Amazon Just Made Shopping at Whole Foods Cheaper (businessinsider.com)

Whole Foods just got less expensive. From a report: On Monday, the day that Amazon's $13.7 billion acquisition of the grocer went through, prices on certain Whole Foods items immediately dropped. On Friday, Business Insider visited a Whole Foods location in the Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, and checked the prices on 15 items (including a few variations on similar items) mentioned by the companies. The total cost of the basket on Friday -- pre-acquisition -- was $97.76. On Monday, we returned to the Gowanus Whole Foods and checked back in on the same items. This time, the total cost of the 15 items was $75.85. That's a nearly 23% drop in the total cost. Whole Trade Banana: 30 cents (Price dropped to $0.49 a pound from $0.79). Lean Ground Beef: $2 (Price dropped to $4.99 a pound from $6.99). Local Grass-Fed 85% Lean Ground Beef: $4 (Price dropped to $6.99 a pound from $10.99). Four-pack of Organic Avocado: $0 (Price stayed at $6.99 for a pack of four). Hass Avocados: $1.01 (Price dropped to $1.49 each from $2.50) for instance.

Comments

Lower prices, at first.

[Immerman]

That's the siren song of growing monopolies - economies of scale let them lower prices significantly below the competition... at least until the competition crumbles.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are way off base here. That is capitalism and free market competition. It's the way it's *supposed* to work. It sounds like we have a passive-agressive socialist here...

Re: Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any other kind?

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[hughbar]

Not really, Amazon is really big and very 'horizontal', so there may be abuse of dominant position issues (see second bullet point) starting to appear. Of course, I'm a European so very nearly a socialist by definition, even if right-wing.

Also, I'm expecting (fearing) that all the data and computing fire-power will be used for surge pricing, sooner or later. The stockholders would love it.

They hardly pay taxes where I live, but they do use all our infrastructure, our legal system, benefit from policing etc. etc. so, like Starbucks and the others, they're not my favourite company.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are way off base here. That is capitalism and free market competition. It's the way it's *supposed* to work. It sounds like we have a passive-agressive socialist here...

Neither has anything to do with technology, inherently, and even if it did, that only underscores GP's point.

Your stroll-skills are lacking.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[thebullshitpatrol]

please send us some of your consumer protection.

- united states

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[blackomegax]

But don't send us that insane VAT

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but lower prices. I'm over here enjoying these lower prices.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[rwa2]

Eh, every grocery store has had "loss leader" products to get people in the door since forever. Milk and eggs aren't anywhere near that cheap, no?

Thanks for the list... we might start dropping by Whore Foods for b-a-n-a-n-a-s, but nothing else looks too compelling yet... I usually draw the line for meats at $3/lb., though that's been since the late 90s so I really ought to update that for inflation.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Oswald McWeany]

Total tax rate for average person in the US is lower than most European countries... but not by much.

VAT obviously higher than Sales Tax over here but made up in other ways.

But what do Europeans get for slightly more taxes?

Public Healthcare (lower infant mortality, fewer chronic diseases and high expected lifespan).
Clean-efficient public transport.
More parks and public spaces in urban areas.
All schools properly funded, not just ones in areas with wealthy residents.
Lots... lots... more...

I'd trade slightly higher taxes if it meant the perks that you get in Europe... ... of course, higher taxes in the US means more money to spend on the military, not on anything useful.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

That just shows your lack of understanding as to how the US works.

Taxes in New York are considerably higher than taxes in say, Texas.

When it comes to taxes, the US is more like a group of countries than it is a single country. So while the total tax rate in someplace like California will be much higher other locations like Oklahoma will have a total tax rate much lower.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Albanach]

That just shows your lack of understanding as to how the US works.

Taxes in New York are considerably higher than taxes in say, Texas.

When it comes to taxes, the US is more like a group of countries than it is a single country. So while the total tax rate in someplace like California will be much higher other locations like Oklahoma will have a total tax rate much lower..

That just shows your lack of understanding as to how Europe works.

Taxes in Belgium are considerably higher than taxes in say, Latvia.

When it comes to taxes, Europe actually is a group of countries. So, while the total tax rate in someplace like Denmark or France will be higher, other locations like Ireland or Poland will have a tax rate much lower.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Dragonslicer]

Also, I'm expecting (fearing) that all the data and computing fire-power will be used for surge pricing, sooner or later. The stockholders would love it.

Even in the US, that won't necessarily be legal. Price gouging, especially for things like food and water during a natural disaster, is generally frowned upon.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[fluffernutter]

Yet Uber gets away with it, so why not Amazon?

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Dragonslicer]

I'm not certain that Uber would be able to get away with it if there was something like a city-wide evacuation during a natural disaster. Amazon probably wouldn't get in trouble for raising prices on chips and dip the week before the Super Bowl. Raising prices on bottled water the week before a hurricane is forecast to hit is a different story.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[jader3rd]

Also, I'm expecting (fearing) that all the data and computing fire-power will be used for surge pricing,

What is there to fear about surge pricing? I have no problem with it.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Off-topic question: do you consider yourself a socialist because you believe consumer prices should be driven by labor-value over market-value, or do you consider capitalism + social programs to be socialism?

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[larryjoe]

Total tax rate for average person in the US is lower than most European countries... but not by much.

A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that compares tax rates in the US and Germany shows that the difference is quite a bit more than "not by much". By almost any measure of tax burden (other than corporate taxes), Americans have a significantly lower tax burden.

As always, there is no free lunch (unless someone else is paying for it).

Re: Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not entirely truthful though. Tax rates in those places aren't all that different, the INCOMES are what are different which results in high tax intake in places that make more money. Personal property and sales taxes vary but truly in a state to state way and states low in one area are usually higher in others resulting in similar tax rates.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Immerman]

Yes, it is. Specifically monopolies are one of the oldest and best-understood failings of the free market. As soon as you drive the competition out of business, there's no longer a free market, and you reap the rewards of being the only provider. Meanwhile no new competition arises, because everyone knows that the minute they enter the market the monopolist can drop prices long enough to drive you out of business, so trying to compete is just an exercise in throwing away your startup investment, which could have been better spent entering a market not dominated by a monopolist.

Capitalism and the free market are social technologies, not holy edicts. Only a fool ignores their very real failings while clinging to an idealized fantasy.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[CrashNBrn]

Everyone pays. Not just someone else. Well everyone that's not rich, and everyone that's not a corporation.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[hughbar]

You probably should do when a) there are no convenient alternative sources for what you want to buy b) they are essentials or near-essentials. I don't mind (well, I do) Uber surge pricing because I have a bicycle and am not afraid to use it.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[thebullshitpatrol]

It's all finagled so that someone is always making out.

In Texas, property tax is high and income tax is nil. This is all part of the default upper class scheme to charge as much regressive tax (usually property and sales tax) as possible so they can pay as little income tax as possible.

Re: Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the USA private healthcare runs at about 10% of GDP, around 2% in the UK. If you add that to the tax take as a percentage of GDP, the UK is slightly less taxed. If you look at Germany, it's still more heavily taxed, but it narrows the difference from around 18% of GDP to about 10%. There are other tax structure differences (e g. Funding for nursing care for senior citizens), so it's complex to get apples stop apples comparisons.

Another measure would be tax per capita. That would probably put the USA and Germany at parity, as USA GDP per capita is higher.

Probably more relevant, though, is median per capita income, at purchasing power parity, after accounting for tax and healthcare costs. By that measure the USA is probably ahead, although I haven't calculated it.

Most relevant, though, is probably what is sustainable long term. A nation can decide to not invest in infrastructure and save on tax, or spend a lot oin bridges to nowhere. I don't know about other countries, but the UK's tax spend has been at about 35% of GDP for virtually five decades (currently a shade under at 32.something) and since there are still roads, that seems to be sustainable. That's about 37% adding in all healthcare, on average.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[thebullshitpatrol]

To clarify, it's actually probably the upper middle class. Everyone knows the upper class doesn't make regular income.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

A recent report [chicagofed.org] from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that compares tax rates in the US and Germany shows that the difference is quite a bit more than "not by much". By almost any measure of tax burden (other than corporate taxes), Americans have a significantly lower tax burden.

But how do you compare it? If I'm a person making the median household wage in Germany, how much of my incomes goes to taxes? How about for a person making the median household wage in the US? Are we including federal taxes only, or federal and state, or fed, state and local? If we are including state and local, what numbers are we using?

Does the effective tax rate change based on how many kids we assume? How about we assume a savings rate as well? Or capital gains?

