Make it expensive to change the weight of a product. Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product.
Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed.
Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.
Are these good ideas? I don’t know, I literally made them up just now while shitting. I am sure the president of the United States could hire at least one dude to come up with better ones.
I understand that you are very into the position of going face down ass up for corporations but can I interest you in the idea that politicians are allowed to express things they would like to work towards even if they are personally not able to make it happen the second they say it.
Biden is a very powerful man that employs a large number of very smart people. If he wants to he can put together an action plan on how to make things happen.
All great ideas if it weren’t for the fact that we have a court system heavily weighted towards pro-corporate conservatism, so none of that would survive legal challenges and there would be a shit ton of corporate challenges.
Food in general doesn’t even go through the FDA, does it? They only get involved if there’s a problem. If it was pre approval, it would be a super slow process likely.
Edit: my train of thought was if it needed approval, any size changes would go to a slow line, but in reality, any small company would go to slow lines also, which would truly suck.
All of these things would have to be done by Congress. The President is really not the dictator that the internet thinks he is (outside of some particular domains). But just to go through those:
Make it expensive to change the weight of a product.
How? Make the government track the size of ever possible consumable product and mandate a fee when changed? Beyond the enormous logistical effort for no obvious purpose, this would also make it costly for a company to add more product. Perhaps you only apply the fee when a size decreases, but then, how do you handle the case where a company intentionally launches a smaller sized version for a different market, eg individual or snack sized portions? What if they launch a new size and then discontinue the older, larger one, so it technically didn’t change? Does that have a fine? Sure, you can try to track all of this stuff carefully and determine what the net effect is, but that costs time and money all for no significant benefit.
Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product
Who determines the standard, and why? Why should it be illegal to sell a smaller or larger bag of chips or soda?
Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed
This would just be one more tiny disclaimer line on the back that nobody would read. Not to mention, the size and weight is already on the package. Consumers are already perfectly capable of seeing the weight and deciding if the value for that price is good. I somewhat doubt most people would actually change their behavior by learning that there were ten more chips in the bag a year ago, and at any rate, companies know that consumers would rather pay the same price for less than pay a higher price for the same amount.
Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.
Yeah, this thread is beyond frustrating. We need to prioritize teaching civics in high school because it could not be more obvious that a large number of people out there have no idea what they’re even talking about. It’s just ignorant rage.
The top comment in this comment section is so ignorant it should embarrass everyone using Lemmy.
Absolutely it’s very frustrating watching them try to do so much only to have it curtailed by a Republican majority Congress.
People think the president can issue an executive order for anything they want. That being said I hope his cabinet does move on proposing this because it would be a huge win for pricing transparency.
Yeah well Dems stopping tax cuts for the rich don’t hurt us as much as Reps trying to shut down the government because we refuse tax cuts for the rich but by all means “both sides”
Yeah well Dems stopping tax cuts for the rich don’t hurt us as much
Who said anything about them stopping tax cuts for the rich? I was talking about stuff Democrats did 2 years ago, like stopping the minimum wage increase and BBB. You know, their accomplishments.
How in the world can you contribute that to the Dems when they were split and Republicans almost unanimously voted against it.
If you’re issue is that they should have all voted to push it through then absolutely I wish they would too and you should vote in a way that reinforces what you’d like to see.
That being said of our two options Dems support it the most. If your argument is that we should have more options to vote for what we really want then we agree again, we need voter reform to make 3rd options viable via multi-choice voting
How in the world can you contribute that to the Dems when they were split and Republicans almost unanimously voted against it.
BBB never made it to the floor, thanks to the only Democrat whose voice matters, Joe Manchin.
If you’re issue is that they should have all voted to push it through then absolutely I wish they would too
My issue is that the party is useless on purpose. Your issue is that I don’t worship them for it.
I wish they would too and you should vote in a way that reinforces what you’d like to see.
There is no available way to vote that will ever reinforce what I’d like to see. Democrats oppose me less than Republicans do and that’s the best they’ll ever be willing to do.
There never was a Democratic majority congress. West Virginia and Arizona both sent senators who had a D next to their name, but were really Rs.
Not only that, but you need a super majority in the senate to get anything real through, which means you need 60+ Democrats who ALL need to be on board, along with a majority of Democrats in the House, AND a Democrat president.
