you're still an asshole, and I'm afraid there is nothing
> that can be done about that.

I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
than being an ignorant twit.

On Apr 11, 6:36 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
> > Hello, All!
>
> > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> > (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> > makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> > $5!
>
> > James Silverton
> > Potomac, Maryland
>
> Happens all the time. I don't generally need or want 10 of (or 5 of)
> whatever they're trying to rope the consumer into buying. Fact is they're
> counting on people not calculating the unit price. I don't buy into 2-fer
> deals unless the per-unit price is significantly less with the 2-fer deal
> *and* it's something on my list or at least something I know I'll use.
>
> I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
> departments. They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
> it's rung up at the checkout. Most people are too timid to say take that
> off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!
>
> Jill

The reason scales are disappearing is more likely related to their
grossly inaccurate rendering of the approximate weight that they
display. I'm rude when it comes to that, taking my produce purchase
over to the deli and reaching over to weigh them on their scales for a
more accurate reading.

That was, btw the way I found out that the scales at the registers
were not accurate. Made the people in line behind me angry, but I
raised a ruckus, insisted the manager do the same math I had, and got
that register closed down until the weights and measures people had
come in to retest that scale.

My one moment of glory.<G>

maxine in ri

Janet Baraclough wrote:
> > James Silverton wrote:
>
> �I saw some large navel
> > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > arithmetic.
>
> � �Sadly. huge numbers of people today are incapable of the most basic
> mental arithmetic.

What if you bought ten oranges, and after a week the last two were
rotted... that happens with produce, very often... when produce goes
on those volume sales it's far more often because it's ready to go off
than there's a glut.

Actually a far greater percentage of people today than ever are
capable of arithmetic... reading/writing too. Far more people today
receive an eduction than ever before and a far better education...
perhaps you don't associate with educated people, I have a strong
suspician you don't, otherwise you'd not be so reactive regarding
things you know nothing about... the uneducated tend to shoot from the
hip, they don't think first.. very prevalent with newsgroup posters
who typically race to reply, and often, especially about topics of
which they know nothing.

I think most shopppers do very well with calculating pricing, actually
too well. But many of today's marketing tactics are about placement
strategies, ego stroking, and impulse buying, but have little to do
with a patron's mathematical abilities. Most people, in the US
anyway, buy food items based more on what they need at the moment
rather than based exclusively on price... not many people are going to
drive all over town just because they can save a few pennies on a few
items... most folks in the US are smart enough to realize that when a
store prices meat a dollar less per pound that the items that go with
that particular meat are priced higher than usual, but not many are
going to drive miles to save 20 cents on onions, mushrooms, potatoes,
canned beans, etc.. most folks in the US value their time much more
than saving a dime on soda pop... and with the high cost of energy
today it never pays to go the drive-by shopping routine. And anyway
all stores have sales, and over time by shopping primarily at any one
stupidmarket the yearly grocery bill tends to even out... so Americans
tend to possess better abilities at logical deduction and more common
sense too... becoming trapped in the picayune aspects of the math is
precisely what the marketing gurus hope for, their goal is to coerce
shoppers into buying volume... the shopper doesn't get nearly the
volume discount the store does. Next time you see a 2fer, 5fer or
10fer sale even if it costs a few cents less, think more about if you
really need that many instead of computing the math.... because if
just one doesn't get used you're a loser. Whenever you buy more
volume and larger sizes than you can possibly use in a reasonable time
you are not only investing your dollars into non interest bearing
commodities but you are losing the use of your capital (actually
transfering it to the store for free), and you have to warehouse all
that bulk on your shelves, in your fridge, in your freezer. which
frees up the store's shelves and saves them money (you become a free
warehouser, but also a goodly portion will often spoil before you can
use it). People tend to prepare larger amounts than they can
reasonably use just because they have the extra volume on hand,
especially with the larger sizes... then the leftovers end up in the
trash and then not only have you saved nothing but if you do the math
you'll discover that you actually come out in a much poorer position
than had you NOT did the math originally that coerced you to buy that
ten pound sack of spuds instead of the five pounds... you innitially
saved 50 cents but three weeks later tossed three pounds into the
composter. You know where you can shove your pence pinching math.