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[PrimaryConsult]

Without surge pricing, the first batch of people to get to the store buy up all the supplies, and then there's empty shelves and no one else gets anything.
With surge pricing, if you really, really need that can of soup it will be there for you to purchase.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[richpoore]

Sales taxes in Texas are higher, but only by a few percentage points (8.5 compared to 6 in WV) but the higher property taxes instead of income taxes seems to favor those less likely to have property, the lower class, and put the burden on the upper middle and upper classes who are more likely to own a home.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[mattack2]

Also, I'm expecting (fearing) that all the data and computing fire-power will be used for surge pricing, sooner or later. The stockholders would love it.

Not exactly surge pricing, sort of the opposite.. but e.g. Safeway apparently does data-mining of what I buy, and very very often gives me deals _on stuff I buy anyway_ that's cheaper than the regular sale prices. (Other stores also do 'deals for you', but I haven't personally used any that as frequently gave me deals on things I bought.)

I'm all for that, and if Amazon wants to do it too, great! (BTW, I don't shop at Whole Paycheck. Organic/anti-GMO are scams, and the food costs too much. If Amazon makes stuff I want to buy cheaper than at other places, great!)

BTW, the people complaining about "but they'll eventually raise prices". Yeah, Amazon the website isn't always the cheapest, but is usually very close to it, PLUS they have had good service with the rare problems I have had. Isn't that exactly what you're asking for, paying extra for something that's useful (service)? So what do you want, low prices, or people paying for "extras"? Seems like a bit of hypocrisy going on with the critics. (Oh, I also get 5% back for Amazon purchases with the credit card that I pay no interest on.)

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[mattack2]

This is all part of the default upper class scheme to charge as much regressive tax (usually property and sales tax) as possible so they can pay as little income tax as possible.

You say that like it's a bad thing. (I'm mostly being serious.. As much as I personally hate usage-based taxes, something like a base vehicle tax + tax for mileage driven seems like it would be better to keep roads/bridges in shape.. But if I want to stay in my house and not go out, paying as little taxes as possible seems reasonable. Oh, and having the vehicle tax inversely proportional to MPG(e) would be good too.)

But anyway, my main point was going to be -- the one inconsistency I see here is, aren't "upper class" people the ones likely to have property? So they're the ones paying property tax. Unless you're claiming they're making the property tax so high that only rich people can EVER get property.

Also, even with exceptions like CA's Prop 13, aren't people paying property tax proportional to how much property they own? So that seems like it's "taxing the rich".

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[mattack2]

Eh, every grocery store has had "loss leader" products to get people in the door since forever. Milk and eggs aren't anywhere near that cheap, no?

Not here, but Grocery Outlet seems to be the cheapest place to get milk. I think there used to be price controls in CA until a few years ago, but now at GO, a gallon of milk is a bit over $2, at least a buck less than at more well known grocery stores.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[ponraul]

Lean beef is $2.99 at my costco. Still have a long way to go before I'd consider those prices "Low".

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[thebullshitpatrol]

in actuality, it puts the burden on the lower middle class, as these types of things often do.

Sales and property tax are as impactful as whatever percentage of your income you spend on groceries and your house. Who do you think is more likely to spend 90% of their income on groceries and their home, the lower middle class, or the upper class?

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[thebullshitpatrol]

The general interpretation of things like sales tax and property tax is that the lower middle class is much more likely to spend most of their money on groceries and their home than the upper class. I.e., there's a minimum amount of money you have to spend on these things, and the lower middle class spends a larger portion of their income on them. Someone who is wealthy and is still paycheck to paycheck is doing something terribly wrong.

Moreover, I would imagine that the upper middle class benefits far more from taking home more of their paycheck than they would not being charged property tax.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Price gouging, especially for things like food and water during a natural disaster, is generally frowned upon.

Rail against "gouging" all you like, but higher prices are the incentive for people to load up a truck with generators and drive into the disaster zone. Let's pretend I'm a guy selling a U-Haul full of generators. Yeah, they're $500 normally, and mine are $800, but on the other hand, I have them, and they don't. You were perfectly free to buy one for $500 two weeks before the disaster, but you didn't. I bought a bunch of them at my own risk, spent a bunch of money on a U-Haul rental and travel expenses, and showed up. You can ban me from doing so, but all that means is that there are fewer generators out there. Maybe a couple of neighbors all pitch in for the extra cost, and power a window A/C unit somewhere that they can all at least sleep in cool air.

Food and water might be valid exceptions, but I've never seen those not be provided by relief organizations. We lost power for several days in a hurricane, and they gave two free bags of ice per day to everyone who walked up and asked for it. It was a source of clean water, and drinking ice water is a very effective way to stay cool when it's hot outside.

The real value is in two things: fuel and booze. When the power's out, you can't pump gasoline out of the underground storage tanks, which means that there simply isn't enough to go around for even essential tasks (at first, it was only for emergency services, later relaxed to allow hospital/nursing home employees to buy enough to get to work as more came online). The booze, well, that speaks for itself. Load up. Being hot and flooded sucks. Being hot, flooded, and sober is worse.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[thebullshitpatrol]

Some data to back it up:

includes renters, but national:
http://www.urban.org/urban-wir...
https://edit.urban.org/sites/d...

South Dakota:
http://www.southdakotadashboar...

DC:
http://www.dcfpi.org/1-13-05ho...

That's all I can find right now, but I'm pretty sure most people agree that this is the case.

Re: Lower prices, at first.

[HornWumpus]

Germans buy their own required health insurance. It doesn't come out of tax, except for dirtbags sucking the tit. Which is very much socially sanctioned in Germany.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the ChicagoFed report:

"most contributions toward health insurance and pension plans (excluding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are not obligatory payments to the government and therefore are not included in the figures"

Shouldn't "what you get for your money" be part of the comparison?

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

At the moment, retail thrives on units pushed. It's quite the opposite of what you list. Most stores will discount the per unit price if you buy in bulk and shape their ads to encourage this. A lot of places will say, must be 4 or 5 to get the cheap price. It's all about pushing as much inventory as possible because your per unit profits are so tiny.

Grocery business gets by on pretty slime margins.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[larryjoe]

From the ChicagoFed report:

"most contributions toward health insurance and pension plans (excluding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are not obligatory payments to the government and therefore are not included in the figures"

Shouldn't "what you get for your money" be part of the comparison?

The footnote quoted above was only for Section 1. The charts in Section 7 show the impact of these payments, including both direct employee payments and payments made by the company on behalf of the employee. Including these payments shows that German payments are quite a bit higher than in the US.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Anonymous Coward]

WinCo has very cheap milk (under $2/gl) and meat is decently cheaper then local unless there is a sale at AlbersonsSafeway. we have 3 freezers and only buy when on sale.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Uberbah]

A recent report [chicagofed.org] from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that compares tax rates in the US and Germany shows that the difference is quite a bit more than "not by much". By almost any measure of tax burden (other than corporate taxes), Americans have a significantly lower tax burden.

Low taxes have high costs. Like shitty infrastructure that kills people. Like paying thousands per year for health insurance premiums....and then having to pay another $4000+ out of pocket before meeting your deductible. Like having the finest trail transportation available with 19th century technology. Like graduating with five figures of student loan debt you can never discharge. Like enjoying your paltry Social Security benefits for a whopping two years before you die.

Things people in socialist-icky countries mostly (or completely) don't have to worry about. Low taxes have high costs.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[lsatenstein]

Total tax rate for average person in the US is lower than most European countries... but not by much.

VAT obviously higher than Sales Tax over here but made up in other ways.

But what do Europeans get for slightly more taxes?

Public Healthcare (lower infant mortality, fewer chronic diseases and high expected lifespan).
Clean-efficient public transport.
More parks and public spaces in urban areas.
All schools properly funded, not just ones in areas with wealthy residents.
Lots... lots... more...

I'd trade slightly higher taxes if it meant the perks that you get in Europe... ... of course, higher taxes in the US means more money to spend on the military, not on anything useful.

Same applies to Canada. And Canada has true multiculturism and a message of "Welcome" to newcomers.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[lsatenstein]

Yes, it is. Specifically monopolies are one of the oldest and best-understood failings of the free market. As soon as you drive the competition out of business, there's no longer a free market, and you reap the rewards of being the only provider. Meanwhile no new competition arises, because everyone knows that the minute they enter the market the monopolist can drop prices long enough to drive you out of business, so trying to compete is just an exercise in throwing away your startup investment, which could have been better spent entering a market not dominated by a monopolist.

Capitalism and the free market are social technologies, not holy edicts. Only a fool ignores their very real failings while clinging to an idealized fantasy.