That hasn’t happened since early Obama, and he squandered it by trying to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans, instead of just railroading the right things through.
When was the last time Republicans held a majority like that and how is it that despite that majority, they still manage to pass all their vile legislation?
West Virginia and Arizona both sent senators who had a D next to their name, but were really Rs.
West Virginia and Arizona sent senators who represent party leadership to absolute perfection. They define the party.
Not only that, but you need a super majority in the senate to get anything real through, which means you need 60+ Democrats who ALL need to be on board, along with a majority of Democrats in the House, AND a Democrat president.
The filibuster can be done away with forever with a simple majority. Manchin’s party never will.
That hasn’t happened since early Obama, and he squandered it by trying to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans
He got the bailouts passed. Democrats could have destroyed the relic of Jim Crow that is the filibuster to pass the public option. But they didn’t wanna.
Why is him getting out in front of the issue in the media not considered “ammo for his ads”? If all he needs is something to virtue signal about, then isn’t that exactly what he’s doing right now?
We have that in the Netherlands; it’s very helpful. You usually see a price per kilo or a price per liter. Makes it really easy to just look at product X, Y and Z and see which one is actually more expensive, without having to do math in your head. That really should be the law everywhere.
Yeah, and in the UK I noticed that tax is included on the listed price as well. So again, no surprises for people when they check out, and don’t need to do the math to account for the extra tax.
Same in the Netherlands. A shop legally must show a price that includes taxes. I’m always amazed that that’s not a thing in the US. Because you’re still forced to pay those taxes anyway, so why confuse things by not just showing the tax included price?
I’ve already seen this in essentially every supermarket ever, usually per ounce. Sure, you have to have some vague intuition about what that is relative to the product, but you can still make standardized comparisons across, say, different kinds of chips, very easily.
.
Make it expensive to change the weight of a product. Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product. Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed. Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.
Are these good ideas? I don’t know, I literally made them up just now while shitting. I am sure the president of the United States could hire at least one dude to come up with better ones.
.
I understand that you are very into the position of going face down ass up for corporations but can I interest you in the idea that politicians are allowed to express things they would like to work towards even if they are personally not able to make it happen the second they say it.
Biden is a very powerful man that employs a large number of very smart people. If he wants to he can put together an action plan on how to make things happen.
.
All great ideas if it weren’t for the fact that we have a court system heavily weighted towards pro-corporate conservatism, so none of that would survive legal challenges and there would be a shit ton of corporate challenges.
Food in general doesn’t even go through the FDA, does it? They only get involved if there’s a problem. If it was pre approval, it would be a super slow process likely.
Edit: my train of thought was if it needed approval, any size changes would go to a slow line, but in reality, any small company would go to slow lines also, which would truly suck.
All of these things would have to be done by Congress. The President is really not the dictator that the internet thinks he is (outside of some particular domains). But just to go through those:
How? Make the government track the size of ever possible consumable product and mandate a fee when changed? Beyond the enormous logistical effort for no obvious purpose, this would also make it costly for a company to add more product. Perhaps you only apply the fee when a size decreases, but then, how do you handle the case where a company intentionally launches a smaller sized version for a different market, eg individual or snack sized portions? What if they launch a new size and then discontinue the older, larger one, so it technically didn’t change? Does that have a fine? Sure, you can try to track all of this stuff carefully and determine what the net effect is, but that costs time and money all for no significant benefit.
Who determines the standard, and why? Why should it be illegal to sell a smaller or larger bag of chips or soda?
This would just be one more tiny disclaimer line on the back that nobody would read. Not to mention, the size and weight is already on the package. Consumers are already perfectly capable of seeing the weight and deciding if the value for that price is good. I somewhat doubt most people would actually change their behavior by learning that there were ten more chips in the bag a year ago, and at any rate, companies know that consumers would rather pay the same price for less than pay a higher price for the same amount.
That is categorically not how trademarks work.
I hope your bowl movement went well
Law requiring all prices to be in a format of
$ per actual measurement unit and include all applicable taxes.
Presidents can’t pass laws and the House Republican majority is basically dedicated to going against whatever Biden proposes.