maxine in ri wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:36 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > James Silverton wrote:
> > > Hello, All!
>
> > > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> > > (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> > > makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> > > $5!
>
> > > James Silverton
> > > Potomac, Maryland
>
> > Happens all the time. �I don't generally need or want 10 of (or 5 of)
> > whatever they're trying to rope the consumer into buying. �Fact is they're
> > counting on people not calculating the unit price. �I don't buy into 2-fer
> > deals unless the per-unit price is significantly less with the 2-fer deal
> > *and* it's something on my list or at least something I know I'll use.
>
> > I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
> > departments. �They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
> > it's rung up at the checkout. �Most people are too timid to say take that
> > off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!
>
> > Jill
>
> The reason scales are disappearing is more likely related to their
> grossly inaccurate rendering of the approximate weight that they
> display. �I'm rude when it comes to that, taking my produce purchase
> over to the deli and reaching over to weigh them on their scales for a
> more accurate reading.
>
> That was, btw the way I found out that the scales at the registers
> were not accurate. �Made the people in line behind me angry, but I
> raised a ruckus, insisted the manager do the same math I had, and got
> that register closed down until the weights and measures people had
> come in to retest that scale.
>
> My one moment of glory.<G>

That's very rare... those electronic scales at the register cost many
thousands of dollars each and are extremely accurate and sensitive...
and also have built-in warning devices that disable a scale if there's
any malfunction (it will even flash the particular malfunction, like
if there's too much liquid on the scale, or some item falls
underneath). And the weights and measures inspectors come around to
test and recalibrate if needed very often, with many stores on a daily
basis. No store is going to purposely mess with those scales... there
are very stiff fines and serious prison time. In fact most stores buy
a service contract from the scale manufacturer which includes an
insurance portion protecting from error liability, so the manufactures
come around very often to check their products too.

Now the spring scales at the produce section are not intended for
precise weight, normal brained folks don't care if the grapes they
weigh are off a half ounce... those are guestimate scales, those
grapes will still get weighed at the register... and better than 50
pct of shoppers will have eaten a goodly amount before ever getting to
the register.

On Apr 12, 10:45 am, Sheldon > wrote:
> maxine in ri wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 6:36 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> > > James Silverton wrote:
> > > > Hello, All!
>
> > > > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> > > > (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> > > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > > arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> > > > makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> > > > $5!
>
> > > > James Silverton
> > > > Potomac, Maryland
>
> > > Happens all the time. �I don't generally need or want 10 of (or 5 of)
> > > whatever they're trying to rope the consumer into buying. �Fact is they're
> > > counting on people not calculating the unit price. �I don't buy into 2-fer
> > > deals unless the per-unit price is significantly less with the 2-fer deal
> > > *and* it's something on my list or at least something I know I'll use.
>
> > > I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
> > > departments. �They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
> > > it's rung up at the checkout. �Most people are too timid to say take that
> > > off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!
>
> > > Jill
>
> > The reason scales are disappearing is more likely related to their
> > grossly inaccurate rendering of the approximate weight that they
> > display. �I'm rude when it comes to that, taking my produce purchase
> > over to the deli and reaching over to weigh them on their scales for a
> > more accurate reading.
>
> > That was, btw the way I found out that the scales at the registers
> > were not accurate. �Made the people in line behind me angry, but I
> > raised a ruckus, insisted the manager do the same math I had, and got
> > that register closed down until the weights and measures people had
> > come in to retest that scale.
>
> > My one moment of glory.<G>
>
> That's very rare... those electronic scales at the register cost many
> thousands of dollars each and are extremely accurate and sensitive...
> and also have built-in warning devices that disable a scale if there's
> any malfunction (it will even flash the particular malfunction, like
> if there's too much liquid on the scale, or some item falls
> underneath). And the weights and measures inspectors come around to
> test and recalibrate if needed very often, with many stores on a daily
> basis. No store is going to purposely mess with those scales... there
> are very stiff fines and serious prison time. In fact most stores buy
> a service contract from the scale manufacturer which includes an
> insurance portion protecting from error liability, so the manufactures
> come around very often to check their products too.