Perfect example is Walmart, which is not the best place to shop. Fortunately for Canadians, venture capitalists funded three large Canadian Grocery Chains, that now have a pharmacy and a Childrens/bedding areas in the larger stores. Walmart is #3 in pricing and #99 in quality.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[Oswald McWeany]

Same applies to Canada. And Canada has true multiculturism and a message of "Welcome" to newcomers.

True, and you also have Horton's which is a plus.

On the downside, winter lasts 11 months out of the year and polar bears and caribou slay and eat one out of every three women and children.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[suutar]

I recall stories of Uber's surge pricing algorithm triggering when people wanted to leave the area of a shooting (I believe) a couple of months ago, and they did get lambasted. I also seem to recall they turned it off once they realized what was going on, but the computer doesn't know why demand went up in the last 5 minutes, just that it did.

Re:Lower prices, at first.

[micahraleigh]

You're saying its better to not provide these services?

A lot of people will do nothing if the prices don't reach a certain point.

Sure you can gripe about it or regulate or whatever, but the alternative is it doesn't happen.

becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely the future of whole foods

Re:becomes K-Mart

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Nah, it'll still be "Whole Paycheck". $7.00 for 4 avacados? Oh, organic avacados.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

It says non-organic are already only $1. That's less than I'm used to paying at Kroger here in the midwest (although $2 for organic avocados is pretty standard). Avocados was a poor choice for an example, because the price varies quite a bit by location in the US.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[rwa2]

Could someone explain avocados to me? Do they have some sort of magical nutritional value? I don't dislike them... though eating them sometimes makes me nauseated. But there's a lot of other stuff I enjoy that other people seem to consider "gross". I always assumed people ate avocados because they were big and cheap and plentiful, and you can't dip everything in just salsa and sour cream ALL the time. Still, never thought guacamole was good enough to warrant charging extra for.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[magarity]

Nah, it'll still be "Whole Paycheck". $7.00 for 4 avacados? Oh, organic avacados.

Has WF changed lately? The times I've been in one it was all the packaged food with "organic" on the boxes and cans. In the actual produce section there was a small "conventionally grown" sign under all but a very small selection.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[__aaclcg7560]

Could someone explain avocados to me?

Avocados are the iPhones of the grocery world. For those who cannon afford avocados, watermelons are the Android equivalent.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why they charge so much for them in the US. They're good enough, and I'd eat more of them if they were as cheap here as they are in Mexico (relatively speaking), but what they charge for them here, no fricken way.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[50000BTU_barbecue]

You're supposed to let them ripen, and eat them right away. They don't hold up well once they're sliced into a salad, for example. I ate a salad with avocado that I had prepared a day before, and the texture of the avocado was gross, like eating a green slug.

Now I make my salad ahead of time, but I put in a half avocado covered in cling wrap, then I slice it when I eat the salad.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare someone to try to produce inorganic avocados.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[JohnFen]

I eat them because they're delicious.

However, it's pretty hard to find good ones. Avocados are everywhere. Avocados that are worth eating are harder to find when they're in season, and impossible to find out of season.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Narcocide]

World's fattiest vegetable, by a long shot. If you can't figure out why that's popular you're not eating them right.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

To the GP poster:
First: don't ever listen to creimer when it comes to food & nutrition - the last time he ate a fruit was about 40 years ago. Since then, it's power bars and other sugar-and-fat laden processed bullshit that he's deluded himself into thinking are "health" foods.

Second: to your original question - avocados *are* nutritious, though not "magically" so. They're high in monounsaturated fats, relatively low in carbs (most of their carbs are in the form of fiber) & protein, and they have a fairly high vitamin content (especially the fat-soluble vitamins (A,D,E,K) and various vitamin B's) as well. They're an excellent source of "healthy" fats, but nothing you get in them can't be found elsewhere.

The reason they're such a big deal these days has more to do with pop culture than nutrition.

Recently, and Australian millionaire made headlines for telling millennials to "lay off the avocado toast" if they want to save money (source), and this got the typical millennial twitter meme/hashtag treatment - think of it as a latter day "let them eat cake" moment.

Further, the millennial set *is* (or seems to be) extremely fond of avocados, apparently "because California," and "because fancy." Until recently, they've been an unusual food in the US outside of Mexican cuisine, so millennials seem to be using them as a status symbol and a form of culinary protest against the proletarian palates of their parents. But, they're typically costly because they need to be imported to most places in the US, and they spoil relatively quickly, so they have to be picked & shipped quickly.

In short, Amazon & Whole Foods are doing their damnedest to win over the 20-something set by making avocados cheap and easily obtainable, which to millennials, means that Amazon is giving a big middle finger to the 1%'ers by allowing scrappy Antifa protestors to eat like the super rich.

Avocados aren't a bad food, but they're more pop culture phenomenon than they are legitimate dietary staple these days. The only thing they're lacking at this point is a Dan Quayle figure to mangle the spelling of the fruit as "A-V-O-C-A-D-O-E-S," which will forever immortalize them in internet meme history.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[dunkelfalke]

Put a ripe avocado on a slice of rye bread, sprinkle some salt and pepper on it. The result is far superior to a buttered bread, at least for me.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] the last time he ate a fruit was about 40 years ago.

Not true. I had ketchup on my cheeseburger last night.

Since then, it's power bars and other sugar-and-fat laden processed bullshit that he's deluded himself into thinking are "health" foods.

Never mind that I lost ten pounds and wearing smaller sized pants.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[magusxxx]

The biggest selling points:

  Heart healthy fats
  Helps reduces cholesterol
  Helps in weight loss

Protein Powder, milk, and half an avocado gives you a healthy milk shake. (And, no, you don't taste the avocado.)

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Being from the midwest, growing up I rarely ever saw avocados and never gave them much thought.

When I studied in Mexico during college, I had some small, dark green-blue ones that were amazing and I thought, "Wow, avocados are really excellent!"

Got back to the midwest, bought some -- the larger green ones, all that are available and probably not very fresh since they were shipped -- and they were bloody awful. Tried another store. Horrid.

Some things apparently need to be fresh and regional.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[magusxxx]

Also, as I mentioned in my own reply, bodybuilders and fitness minded folk latched on to the idea of mixing one in their protein powder drinks. It's a natural thickener and gives it the consistency of a malt.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[JohnFen]

Some things apparently need to be fresh and regional.

And avocados are strenuously one of those things. They also have a lot of variation between types. As with a lot of produce (tomatoes, bananas, etc.), the ones that appear in the store -- particularly in the off-season or in stores that are far from where they are grown -- are selected because they store and ship well, but they're usually pretty awful to eat.

This seems to be particularly true of avocados. Tomatoes used to be the clearest example of the problem, but I think avocados show the problem even more clearly.

In my social circle we call out-of-season or distantly-grown avocados "unprocessed guacamole", since guacamole is more or less the only thing you can do with them.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

On a guy your size, losing ten pounds could be as simple as pushing twice on the toilet.

Given your immense bulk, losing ten pounds is almost immaterial, simply going down a notch on your belt would do the trick as well.

Unless you're one of those fatties given to wearing spectacularly ill-fitting tight clothes? Given how that T-shirt molded over you like a condom over an elephant, I think that's likely.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[JohnFen]

(And, no, you don't taste the avocado.)

But then all you're going to taste is that nasty protein powder. That's hardly a selling point!

Re:becomes K-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to let them ripen, and eat them right away. They don't hold up well once they're sliced into a salad, for example.

If for some reason you come by too many avocados to eat before they go bad, you mash'em into guac and freeze (w/a little salt and lemon juice).

Re:becomes K-Mart

[demonlapin]

They're really good, but unfortunately they don't travel well. You can get a dozen wonderful avocados in the valleys of California for what you'd pay for a single mediocre one in most of the US.

Re:becomes K-Mart

[chihowa]

Holy shit! How do you still have a subscriber asterisk?!

Being a huge proponent of paying for sites instead of enduring the scourge of advertising, I've always subscribed here, but it broke during one of the last ownership changes and still doesn't seem to work...

Re:becomes K-Mart

[rwa2]

Oh, er, mad hax, dude.

Like, I paid the $5 once back in my college days two decades ago, and then I checked the option for "show me ads anyway". So I guess it never wore off?

Re:becomes K-Mart

[rwa2]

and thanks for telling me what the friggin asterisk was for... I always assumed it meant something else :P

What kind of strategy is this?

[bogaboga]

I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while. Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much? I do not get it!

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while. Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much? I do not get it!