Yeah, this thread is beyond frustrating. We need to prioritize teaching civics in high school because it could not be more obvious that a large number of people out there have no idea what they’re even talking about. It’s just ignorant rage.
The top comment in this comment section is so ignorant it should embarrass everyone using Lemmy.
I love how this argument only comes out when it’s needed to defend Democratic inaction. Bring up Trump’s campaign and see how quickly that idea flips.
Absolutely it’s very frustrating watching them try to do so much only to have it curtailed by a Republican majority Congress.
People think the president can issue an executive order for anything they want. That being said I hope his cabinet does move on proposing this because it would be a huge win for pricing transparency.
It was more frustrating two years ago when it was being curtailed by a Democratic majority congress.
Yeah well Dems stopping tax cuts for the rich don’t hurt us as much as Reps trying to shut down the government because we refuse tax cuts for the rich but by all means “both sides”
Who said anything about them stopping tax cuts for the rich? I was talking about stuff Democrats did 2 years ago, like stopping the minimum wage increase and BBB. You know, their accomplishments.
How in the world can you contribute that to the Dems when they were split and Republicans almost unanimously voted against it.
If you’re issue is that they should have all voted to push it through then absolutely I wish they would too and you should vote in a way that reinforces what you’d like to see.
That being said of our two options Dems support it the most. If your argument is that we should have more options to vote for what we really want then we agree again, we need voter reform to make 3rd options viable via multi-choice voting
BBB never made it to the floor, thanks to the only Democrat whose voice matters, Joe Manchin.
My issue is that the party is useless on purpose. Your issue is that I don’t worship them for it.
There is no available way to vote that will ever reinforce what I’d like to see. Democrats oppose me less than Republicans do and that’s the best they’ll ever be willing to do.
There never was a Democratic majority congress. West Virginia and Arizona both sent senators who had a D next to their name, but were really Rs.
Not only that, but you need a super majority in the senate to get anything real through, which means you need 60+ Democrats who ALL need to be on board, along with a majority of Democrats in the House, AND a Democrat president.
That hasn’t happened since early Obama, and he squandered it by trying to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans, instead of just railroading the right things through.
When was the last time Republicans held a majority like that and how is it that despite that majority, they still manage to pass all their vile legislation?
50 plus a tiebreaker is a majority. You lied.
West Virginia and Arizona sent senators who represent party leadership to absolute perfection. They define the party.
The filibuster can be done away with forever with a simple majority. Manchin’s party never will.
He got the bailouts passed. Democrats could have destroyed the relic of Jim Crow that is the filibuster to pass the public option. But they didn’t wanna.
Right, but he could get the ball rolling by getting someone in congress he knows to start a bill for the idea.
If Repub’s shoot it down, then he’s got more ammo in his ads
How do you know that hasn’t already happened? Bob Casey’s office released a report on shrinkflation, and sent a letter to the GAO to identify transparency measures that the federal government can implement to help consumers recognize shrinkflation. Sounds like there’s a lot already moving.
Why is him getting out in front of the issue in the media not considered “ammo for his ads”? If all he needs is something to virtue signal about, then isn’t that exactly what he’s doing right now?
We have that in the Netherlands; it’s very helpful. You usually see a price per kilo or a price per liter. Makes it really easy to just look at product X, Y and Z and see which one is actually more expensive, without having to do math in your head. That really should be the law everywhere.
Yeah, and in the UK I noticed that tax is included on the listed price as well. So again, no surprises for people when they check out, and don’t need to do the math to account for the extra tax.
Same in the Netherlands. A shop legally must show a price that includes taxes. I’m always amazed that that’s not a thing in the US. Because you’re still forced to pay those taxes anyway, so why confuse things by not just showing the tax included price?
Here, what you see is what you pay.
I’ve already seen this in essentially every supermarket ever, usually per ounce. Sure, you have to have some vague intuition about what that is relative to the product, but you can still make standardized comparisons across, say, different kinds of chips, very easily.
It’d be nice to include taxes, I agree.
Including taxes doesn’t really matter for that measure.
The bigger issue is that they’re unreliable. They’re often not updated if there’s a sale, for instance.
Congress.
Oh don’t expect an answer from that OP. They’re here to blame Biden. It doesn’t matter if there’s anything he can actually do about the issue.