Well, it was only once in many years of shopping. The inspectors in
our area tend to come on a yearly basis. I will check the seals on
the scales (if they are there) next time, just to be sure. There was
a hullabaloo a few years ago when it was found that one of the
inspectors was sleeping in his car or hanging out in bars during his
shift, but that's the sort of thing that hopefully doesn't occur too
often.

> Now the spring scales at the produce section are not intended for
> precise weight, normal brained folks don't care if the grapes they
> weigh are off a half ounce... those are guestimate scales, those
> grapes will still get weighed at the register... and better than 50
> pct of shoppers will have eaten a goodly amount before ever getting to
> the register.

If they're off by half an ounce, I'd be fine with them. The ones in
most of the local stores, and the chains, tend to be off by a good
deal more than that!

Now that some stores are coming up with those "scan as you shop"
devices, there is a decent scale in the produce section, that spits
out a label for your produce when you weigh it.

maxine in ri

The wrote on Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:51:49 -0500:

??>> Hello, All!
??>>
??>> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount
??>> one (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some
??>> large navel oranges marked "10 for....." That looked
??>> interesting until I saw it was "10 for $10" or a dollar
??>> each. Don't people do the simple arithmetic. They also
??>> sometimes price melons per pound that makes them look
??>> cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost $5!
??>>
??>> James Silverton
??>> Potomac, Maryland
??>>
??>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
??>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

TC> How much were single oranges of the same size? If you want
TC> and can use 10 before they spoil and $1 each is cheaper
TC> that the other price at the store, it is a deal. If you
TC> can't use them all before they spoil, then $.20 each may
TC> not be a deal.

The supermarket has never insisted that you had to buy 10 for
the "tenfer" price and more complicated prices were adjusted
fairly. A single loose lemon would cost 34 cents if the sign
said "3 for a dollar" and that's fair enough, IMHO.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:23:10 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Puester wrote:
>>
>> Pete C. wrote:
>> > Kathleen wrote:
>> >> James Silverton wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Don't people do the simple arithmetic.
>>
>> >> No, obviously they don't.
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise we wouldn't be mired in a hopeless war in Iraq with another
>> >> one looming on the horizon in Iran while the domestic economy crashes
>> >> after being raped by sub prime lenders.
>> >>
>> >> And meanwhile, the ice shelves melt...
>> >>
>> >> We are so screwed.
>> >
>> > Ignorant twits like you clearly are screwed since you don't have the
>> > intelligence to assess the actual facts and adapt, instead you simply
>> > parrot what you've heard from equally ignorant sources. The rest of us
>> > who can assess the facts adapt and are doing just fine.
>>
>> Sounds like you are getting your information from Dubya.
>> And you actually talk about "ignorant sources."
>>
>> gloria p
>
>Another ignorant twit I see.
>
>I'll give you a clue - if you mindlessly drink the cool aid purveyed by
>either the "left" or the "right" you are indeed screwed.
>
>Those of us who don't follow the babbling of the wings know how to find
>the facts, analyze them and take the appropriate actions to position
>ourselves to come out ahead.
>
>Because I'm not a clueless winger of either persuasion, I've not been
>affected by the stock market follies, tech bubble, housing bubble or
>sub-prime scams. I'm not all up in arms because gas prices have
>increased to about where they should be from the abnormally low prices
>of the last decade or so. I'm not sitting in a micro-mansion worth $250k
>with a $750k mortgage on it. I've not taken out second mortgages to buy
>some status symbol car or HDTV. I'm also not buying into the claims that
>we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>health insurance.

well, aren't you special!

there's absolutely nothing wrong with wishing the uninsured should
just get sick and die already and stop whining. no sir!

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:33:12 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:23:10 -0500, "Pete C." >
>wrote:
>>
>>Because I'm not a clueless winger of either persuasion, I've not been
>>affected by the stock market follies, tech bubble, housing bubble or
>>sub-prime scams. I'm not all up in arms because gas prices have
>>increased to about where they should be from the abnormally low prices
>>of the last decade or so. I'm not sitting in a micro-mansion worth $250k
>>with a $750k mortgage on it. I've not taken out second mortgages to buy
>>some status symbol car or HDTV. I'm also not buying into the claims that
>>we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>>health insurance.
>
>Yabbut, but you're still an asshole, and I'm afraid there is nothing
>that can be done about that.