Given how utterly fucked up your entire premise is, I bet there are a LOT of things you "do not get", mostly related to reality.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while.

profits are for losers

profits are taxed

profits do nothing to help the growth of the company, they just enrich the shareholders

smart companies avoid profit and plow the money back into the company

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Binestar]

Your understanding of Amazon is poor. https://www.recode.net/2017/4/...

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[EvilSS]

I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while. Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much? I do not get it!

They were not profitable for a long time due to re-investing their profits into growing their business. It's not like they are Sears with rapidly declining sales vs fixed costs.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

>"Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much?"
They are sticking with the operational model that got them this far: losing money on every sale and making it up with volume.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[rwa2]

Um, the AC is right... see the film industry... no movie ever makes a profit if they can help it. Don't ever accept payment in terms of % of profits, there aren't any after Hollywood accounting is done dishing out various production fees and expenses to various shell companies linked to the producers.

US companies are about building and growing brand recognition and mindshare... intangible intellectual property that you can just sit at the top and rake in the dough for other people's work.

Amazon itself is famously frugal... developers get very few perks compared to other tech employers in the area... no free lunch, no free devices for dogfooding their own products, no free soda cabinets to keep productivity up, not even prime membership. They consider this part of their corporate "leadership" culture, though... certainly not a way to boost profits at the cost of their employees' productivity and morale.

Bananas seem to be a special case, though... they have a free banana stand on campus where anyone in the public can drop by and get a bite.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[c]

Amazon is as profitable as they want to be. Anyone who's paid even the slightest attention knows that their growth has been funded pretty much from the beginning by pumping any excess money (AKA potential profit) back into the company. They could have pulled off enormous profits quite some time ago, if they wanted to.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their EPS is about 4 bucks per $1000 share. That is de facto not profitable.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's always money in the banana stand.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a fucking avocado is still 2.00 fucking dollars after lower prices this was a 39 cent item 2 years ago.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

considering how many different markets they are currently "embracing, extending, and extinguishing" get back to me in a few years.

Re:What kind of strategy is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

My goodness! This is a very interesting post! No my brother I do not get it either! I am very smart college educated American! Not posting from Russia!

Just loss leaders?

[fropenn]

Are these just loss leaders (like every grocery store offers), or is this a real, long-term effort to lower prices at Whole Foods? Will Amazon be taking a loss on Whole Foods or are these prices actually (using one of Whole Foods' favorite words here) sustainable?

Re:Just loss leaders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whole Foods was famous for over-charging for thde same products compared to national food chains. I'm not even talking about their "special organic artisan produce ethically harvested by Tibetan Monks" or whatever. Just plain old canned or boxed goods.

If Amazon can make Whole Foods an actual viable place to shop for groceries outside the "unusual one-off" category, I'm all for it.

Re: Just loss leaders?

[Anonymous Coward]

I shopped at Whole Foods for the first time Saturday. There are some pretty crazy high priced items, but I didn't have any problem filling my basket with cheaper things. I'll definitely be going back just on the rice/etc by the pound. I can't get that selection at any other store in town. I made some rather nice soup last night.

I will probably stick to Hyvee for meat, and Hyvee/Bakers for misc things.

Re:Just loss leaders?

[fermion]

Whole foods have been lowering prices for a while, and building more in house products to compete with places like Traders Joe, which has the one of the biggest conglomerate in world behind it.

This has lead to significant quality and customer service issues, which has in turn lead to people not seeing the point of spending money on products.

They have always had quite a bit of leeway on products. They tend to have very good values on staples whole grain, eggs, honey, but charge a lot more on the junk food that people want. This is why so many people it is outlandishly expensive. Likewise, they tend to sell highly selective meat which is also really expensive. Likely most of the savings in that basket was on meat.

If amazon is going to integrate Whole Foods with Amazon fresh, they do not need to match anyones prices, they just need to make it cheap enough so that it is an attractive delivery option, as they do with Prime Now.

On the other hand, if the get rid of the staple products that so many still go to Whole Food to buy, then they are going to lose a lot of customers. This happened back in the late 90's when they started adding more candy to the lineup and got rid of more traditional healthy products.

Whole Foods strategy of late has been to get customers drunk on wine and sell lots of high markup prepared foods. Obviously that has not worked out so well.

Re:Just loss leaders?

[JohnFen]

They tend to have very good values on staples whole grain, eggs, honey

Not the ones around here. The staples aren't outrageously priced, but they are still more expensive than equivalent products purchased pretty much anywhere else.

Re:Just loss leaders?

[AvitarX]

I suspect they'll flatten the gross margins and try to cut overhead with efficiency.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing these were high margin items.

They'll go for a more Trader Joe's like model of narrower selection, but make sure it moves (reducing spoilage).

They'll work on sell through per linear foot, and leverage Prime to really make sure to sell everything. They'll likely take the opposite approach of loss leaders, instead selling everything at reasonable mark-up.

That's impressive

[Trailer Trash]

They're now within one order of magnitude of the prices at Publix.

Re:That's impressive

[Nidi62]

I was just thinking I bought a 6lb pack of 90/10 ground beef at Sams for less than $3.30 a pound, so I fail to see the value in these incredible savings.

Re:That's impressive

[Oswald McWeany]

I was just thinking I bought a 6lb pack of 90/10 ground beef at Sams for less than $3.30 a pound, so I fail to see the value in these incredible savings.

Sams meat tends to be artificially lower than what you're really getting. I found that meat from Sams tends to shrink dramatically when you cook it because it is pumped full of water. Some of that $3.30 per pound your paying goes to nothing but water.

Re:That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Sam's/Walmart ground beef is cheap because it's pink slime. You're eating the slop off the butcher's floor that got reprocessed into food product.

Re:That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's a problem because?

Re:That's impressive

[Nidi62]

I was just thinking I bought a 6lb pack of 90/10 ground beef at Sams for less than $3.30 a pound, so I fail to see the value in these incredible savings.

Sams meat tends to be artificially lower than what you're really getting. I found that meat from Sams tends to shrink dramatically when you cook it because it is pumped full of water. Some of that $3.30 per pound your paying goes to nothing but water.

Even if it is, unless it is 1/3 water you are still getting it for cheaper than what whole foods is selling it for (at the discounted price even). Plus, since we already took that 6 lbs (and it was actually less, I rounded up) and spread it out into 12 portions and froze them, losing some of that weight makes the portions even smaller which helps with weight control. And there is no taste difference between that ground beef and ground beef in fresh packs from Kroger or Publix (the only taste difference I've ever noticed between the 3 is the prepackaged rolls of beef from Kroger that I used when I was in grad school and on a budget)

Re:That's impressive

[Tulsa_Time]

Careful... ABC just paid $100,000,000 for talking about "pink slime" on the air.

Re:That's impressive

[Trailer Trash]

Ah, that feeling when you went for "Funny" and ended up with "Insightful" and "Interesting".

Re:That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

That's in settlement. Some numbers guy figured just paying them off will be better than risk small chance of huge damages. Many journalists are disappointed by this and the precedent it set for the first amendment.

Re:That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull. Meat is FDA inspected and regulated, with strict guidelines on protein, fat, and water content for processed meats, and more stringent guidelines for unprocessed but graded meats.

Re:That's impressive

[del_diablo]

Eh, anon, you don't get it do you.
Its one issue if the nutrition information is fudged. Its another if the nutrition information is correct, but also the only way to gauge how much water/salt is added.
Assuming of course ground beef == ground beef, and we aren't talking minced meat versus ground beef.

Re:That's impressive

[edtice1559]

What you get at Sam's club isn't local, grass-fed beef. Now maybe you don't care and I'm not sure that I do. But that's a value question, not a price question. Does Sam's club even sell local, grass-fed beef?

Re:That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

No, many journalists are disappointed by this because it FAILED to set a precedent regarding the first amendment. Many would have rather not settled as that is one of the primary reasons for doing so - to avoid setting precedent.

Re:That's impressive

[edtice1559]

The issue here is that the reporting was sensationalist rather than a factual inquiry. And the product has been deemed safe by the FDA. I would eat finely-textured ground beef, but I'd expect it to retail for like $0.29/lb. Challenging the FDA decision in reporting would be quite reasonable. Implying that the food is unsafe without offering any evidence really wasn't appropriate. With a high-profile story like this, you need to be less sloppy in your reporting. http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re: That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

The market can never be free so long as pink slime can be sold as meat.

Re:That's impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, yeah. It's actually good that you're not getting what you pay for! Weight control!

Re:That's impressive

[Reziac]

Considering I can stand there and watch them cut and package it, you'd think this extra step would be more obvious...

Re:That's impressive

[micahraleigh]

Journalists with ideals ... those things are so vaulted away they would know what they were if they found one.