well, the rest of us can drink heavily, but i don't know if that
counts as a solution.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:44:52 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:23:10 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Because I'm not a clueless winger of either persuasion, I've not been
>> >affected by the stock market follies, tech bubble, housing bubble or
>> >sub-prime scams. I'm not all up in arms because gas prices have
>> >increased to about where they should be from the abnormally low prices
>> >of the last decade or so. I'm not sitting in a micro-mansion worth $250k
>> >with a $750k mortgage on it. I've not taken out second mortgages to buy
>> >some status symbol car or HDTV. I'm also not buying into the claims that
>> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>> >health insurance.
>>
>> Yabbut, but you're still an asshole, and I'm afraid there is nothing
>> that can be done about that.
>
>I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
>than being an ignorant twit.

you certainly haven't proved your case here. and i know some amateur
assholes who are much better at it than you. it could be time for
some continuing education in your chosen field.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:13:47 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>IOW, when they see "10 for 10 dollars", many customers DON'T know that
>means, a dollar each, and smkts know it.

or they only want *one* orange and don't care that it's costing them a
dollar.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:19:21 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon >
wrote:

>Janet Baraclough wrote:
>> > James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> ?I saw some large navel
>> > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
>> > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
>> > > arithmetic.
>>
>> ? ?Sadly. huge numbers of people today are incapable of the most basic
>> mental arithmetic.
>
>What if you bought ten oranges, and after a week the last two were
>rotted... that happens with produce, very often... when produce goes
>on those volume sales it's far more often because it's ready to go off
>than there's a glut.
>
>Actually a far greater percentage of people today than ever are
>capable of arithmetic... reading/writing too. Far more people today
>receive an eduction than ever before and a far better education...
>perhaps you don't associate with educated people, I have a strong
>suspician you don't, otherwise you'd not be so reactive regarding
>things you know nothing about... the uneducated tend to shoot from the
>hip, they don't think first.. very prevalent with newsgroup posters
>who typically race to reply, and often, especially about topics of
>which they know nothing.
>
>I think most shopppers do very well with calculating pricing, actually
>too well. But many of today's marketing tactics are about placement
>strategies, ego stroking, and impulse buying, but have little to do
>with a patron's mathematical abilities. Most people, in the US
>anyway, buy food items based more on what they need at the moment
>rather than based exclusively on price... not many people are going to
>drive all over town just because they can save a few pennies on a few
>items... most folks in the US are smart enough to realize that when a
>store prices meat a dollar less per pound that the items that go with
>that particular meat are priced higher than usual, but not many are
>going to drive miles to save 20 cents on onions, mushrooms, potatoes,
>canned beans, etc.. most folks in the US value their time much more
>than saving a dime on soda pop... and with the high cost of energy
>today it never pays to go the drive-by shopping routine. And anyway
>all stores have sales, and over time by shopping primarily at any one
>stupidmarket the yearly grocery bill tends to even out... so Americans
>tend to possess better abilities at logical deduction and more common
>sense too... becoming trapped in the picayune aspects of the math is
>precisely what the marketing gurus hope for, their goal is to coerce
>shoppers into buying volume... the shopper doesn't get nearly the
>volume discount the store does. Next time you see a 2fer, 5fer or
>10fer sale even if it costs a few cents less, think more about if you
>really need that many instead of computing the math.... because if
>just one doesn't get used you're a loser. Whenever you buy more
>volume and larger sizes than you can possibly use in a reasonable time
>you are not only investing your dollars into non interest bearing
>commodities but you are losing the use of your capital (actually
>transfering it to the store for free), and you have to warehouse all
>that bulk on your shelves, in your fridge, in your freezer. which
>frees up the store's shelves and saves them money (you become a free
>warehouser, but also a goodly portion will often spoil before you can
>use it). People tend to prepare larger amounts than they can
>reasonably use just because they have the extra volume on hand,
>especially with the larger sizes... then the leftovers end up in the
>trash and then not only have you saved nothing but if you do the math
>you'll discover that you actually come out in a much poorer position
>than had you NOT did the math originally that coerced you to buy that
>ten pound sack of spuds instead of the five pounds... you innitially
>saved 50 cents but three weeks later tossed three pounds into the
>composter. You know where you can shove your pence pinching math.


I am very fortunate that our regular grocery store charges by the
item, even when price at 2 for or 10 for. If the price is 3 for $.99
and the regular price is $.40, I can buy 1 for $.33, I do not have to
buy 3 to get the lower price.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:29:06 -0700 (PDT), maxine in ri
> wrote:

>That was, btw the way I found out that the scales at the registers
>were not accurate. Made the people in line behind me angry, but I
>raised a ruckus, insisted the manager do the same math I had, and got
>that register closed down until the weights and measures people had
>come in to retest that scale.
>
>My one moment of glory.<G>

YAY! Go getum, girl!


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:29:06 -0700 (PDT), maxine in ri
> wrote:

>On Apr 11, 6:36 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:

>> I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
>> departments. They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
>> it's rung up at the checkout. Most people are too timid to say take that
>> off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!
>>
>> Jill
>
>The reason scales are disappearing is more likely related to their
>grossly inaccurate rendering of the approximate weight that they
>display. I'm rude when it comes to that, taking my produce purchase
>over to the deli and reaching over to weigh them on their scales for a
>more accurate reading.
>
>That was, btw the way I found out that the scales at the registers
>were not accurate. Made the people in line behind me angry, but I
>raised a ruckus, insisted the manager do the same math I had, and got
>that register closed down until the weights and measures people had
>come in to retest that scale.
>
>My one moment of glory.<G>
>
>maxine in ri

how odd. i thought the register and deli scales were tested and
calibrated fairly regularly by the state or other government entity.
the scales in the produce aisles, probably not so much.

your pal,
blake

On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:

>> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>> >health insurance.

> I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
> than being an ignorant twit.

I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the US
population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or really
dumb half-assedhole.

nb

"The Cook" > wrote

> I am very fortunate that our regular grocery store charges by the
> item, even when price at 2 for or 10 for. If the price is 3 for $.99
> and the regular price is $.40, I can buy 1 for $.33, I do not have to
> buy 3 to get the lower price.

Same at "my" store, but before it was taken over by another
chain, sometimes 10 for $10 meant $1 each, other times you had
to buy 10 to get that price. It was a mystery until you checked
out which way it was. I'm not so quick to judge people who don't
know they can buy fewer than 10 for that reason.

nancy

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:48:00 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

>Hello, All!
>
>Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
>(in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
>oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
>it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
>arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
>makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
>$5!
>
> James Silverton
>Potomac, Maryland
>
>E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

How much were single oranges of the same size? If you want and can
use 10 before they spoil and $1 each is cheaper that the other price
at the store, it is a deal. If you can't use them all before they
spoil, then $.20 each may not be a deal.



--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

The Cook wrote:
> "James Silverton" wrote:
>
> >Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> >(in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> >oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> >it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> >arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> >makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> >$5!
>
> How much were single oranges of the same size? �

> If you want and can
> use 10 before they spoil and $1 each is cheaper that the other price
> at the store, it is a deal. �If you can't use them all before they
> spoil, then $.20 each may not be a deal.

With citrus especilly size is no determinant of value.. even if heavy
for their size that's no indication of flavor... and appearance means
nothing, most citrus is dyed, so for those who zest.../ Fresh citrus
has become a very iffy product. Years ago the green grocer would
practically force a patron to taste before buying by slicing a wedge
right in front of you and pushing it into your hand so you could
taste... they did the same with all melons, apples, pears, all
produce. Nowadays I practically never buy on-sale citrus, it's almost
always inferior... that's why it's on sale. Nowadays refrigerated
citrus juice is the best buy, and the variety is never ending,
everytime I look there are more varieties and styles... and the major
brands take turns running sales so you can always find a great deal,
and there's no gamble, consistant quality is assured... the containers
are even dated. For the price of five of those very iffy $1 oranges I
buy a full gallon of pure juice, and not from concentrate (not that
there's anything bad about it), actually the most nutritious form is
frozen concentrate. And I can choose with no pulp, some pulp, lots of
pulp, even with antioxidants added and calcium too. And btw, so
called fresh citrus at the market is the the form lowest in
nutrients... once picked citrus loses half it's Vitamin C within 24
hours (quicker if not refrigerated, as in most stores), and it can be
weeks from harvest until you buy it at a market. So unless you are
fortunate to have your own tree you are much better off buying citrus
juice... with so called fresh citrus from the market essentially all
the nutrition you get is sugar.