Re:That's impressive

[houghi]

I am sure that somewhere between the slaughter and you seeing them cut it, there will be a point they could do it.

Re:That's impressive

[Reziac]

Suppose so, but they get their bulk meat from Cargill like everyone else, so if it were true you'd see it from Costco and the average chain grocery as well.

And I've been buying meat there for years and have never seen excessive shrinkage, and I eat beef next thing to raw. Of course if you cook it well-done it'll always shrink, sometimes by half its volume. And the better the meat (less connective waste) the more it shrinks, because overlong cooking damages it more.

Re:That's impressive

[painandgreed]

I am sure that somewhere between the slaughter and you seeing them cut it, there will be a point they could do it.

You don't pump meat full of water, it starts that way. Typically meat is aged and dried to lose water and become more flavorful. If the meat is filled with more water, then it is probably fresher (but also less flavorful).

Destructive fascist capitalism

[Suiggy]

These low prices are destructive and will have consequences. If food is this cheap, people won't see the value in socialism and won't unite against capitalist organizations like Amazon.

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

10/10
Would troll again

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

These low prices are destructive and will have consequences.

so all that profit-taking by whole foods management was really GOOD for everyone?

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[rock_climbing_guy]

You mean that capitalist organization that runs the Washington Post that campaigned so hard to elect Hillary Clinton as POTUS?

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[Gravis Zero]

If food is this cheap, people won't see the value in socialism...

Oh? Well in that case, I suppose the government should stop subsidizing farmers. What's that? You dont know shit about agriculture? Oh my.

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[Kjella]

Even if people ran out of bread, Trump creates enough circus that everyone would think it's fake news.

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[alvinrod]

They really should stop subsidizing farmers though. The U.S. spends billions of dollars on farm subsidies that keep prices artificially high while at the same time spending billions of dollars on food stamps because some people can't afford food. It's utter madness to be doing both at the same time. The original justifications for having farm subsidies are no longer relevant and most of the subsidies aren't going to small family farms, but to corporations or those who don't need them.

Re:Destructive fascist capitalism

[DerekLyons]

The original justifications for having farm subsidies are no longer relevant [heritage.org]

Do you have a cite that isn't from a right wing nut job site?

most of the subsidies aren't going to small family farms, but to corporations or those who don't need them.

11.3 million is most of the subsidies? Hardly, the US pays out in the billions per annum - 11.3 million isn't even a rounding error.

Great

[ArhcAngel]

I'll get my raft and float over to our local Houston Whole Foods this morning to stock up.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll get my raft and float over to our local Houston Whole Foods this morning to stock up.

I hear they are running a special on locally caught fish. So fresh the fish could have just swam right up to the display case.

Re:Great

[istartedi]

They're also working on home fish delivery.

which begs the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was all that money going?

Not in Houston

[Anonymous Coward]

There is Whole Food just a few blocks away from me that's closed. In fact all stores are closed. Wish it was open to buy some more food. I'll give it few days before people become desperate enough to break in to that Whole Foods.

Re:Not in Houston

[ArhcAngel]

Food Town is open in NW. So is Dairy Queen on Antoine.

Re:Not in Houston

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, all the meat will be spoiled by then. You've got to loot no more than 4 hours after the power goes out.

Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

In a few years after the marxist antifa democrat party gets into power they will implement price controls thus sealing our fate to be like Venezuela. Scarcity, poverty, malnutrition, starvation is how the collectivists control you. When you're weak you can't fight back.

Re:Doesn't matter

[blackomegax]

Strawman. What we want now is fully automated luxury communism. Everyone gets a nice home, an iPhone, and as much access as they need to high end supply chains like whole foods. Forget the old, failed, faux communisms. Embrace the nu-communism, comrade.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes, that is quite the strawman you've built there. Congratulations.

Re:Doesn't matter

[blackomegax]

What I was replying to was the straw man. What I posted was the truth, and righteous destiny, of mankind.

Business Insider shill

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the source of this article. Business Insider (along with Washington Post) is funded by Jeff Bezos. It's also run by a convicted fraudster

(insider trading, get it - Business "Insider")

there was fat to cut...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes Whole Foods had products not comparable to other grocers in which case prices are hard to directly compare. Sometimes though they carried exactly the same product as other grocers, from the same company in the same packaging etc, and in those cases Whole Foods was typically a lot more expensive than the normal chains.

There is a lot of room for W.F. to reduce prices without impacting quality.

Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed the part in the article where it mentioned the new technologies they are utilizing to achieve this price reduction.

Do we really need grocery store slashvertisements?

Re:Tech news?

[Stephan Schulz]

I missed the part in the article where it mentioned the new technologies they are utilizing to achieve this price reduction.

Do we really need grocery store slashvertisements?

They did mention the technique of sampling the particular products Amazon/Whole Foods announced as becoming cheaper. That's some mighty impressive new biased sampling technology.

Re:Tech news?

[tquasar]

The race to the bottom. Every business or person in the food chain will see reduced wages or income. Stuff costs money. Some people don't see the increase in the cost of living. A five percent yearly increase in prices is supposed to be good for the economy.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

I missed the part in the article where it mentioned the new technologies they are utilizing to achieve this price reduction.

You can buy an Amazon Dot to go with your avocado dip.

Re:Tech news?

[magarity]

A five percent yearly increase in prices is supposed to be good for the economy.

You may have misheard that. The Fed targets 2% inflation, not 5. Prices would double every 15 years at 5% which is more than a little unhappy. 2% sees a doubling only every 36 which is a bit more reasonable.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the federal reserve targets 2% inflation, I don't believe they would consider 5% to be good.

Re:Tech news?

[alvinrod]

Every person also sees reduced prices. Look at the tech sector where the race to the bottom has made computers affordable for almost everyone in western countries and now with smart phones in places like Africa that traditionally did not have many computers for the average person.

Reduction in prices means that people will increase consumption, and I suspect that there are a lot of people in a country who could benefit from eating better. This is a country with over a third of the population being obese, and a 6% (and increasing) rate of severe or morbid obesity. Finding ways to reduce the cost of non-processed food and to bring it to more people is a good thing.

A five percent yearly increase in prices is supposed to be good for the economy.

Find me an economist that believes that. Five percent yearly inflation (its not goods getting more expensive, but money losing its value. Further if you assume a race to the bottom, costs should be dropping everywhere, not just as Whole Foods, but also with their suppliers.) means that your currency will lose half its value in only 14 years. Even people who are in support of an inflationary monetary policy would want 5%.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that Elon Musk shopped at a Whole Foods once. This story is entirely relevant.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course creimer would think the only thing you can make out of an Avocado is a "dip." I bet he's shoveled down a few bags of corn chips smothered in gallons of avocado dip in his day.

I'm sure it was all part of his healthy low-carb diet of vanilla lattes, powerbars, and cottage cheese, too.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

I bet he's shoveled down a few bags of corn chips smothered in gallons of avocado dip in his day.

I don't like avocado. I prefer French onion dip instead. Back in the day being 30+ years ago.

I'm sure it was all part of his healthy low-carb diet of vanilla lattes, powerbars, and cottage cheese, too.

Pork skins have zero carbs.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, your whole body is low carb, what with all that fat...

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't know what is up with inflation,fed. Don't include Food Rent or Mortgage. Just once I wish it was included just to show what we really look like not this pretend they play.
They have to one day include at least a percentage of those three thing or we are doomed to boom crash boom crash boom crash forever.

Re: Tech news?

[gweilo8888]

Yep, this whole thing is BS. There's every chance Whole Foods just became more *expensive*, but because they only checked the handful of items Amazon hyped lower prices on, of *course* we get told "Yes, they're really cheaper." Lazy journalism abounds, today.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like avocado. I prefer French onion dip instead. Back in the day being 30+ years ago.

Of course not, Avocado - being an actual fruit - might put you at risk of ingesting something nutritious. Much better to stick with processed fat and addititves to ensure your body isn't shocked by a sudden influx of nutrients.

Pork skins have zero carbs.

Yes, and I imagine that you use that fact to justify eating them by the bucket full.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Food is not part of the economic price index of inflation.

They dont give a damn how fast food does or does not rise.
Why your Wolf Cilli when from 99 cents to 2.59 in one year.

Re:Tech news?

[barc0001]

>Do we really need grocery store slashvertisements?

One of the biggest tech companies on the planet that literally revolutionized online buying has moved into grocery space and decides to cut prices dramatically for a "premium" market segment and you don't think there's a tech interest angle there?

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Yes, and I imagine that you use that fact to justify eating them by the bucket full.

One serving (1/2-ounce) per day. After five years, I'm tired of eating them.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

One serving (1/2-ounce) per day. After five years, I'm tired of eating them.

Powerbars, vanilla lattes, cottage cheese, and pork rinds make up at least 50% of your daily caloric intake?

Wow, creimer, it's no wonder you're the absolute picture of good health. You should abandon that blog, and write a diet & nutrition book instead.

Recommended title: "The Creimer Plan For Good Health and Fitness: Fake It 'Till You Make It (Or Die from a Massive Coronary!)"

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the before or after picture?

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Is that the before or after picture? [quoracdn.net]

A picture from ten years ago when I did weight training for a year, bulked up from 2XL to 4XL, and I couldn't find any 4XL shirts at the stores. Today I prefer to wear a 2XL shirt even though I could wear an XL shirt, but people would complain about it being too tight across my chest..

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Or Die from a Massive Coronary!

So I've been told would happen by the time I was [10|20|30|40]-years-old. I haven't had heart issues in 30+ years. Being on a low-carb diet for over five years has significantly reduced my chances for diabetes. This is the same diet that my father went on and he went off insulin six months later.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very odd. The picture of you from 2006 shows someone much smaller. And I REALLY doubt you went from 2XL to 4XL from "weight training", given that your idea of "weight training" is sitting cable pulls.

https://ouaa.cdreimer.com/wp-c...

Here's what someone who DOES weight training and is LIGHTER than you looks like:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/s...

That is "solid muscle", not someone who went on anti-psychotic medications and gained tons of fat.

"it being too tight across my chest.."

Chest? I think you mean those straps of fat that go from your chins, under your armpits, and back up behind your neck rolls?

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to your logic, San Fransisco shouldn't have to prepare for that next big earthquake, since it hasn't happened yet in 10-20-30-40 years.

Boy am I glad you've risen to your level of incompetence and your employer wisely chose to limit your radius of destruction.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I would categorize this as a business story rather than a tech story. Tech company buys non-tech company and makes changes unrelated to technology. Interesting? Perhaps to some people. Tech-related? Only tangentially. To me it also sounds like nothing more than an advertisement.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat weak guys who say they need to eat more to get strong are hilarious.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

According to your logic, San Fransisco shouldn't have to prepare for that next big earthquake, since it hasn't happened yet in 10-20-30-40 years.

The reasons why I'm not at risk for heart disease is because I diet, exercise and take care of myself. People take one look at me and pass judgment without ever bother to find out if they were justified. It's easy to preach gloom and doom out of ignorance.

Boy am I glad you've risen to your level of incompetence and your employer wisely chose to limit your radius of destruction.

I was going to ask if you were stupid but this second sentence erased all doubts.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Fat weak guys who say they need to eat more to get strong are hilarious.

I was eating 4,000-calories per day during that year. Too. Much. Hamburger. Meh.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] given that your idea of "weight training" is sitting cable pulls.

That's part of my workout today. I don't want to get bigger, I want to get slimmer. I wasn't doing sitting cable pulls 10 years ago.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

[10|20|30|40]-years-old. I haven't had heart issues in 30+ years.

And yet you're in your late 40's. Which means you DID have heart problems as a youngster. Which means that you have failed to correct the glaring and obvious defects in your diet and lifestyle, and are digging your grave with an ice cream scoop. Congratulations, creimer - I'll be the one sending flowers to your funeral that read, "I told you so."

Being on a low-carb diet for over five years has significantly reduced my chances for diabetes.

1) 150 g of carbs per day is NOT a low carb diet.
2) Spoken like somebody who has no concept of how diabetes works.

High amounts of refined carbs (such as what is found in lattes and power bars), over time, will contribute to insulin resistance. So will a sedentary lifestyle, and excess body weight. What this means is that your body becomes less and less capable of managing your blood glucose levels - as you spike your blood sugar with sugary foods, your body has more difficulty absorbing the glucose and storing it as fat.

Eating low carb can *help* to reduce insulin resistance in your body, which can, in turn, reduce the high blood glucose levels typical of diabetes. However, excess weight and sedentary lifestyle will STILL contribute to insulin resistance. I guarantee that if you went and got an HbA1C test right now, your results would show you are - at BEST - prediabetic. I'd honestly be shocked if your results showed anything less than 7.5%, which means you've got a solid case of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2.

When's the last time you went to see your doctor and get your blood workup done?

This is the same diet that my father went on and he went off insulin six months later.

Oh, bullshit. No doctor puts you on insulin for diabetes unless you are an ADVANCED case. Six months of "low carb eating" with no other lifestyle changes will emphatically NOT reverse the damage of DM2. If your father had slightly elevated blood sugar, they would have first started him on one of the oral medications - metformin, a sulfonylurea, or other diabetes medication, and counseled dietary & lifestyle elevations. If he had high enough blood sugar to indicate insulin therapy, there is NO WAY that only 6 months of treatment & intervention would have reversed his blood sugar problems. Which means he either decided he didn't want to inject himself a few times a day with insulin and decided he just wasn't going to do it any more, or he was never on insulin in the first place, and your thick skull is confusing a treatment like glyburide or glucophage with insulin.

And again - 150g/day of carbs is not particularly low carb. If they were putting your father on a low carb diet to manage diabetes severe enough to warrant insulin, they would have put him on a ketogenic diet, which is typically 20 g / day of carbs. Just sayin', you're a fucking liar, and a bad one at that.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Just sayin', you're a fucking liar, and a bad one at that.

Of course, I'm a liar. My experience doesn't conform to your belief of how the world should work. Therefore, I must be lying. If I'm not lying, than your belief of how the world should work is wrong and you're fucked. Which is easier... accusing someone of being a liar or changing your belief?

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience doesn't conform to your belief of how the world should work.

Your experience doesn't conform to the facts of how the world DOES work. There's a subtle, but important, difference there, creimer.

By your claims, you are one walking, talking medical miracle after another:
- you gain weight on a 1500 calorie per day diet, but only gain MUSCLE when eating 4000 calories a day.
- You change nothing about your diet, and magically lose weight (unexplained weight loss is one of the symptoms of DM2, by the way. So is persistent lethargy. Just sayin'.)
- You gain 50 pounds of muscle in a summer of lifting weights.
- You lose 13 pounds, but magically end up 7 pounds heavier than when you started.
- Your dad was on insulin - But only for 6 months, because his not-so-low-carb low-carb diet magically reversed decades of built up insulin resistance in only 6 months.
- Doing 30 reps of light weights once a week, you can easily put on many pounds of muscle.
- You have a biker's build - which, for you, apparently means that you look like a fucking caramel apple - two skinny legs supporting a round, butterball of a body.
- You have a football player's build - despite the fact that the only football players approaching your weight are 10 inches taller than you, and the football players closest to your height average about 150 pounds lighter than you.

The list goes on.

Therefore, I must be lying.

If you told me that gravity magically reversed itself in your vicinity, and you were in danger of flying off into space, or that you typically average a sprint speed of 70 mph, or that you starved yourself for 3 months and ended up gaining 50 pounds of muscle, I'd find your claims equally laughable. When you make extraordinary claims, expect to be met with a degree of skepticism. If you make extraordinary claims that conflict with one another from one telling to the other, expect to be called a liar who can't keep his fucking tall tales straight.

If I'm not lying, than your belief of how the world should work is wrong and you're fucked.

Yes, but you ARE lying, because the world doesn't work the way you claim it does, sugar-and-fat man-tits.

Which is easier... accusing someone of being a liar or changing your belief?

Changing my belief is easier when I'm presented with actual facts and evidence to support wildly unrealistic claims. Accusing someone of being a liar is easier when someone presents outlandish, unrealistic claims, and offers no facts or evidence to support them. So, are you going to share facts and evidence to support your claims, or are you going to continue blowing smoke in the hopes that I'll fall for your line of bullshit?

Your serve, Moby Tits.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

The list goes on.

Your list is full of shit.

Your serve, Moby Tits.

You sound bitter.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound sweet, bitter tits

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your list is full of shit.

Yes, that's precisely my assertion - the list of claims you've made is full of made-up bullshit. I've asked you to come up with any shred of proof for any of it, and you've declined. By this response, we can safely assume that you are full of shit, and a bad liar. Until you provide a bit of proof to the contrary, that's it.

You sound bitter.

It would be better described as "amused by the pathetic mewlings of an ignorant man-child." But don't worry, Caramel Apple, someday you'll be dead - and then you won't have to worry about keeping all your lies straight.

Re:Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Until you provide a bit of proof to the contrary, that's it.