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
>
> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
> >> >health insurance.
>
> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
> > than being an ignorant twit.
>
> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the US
> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or really
> dumb half-assedhole.
>
> nb

Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
they hype of it's promoters.

On Apr 12, 11:23Â*am, maxine in ri > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:45 am, Sheldon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > maxine in ri wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 6:36 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> > > > James Silverton wrote:
> > > > > Hello, All!
>
> > > > > Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> > > > > (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> > > > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > > > arithmetic. They also sometimes price melons per pound that
> > > > > makes them look cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost
> > > > > $5!
>
> > > > > James Silverton
> > > > > Potomac, Maryland
>
> > > > Happens all the time. �I don't generally need or want 10 of (or 5 of)
> > > > whatever they're trying to rope the consumer into buying. �Fact is they're
> > > > counting on people not calculating the unit price. �I don't buy into 2-fer
> > > > deals unless the per-unit price is significantly less with the 2-fer deal
> > > > *and* it's something on my list or at least something I know I'll use.
>
> > > > I've noticed scales seem to be disappearing from a lot of produce
> > > > departments. �They don't want people to figure out it isn't a "deal" until
> > > > it's rung up at the checkout. �Most people are too timid to say take that
> > > > off, I'm not paying $5 for a cantaloupe!
>
> > > > Jill
>
> > > The reason scales are disappearing is more likely related to their
> > > grossly inaccurate rendering of the approximate weight that they
> > > display. �I'm rude when it comes to that, taking my produce purchase
> > > over to the deli and reaching over to weigh them on their scales for a
> > > more accurate reading.
>
> > > That was, btw the way I found out that the scales at the registers
> > > were not accurate. �Made the people in line behind me angry, but I
> > > raised a ruckus, insisted the manager do the same math I had, and got
> > > that register closed down until the weights and measures people had
> > > come in to retest that scale.
>
> > > My one moment of glory.<G>
>
> > That's very rare... those electronic scales at the register cost many
> > thousands of dollars each and are extremely accurate and sensitive...
> > and also have built-in warning devices that disable a scale if there's
> > any malfunction (it will even flash the particular malfunction, like
> > if there's too much liquid on the scale, or some item falls
> > underneath). Â*And the weights and measures inspectors come around to
> > test and recalibrate if needed very often, with many stores on a daily
> > basis. Â*No store is going to purposely mess with those scales... there
> > are very stiff fines and serious prison time. Â*In fact most stores buy
> > a service contract from the scale manufacturer which includes an
> > insurance portion protecting from error liability, so the manufactures
> > come around very often to check their products too.
>
> The inspectors in our area tend to come on a yearly basis.

I seriously doubt that. I think Federal Law mandates a minimum
monthly inspection, but the local W & M inspectors arrive much more
often (job insurance plays a big role), with some large high traffic
stores, like Walmart, there's always an inspector on premises.. many
of Walmart stores have in excess of one hundred scales, by the time
all the scales are checked it's time to start all over again.


> > Now the spring scales at the produce section are not intended for
> > precise weight, normal brained folks don't care if the grapes they
> > weigh are off a half ounce... those are guestimate scales, those
> > grapes will still get weighed at the register... and better than 50
> > pct of shoppers will have eaten a goodly amount before ever getting to
> > the register.
>
> If they're off by half an ounce, I'd be fine with them. Â*The ones in
> most of the local stores, and the chains, tend to be off by a good
> deal more than that!

I seriously doubt that too... I was being generous with the half
ounce... the W & M folks inspect those scales too, just not
necessarily as often. I typically use those scales to weigh bagged
produce like mushrooms, potatoes and carrots, those typically don't
contain the marked weight, I've found five pound bags of carrots off
by as much as a half pound either way, so I weigh to choose one that's
over by the most... If I weigh like 5-6 bags and all weigh differently
then I know it's the carrots and not the scale. I find packaged
mushrooms are often way off too, when light they are usually old,
they've lost moisture... a pack should always weigh a little over the
marked weight because the marked weight allows for the packaging...
it's illegal to charge for the weight of packaging. Some delis slip
in extra waxed paper, when they get caught the fine is hefty. How
many of yoose weigh the wrapped meat from the butcher case, I bet
hardly any... try it you'll be in for a surprise... and you'd be
amazed at how many actually pre-wet those moisture absorbant pads.

> Now that some stores are coming up with those "scan as you shop"
> devices, there is a decent scale in the produce section, that spits
> out a label for your produce when you weigh it.

That I haven't seen... seems to me that would create more problems.

Food stores don't mess with their scales... records of inspections
show too many dispareties they will put a lock on the door. In the US
The Bureau of Weights and Measures is very serious business... they
catch a gas station short selling they shut them down, they catch a
fuel truck running with a ticket in the meter the driver and the owner
go to prison.

But for every safe guard instituted there are soon many devious ways
to circumvent it... buyer beware is still the only real defense.

>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:19:21 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon >
>wrote:
>> Far more people today
>>receive an eduction than ever before and a far better education...
>>perhaps you don't associate with educated people, I have a strong
>>suspician you don't, otherwise you'd not be so reactive regarding
>>things you know nothing about... the uneducated tend to shoot from the
>>hip, they don't think first.. very prevalent with newsgroup posters
>>who typically race to reply, and often, especially about topics of
>>which they know nothing.
>>

stop, sheldon, you're killing me!

your pal,
blake

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> notbob wrote:
>>
>> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
>>
>> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>> >> >health insurance.
>>
>> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
>> > than being an ignorant twit.
>>
>> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
>> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the
>> US
>> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or
>> really
>> dumb half-assedhole.
>>
>> nb
>
> Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
> (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
> covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
> start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
> they hype of it's promoters.

Ya gotta read the fine print:

NOTES: A person was defined as uninsured if he or she did not have any
private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), state-sponsored or other government-sponsored
health plan, or military plan at the time of the interview. A person was
also defined as uninsured if he or she had only Indian Health Service
coverage or had only a private plan that paid for one type of service such
as accidents or dental care.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:25:18 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> The wrote on Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:51:49 -0500:
>
> ??>> Hello, All!
> ??>>
> ??>> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount
> ??>> one (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some
> ??>> large navel oranges marked "10 for....." That looked
> ??>> interesting until I saw it was "10 for $10" or a dollar
> ??>> each. Don't people do the simple arithmetic. They also
> ??>> sometimes price melons per pound that makes them look
> ??>> cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost $5!
> ??>>
> ??>> James Silverton
> ??>> Potomac, Maryland
> ??>>
> ??>> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> ??>> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>
> TC> How much were single oranges of the same size? If you want
> TC> and can use 10 before they spoil and $1 each is cheaper
> TC> that the other price at the store, it is a deal. If you
> TC> can't use them all before they spoil, then $.20 each may
> TC> not be a deal.
>
>The supermarket has never insisted that you had to buy 10 for
>the "tenfer" price and more complicated prices were adjusted
>fairly. A single loose lemon would cost 34 cents if the sign
>said "3 for a dollar" and that's fair enough, IMHO.
>
>James Silverton

in the circulars i see (md), usually some items are marked 'must buy
ten' or whatever. the rest are the price divided by ten, and rounded
up.

your pal,
blake

"James Silverton" wrote:
>
> The supermarket has never insisted that you had to buy 10 �for
> the "tenfer" price and more complicated prices were adjusted
> fairly. A single loose lemon would cost 34 cents if the sign
> said "3 for a dollar" and that's fair enough, IMHO.

"The" supermarket... don't you mean *your* supermarket... the stores
in my area insist on buying the quantity advertised or pay regular
price for one, which say for tuna at 10 for $10 will cost $1.19 each.
With 10fer produce there's no picking, they're already in sealed
bags... the better quality larger unblemished lemons will be loose but
will cost 69 cents each, not the same lemons as from the 3fer a buck
bin.

Lately I've been buying lemons from my local liqour store, they are
very high quality Sunkist, are always kept refrigerated (in the
chilled wine cooler), and are priced less than from the stupidmarket
next door.. with regular customers they may toss in a couple for
free... fish mongers used to do the same.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:01:50 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon >
wrote:

>once picked citrus loses half it's Vitamin C within 24
>hours (quicker if not refrigerated, as in most stores), and it can be
>weeks from harvest until you buy it at a market. So unless you are
>fortunate to have your own tree you are much better off buying citrus
>juice... with so called fresh citrus from the market essentially all
>the nutrition you get is sugar.