So you can turn around call me a liar again? People have been playing that game with me for years.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like people are going to use their new found money to make healthier purchasing choices. What's just as likely to happen is they may splurge on either more junk food or else they may not even spend that money on food at all because they didn't need more then they already had.

Realistically, there are MANY people that need to eat a lot less. I'm not going to google but in America I'd guess there are more people that should be eating less food as opposed to how many need to be eating more.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to enjoy bitching about it. It's not like you have anything better to do with your life.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, I've grown to like you; I wouldn't mind grabbing a beer with you, or a club soda. You're a fascinating character, a case study of how to overcome childhood abuse and making lemonade.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered making protein smoothies ahead of time for breakfast?

Here's my routine. I make up to 20 servings ahead of time in Ziploc containers which I freeze and take out the day before to thaw in the fridge.

1 cup orange juice (debatable; some prefer quality almond milk)
1 scoop (30g) of 50% hemp protein
1 tablespoon flaxseed oil
1 tablespoom flaxseed meal
1 cup berries, like raspberries, blueberries
1 green banana, just starting to ripen. Less sugar that way. If you can peel it, it's ready.

Toss into blender. If you have a smoothie button, use it. Pour into Ziploc small (473ml) container, freeze.

20 servings is good for a month of 5 days a week workout, like biking or gym. Tweak as needed.

Re: Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro tip: don't lie so much, and you won't be called a liar.

Your lies are transparent, contradictory, and unrealistic. Those three things are the reason why people keep "playing that game" with you - because you lack the integrity to speak the truth, and are constantly trying to invent a more exciting reality for yourself.

Sorry, Caramel Apple, you don't get to turn the conversation about your lies into a woe is me litany of how people never believe you.

Re: Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Sorry, Caramel Apple, you don't get to turn the conversation about your lies into a woe is me litany of how people never believe you.

Thr people who do believe me are the first one to run screaming out the door. One fellow didn't even bother to open the screen door first. So believe your own lies, it safer that way.

Re: Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture of me after reading your latest fecality.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to ask if you were stupid but this second sentence erased all doubts.

It's easy to preach gloom and doom out of ignorance.

Re:Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be extremely difficult to get noticeably slimmer from doing cable pulls. If your goal is to get slimmer you should really be doing long and arduous cardio. Running and jogging would be difficult (and maybe dangerous) at your weight. Start with something like a stairmaster at a decent pace. Walking may be an option for you, but you have to go at enough of a pace to feel like you are going to throw up. You have to keep up a pace where you sweat profusely for at least 30-40 minutes. You can get tired from muscle/lifting exercises without really burning many calories. Think long, sustained, arduous, whole body. Basketball or something that you enjoy that fills these criteria would be good.

Re: Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try climbing the ladder and yell "hello", you will understand:
https://noplaceforsheep.files....

Re: Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer wouldn't know how to lie. Proof? Here is a picture of his supervisor talking to him in his office.
https://noplaceforsheep.files....

Re: Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thr people who do believe me are the first one to run screaming out the door. One fellow didn't even bother to open the screen door first.

Yeah, I saw that Tom & Jerry cartoon when I was a kid, too.

Even your lies are unoriginal.

So believe your own lies, it safer that way.

No, I'll keep on believing that the world works the way our understanding of physics, biology, and chemistry says, until I'm offered proof to the contrary. Your bald-faced lies are not facts, though I can see where you might confuse them, since your body is so clogged with glucose and fat that you can't think straight most of the time.

Caramel Apple, you had a moment of lucidity last weekend... now you're crazy again - how do you not see the difference between when you're on and off your meds?

Re: Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

No, I'll keep on believing that the world works the way our understanding of physics, biology, and chemistry says, until I'm offered proof to the contrary.

I'm always overjoyed to hear about people living perfect lives.

[...] you had a moment of lucidity last weekend...

I no love longer play with my trolls on the weekends.

Re: Tech news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always overjoyed to hear about people living perfect lives.

So... because I don't believe assertions that fly in the face of our knowledge of biochemistry and physics, my life is "perfect"? That's a really baffling response, Caramel Apple. Are you going to start warning me about Chemtrails and black helicopters next?

I no love longer play with my trolls on the weekends.

Word salad? Perhaps you're so desperate for love that your subconscious inserts the word in your random hamfisted whinges? We may never know.

Re: Tech news?

[__aaclcg7560]

You're a troll. I'm playing with you. Now run along and lick your balls somewhere else.

Re: Tech news?

[lsatenstein]

Costco better watch out.

Re:Tech news?

[micahraleigh]

The high-end / expensive option is coming down in price and this is a race to the bottom? It's still a lot more than normal market.

5% inflation is good?

Ordinary people who can't easily switch jobs would be hard pressed to agree.

Which corporate shenanigan is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any articles that say why prices dropped so much? Was Wholefoods over pricing (probably), or is Amazon selling at a loss to kill competition (also probably)?

Environment, people and animals

[nodan]

Whole Trade Banana: 30 cents, Lean Ground Beef: $2 - that can't be good for neither the environment nor the people nor the animals.

Much better: buy locally produced stuffed, pay fair prices, eat less meat.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[nospam007]

"Whole Trade Banana: 30 cents, Lean Ground Beef: $2 - that can't be good for neither the environment nor the people nor the animals.

Much better: buy locally produced stuffed"

OK, I'll buy locally produced bananas in Montana, good advice, Sir.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[ledow]

Or, buy the cheapest you can find, because price is intrinsically linked to the number and extent of median processes and it costs less to fly bananas to countries than it does to try to heat greenhouses to grow them in that country.

And then give the difference to Greenpeace or whatever. Or use it to plant your own garden.

Just because you want to save the planet, doesn't mean you need to be a hippie living in a tree.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[houghi]

If you want Bananas, why not move to a Banana Republic. Oh, wait.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[Oswald McWeany]

"Whole Trade Banana: 30 cents, Lean Ground Beef: $2 - that can't be good for neither the environment nor the people nor the animals.

Much better: buy locally produced stuffed"

OK, I'll buy locally produced bananas in Montana, good advice, Sir.

Sorry. No banana for you! Local Produce only.

You live in Montana, you're only allowed to eat potatoes and cabbages and things that grow locally. At least you get to eat beef. People in New York City have to eat pigeons.

Re: Environment, people and animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Once we start getting charged "per mile" for road use, it will become a lot cheaper to buy locally produced goods.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[eddeye]

OK, I'll buy locally produced bananas in Montana, good advice, Sir.

What, you never heard of Banana Montana?

Re:Environment, people and animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let us throw out all the advantages of globalism and reap only the disadvantages.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[apoc.famine]

People in New York City have to eat pigeons.

I believe they're called organic free-range squab there. Only high-end restaurants carry them.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[Sindar By Choice]

Best comment on the board.

Re:Environment, people and animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Montana is clearly in the wrong place.

Yeah, but minimum purchase is 35 USD

[Anonymous Coward]

and that's a lot of bananas!

Re:Yeah, but minimum purchase is 35 USD

[DontBeAMoran]

Thirty-five dollars worth of bananas is barely an appetizer for minions.

Re:Yeah, but minimum purchase is 35 USD

[Oswald McWeany]

and that's a lot of bananas!

Are bananas an add-on item now?

Re:Yeah, but minimum purchase is 35 USD

[Anonymous Coward]

Until we lose the entire line due to genetic non-diversity in bananas.

23%

[Anonymous Coward]

23% markdown on Whole Foods, they are still more expensive than the competition. They have something like 1% market share for groceries. Even the largest seller of groceries (Wal-Mart) only has 16% market share. We are pretty friggin' far from a monopoly in that sector.

Re: 23%

[Anonymous Coward]

This. And if they drop the price for the $8 bottled asparagus water down to $6, then it's still $5 more than I'd pay maximum for plain bottled water.

fixed costs

[Anonymous Coward]

But Whole Foods are prominently located in wealthy high rent areas. And their locations are much more better designed. They actually pay for architects to design their locations instead of building a standard box building.

Oh wow! This is the biggest news ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

No really! The whole world should stop whatever they're doing and rejoice! Syrian rebels? Put down your guns! All you starving Africans? Jump for joy! India? Let the feast begin!

proves the point about Whole Foods

[turkeydance]

being a hipster place to be seen. yes...the prices kept the hoi-polloi out.

So a supermarket just lowered its prices...

[QuietLagoon]

... how in the world is this something that should be a /. article?

Re:So a supermarket just lowered its prices...

[Anonymous Coward]

... how in the world is this something that should be a /. article?

the world's largest provider of cloud computing services makes a major acquisition and you don't think it's tech news?