Tell that to all the sailors who prevented scurvy by eating citrus at
sea. http://www.mothernature.com/Library/...oks/10/104.cfm

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

Janet Baraclough wrote:
>You can still
> catch it in google.

But you will need to be quick

In article <AnOLj.4423$tw3.2608@trnddc03>, James Silverton
> wrote:

> Hello, All!
>
> Today, I was in a supermarket that claims to be a discount one
> (in fact its prices *are* usually lower.) I saw some large navel
> oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> arithmetic.

10 for $10 is a promotional technique for the flyer, or else it's in
keeping with some discount theme which usually means pricing to move
greater quantity. That's all, no big conspiracy or deception to it.
It means you can buy 1 for $1 in most stores. The few people who think
it means they have to buy 9 more oranges to get that price help the
store to move stock. This is all traditional technique in the grocery
business, and boys and girls pick it up from their moms usually by the
time they leave home, and that's why it's not a problem.

As an aside, I think that pricing/quantity-conspiracy/deception is most
evident in the hamburger business. They advertise a burger about the
size of a coffee can and you can't get one, just something that's about
the size of a tuna can. I asked my state's AG about this and was told
it was a federal matter since hamburger chains are country-wide. I
asked FTC and learned that the deceptive ads are legal because the
chains publish "hamburger manuals" that specify a _range_ of
ingredients, the advertised burger using maximums and the one you get
using minimums.

> They also sometimes price melons per pound that makes them look
> cheap until you weigh one and find it will cost $5!

Unit pricing fails in that it fails sometimes in just the way you cite.
Some stores take advantage of it, some don't, DYODD. Another technique
is to place scales away from higher priced stuff.

These days, I shop at a store that's a few miles past the one that's
closest to me. I buy as many items on my list as I'm comfortable with
then stop off at the closer store on the way home to get everything
else. One store has oranges that are fresher than the other and last
longer in the fruit bowl, the other store has Guinness, so you know I'm
stoppin' there. One store has thicker cuts of steak, fresher ground
beef, but the other store has a wider selection of fresh fish. Unit
pricing is not such a worry anymore because freshness and availability
trump everything else.

I see employees from different stores visit the others. They have
checklists and are looking at pricing. The stores have an agreement
that allows this to be done openly. I've asked these people what I can
get cheaper at their store and they show me their list for things that
will be marked competitively (meaning cheaper) within a couple of
hours.

I'm single and always have been, so I see the same basket of food costs
5-times what it did when I was in college. My concept of value is
constantly being challenged, so I just ignore prices these days if only
to prevent insanity.

I'm gladda see y'all bein' friendly and courteous in this discussion.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
>> James Silverton wrote:
>>
> I saw some large navel
>>> oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
>>> it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
>>> arithmetic.
>
> Sadly. huge numbers of people today are incapable of the most basic
> mental arithmetic. The best they can do is poke a finger at a button.
> Even though their calculator will tell them what is 10 percent of X,
> they are no wiser because they literally don't comprehend the meaning
> of words such as "percent", "division" " one tenth", etc.
>
> IOW, when they see "10 for 10 dollars", many customers DON'T know that
> means, a dollar each, and smkts know it.
>
> Janet


They milk it for all it's worth, too.

I've seen signs in the produce department with print
in the critical area so small you almost need a
magnifying glass to see if the sign says 10 for $10
or 10# for $10. And yes, loss leaders are so
irrational these days it could be either one.

gloria p

On 2008-04-12, Puester > wrote:

> or 10# for $10. And yes, loss leaders are so
> irrational these days it could be either one.

I've seen some killers, though. Right now our store is having a monster
unit pricing sale. 10 for $10/15/20/25, but you have to buy 10 or no deal.
But, the savings are monster. One example of the 10/$15 is Kraft 1lb
American Singles. I've never ever seen them even close to $1.50 pkg, the
usual price being above $4. I'm almost glad I don't have the $$. I'd eat
myself sick on the damn things.... probably die of grilled cheese poisoning!

nb