Re:So a supermarket just lowered its prices...

[QuietLagoon]

the world's largest provider of cloud computing services makes a major acquisition and you don't think it's tech news?

Maybe it is news, albeit old news. But this article is not about cloud computing. It is about a supermarket lowering prices. How is that tech news? When does Amazon stop becoming a tech company, and when does it become a retailer? imo, that transition is nearly complete.

Re:So a supermarket just lowered its prices...

[Anonymous Coward]

When does Amazon stop becoming a tech company,

when does logistics stop being a high tech thing? my god you you are stupid

Re:So a supermarket just lowered its prices...

[Anonymous Coward]

then why are you reading this and posting?

Re:So a supermarket just lowered its prices...

[Pulzar]

Maybe it is news, albeit old news.

The acquisition completed today. It's quite interesting to see what Amazon is going to do, and how quickly they will implement the changes.

But will Amazon get cheaper?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the real question.

Amazon won't be a monopoly

[sjbe]

That's the siren song of growing monopolies - economies of scale let them lower prices significantly below the competition... at least until the competition crumbles.

Amazon is not and probably never will be a monopoly anymore than Walmart is currently. They might be able to set prices in some markets that others follow but they'll (probably) never have so much pricing power that they can drive all competition out of the market. Even Walmart has never been able to drive Target and many others out of business. Not everyone competes on price. Nobody shops at Nordstroms because they are bargain hunting. I'm sure Amazon will drive some marginal competitors out but I don't see any scenario where they drive the strongest competitors out.

Re:Amazon won't be a monopoly

[avandesande]

Walmart is a joke- they have the actual low cost stuff which is cheap junk and the better stuff is more expensive than you would pay somewhere else.

Re:Amazon won't be a monopoly

[stinerman]

You may find this to be interesting. Amazon can't put them all out of business, but they can certainly make them all feel some pain.

Granted Wal-Mart and Target don't truly target the same people, and Amazon will be it's own niche, but it can certainly reduce those companies' profitability considerably.

Re:Amazon won't be a monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an image by someone that doesn't understand the stock market. Market capitalization is something completely different from market share. Market cap is just how much it would take to buy all the shares of a company at the current market price. If some idiot bought Joe's general store in the middle of nowhere for 1 trillion dollars, you would have the same picture except that Joe's would now take up half the picture. A quick peek at the most recent income statement of Wal Mart and Amazon shows Amazon had approx. 135 billion in gross revenue in 2016 while Wal Mart grossed approx. 436 billion. So Amazon the company is selling on the public stock market for twice the price of Wal Mart with a third of the gross revenue. As far as net income goes, lets not even go there. So as far as market share goes, Wal Mart seems to have about triple the retail market share that Amazon does.

TLDR - the picture is easy to misinterpret for those that don't understand the stock market.

Mmmm... Brooklyn Rats (Ground and Sky)

[Anonymous Coward]

And who can resist the Gowanus Canal secret sauce?

On to problem #2

[slashmydots]

But what are they going to do about stupid people who think organic food is better and gluten is going to kill them?

Re:On to problem #2

[PoopJuggler]

We don't need to do anything about them. We need to deal with the stupid people who think chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and GMOs are better.

Re:On to problem #2

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need to do anything about them. We need to deal with the stupid people who think chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and GMOs are better.

Yes it is a scientific fact that they are better you fucking stupid dumbass.

Re:On to problem #2

[erice]

But what are they going to do about stupid people who think organic food is better and gluten is going to kill them?

Why would you need to do anything about them? As a retailer, their job is to exploit customer irrationality for profit.

Aside: the anti-gluten crusade actually has utility for anyone who needs to avoid wheat products. Wheat, especially wheat bran, gives me digestive difficulty. While I'm pretty sure the issue is not gluten, "gluten-free" is a good proxy for "does not contain wheat"

Alas, much "gluten-free" food contains copious amounts of dairy products, which is another food type I have trouble with.

An era is over

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, now that the barrier to entry (high prices) has been removed from Whole Foods, the unwashed masses are sure to pour in. People will fondly remember the old days when nobodies couldn't afford the prices, but the good people could. Kept the place clean, no deplorables, "not a cultural fit" as Google would say. Well, that's all over now. Get ready for Whole Foods food stamp purchases to go way up, and starting to see Wal-Mart shoppers there as well. A sad day, for some of us.

Re:An era is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey so there's a market there to fill now. You can feel free to start the next grocery chain for snobs.

Unlike other dealers...

[magusxxx]

...the first taste isn't free.

Still too expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but like $7 for a pound of fucking beef? That's ridiculously expensive.
Reduced to $5 for a pound? STILL too fucking expensive.

I'd say $3 is maybe a fair price. Not a great price, but a "fair" price.

It used to be that anything incorporating hamburger meant an affordable family meal could be made out of it. It was a thing you used to eat on the super cheap.

Now it's verging on the expensive and a "special treat".

Jesus fucking christ.

But of course, soda and mac and cheese can still be had for absurdly priced. Anythign that is total shit for you is nearly free.

Re:Still too expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but like $7 for a pound of fucking beef? That's ridiculously expensive.
Reduced to $5 for a pound? STILL too fucking expensive.

I'd say $3 is maybe a fair price. Not a great price, but a "fair" price.

1. organic beef is more expensive as it needs a lot of space per head to feed on grasses. and those grasses must be pesticide free. If fed silage and corn, those must be organic and non-GMO(whatever that means)
2. sick cattle are destroyed or sent for lower value pet food. a non-organic operation can use antibiotics more freely and sell heads at full price.
3. the supply for organic beef is lower, but the demand is high. so the people who have more spending power than you get to have better access than you do.

It used to be that anything incorporating hamburger meant an affordable family meal could be made out of it. It was a thing you used to eat on the super cheap.

It's because your grocery store no longer has butchers. The meat packing industry means that cuts that would otherwise be difficult to sell are now sent to industry to make beef stock and the like. Also trimmings that would have been turned into hamburger at a butcher are in far less quantity. And the hamburger you buy today is way leaner.

Now it's verging on the expensive and a "special treat".

Jesus fucking christ.

You might as well buy some of the cheaper cuts of steak and in a smaller quantity and give up on hamburger as a staple.

But of course, soda and mac and cheese can still be had for absurdly priced. Anythign that is total shit for you is nearly free.

Yeah, it's kind of why obesity is way higher in the poor. Cheap food that takes little time to prepare is high calorie but not very good for you. Maybe the poor would have time to cook inexpensive and nutritious meals if they didn't need 2-5 jobs per household to sustain themselves (Dad works 2 jobs, Mom works 1 jobs + keeps house + part time job)

If you want to cut Whole Foods out of the picture. I recommend a garden and optionally chickens or rabbits. Chickens are easier and you'll get a lot of friends if you start giving out eggs. Rabbits taste better and you can trade a few dressed and frozen rabbits for a lot of eggs to someone with chickens. A sunny balcony can grow tomatoes in just about any temperate climate. And if you've priced organic tomatoes you'll realize you can save a lot of money growing them yourself.

PS - my city has 1 million people, so my self reliance suggestions are not something that only applies for those that live in a rural area. Most cities allow gardens and chickens (but not roosters).

Why does cheaper mean lower quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I know the people don't want their store to change, but did you ever consider that perhaps, just maybe, Whole Paycheck is price gouging? You aren't alleviating your while guilt by overpaying and sending money into the corporate coffers. You are an idiot if you think Whole Paycheck isn't a business that intends to make a profit. Do you think they pay (much) more than minimum wage because you are paying more?

Long term thinking

[sjbe]

I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while. Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much? I do not get it!

Because Amazon doesn't chase quarterly profits they can actually do things that benefit the company in the long run. They manage expectations of shareholders and have since they went public. Amazon "isn't profitable" because they reinvest in the company to grow rather than trying to maximize quarterly profits for shareholders who don't give a crap about 10 years from now. They can slash prices because they don't have to feed the earnings monster and can do things to grow Whole Foods in the long term. In reality Amazon could be highly profitable tomorrow if they wanted to be but that probably wouldn't be smart.

Not the same product

[sjbe]

I was just thinking I bought a 6lb pack of 90/10 ground beef at Sams for less than $3.30 a pound, so I fail to see the value in these incredible savings.

I do. Not all ground beef is the same. Criticize Whole Foods prices if you like but it's hard to argue that the quality of their meat (and most other) products isn't also better than Sam's in most cases. Whether it is worth the price difference is a different question but you aren't comparing identical products. It is unlikely your package of Sam's ground beef was organic nor is it likely to be of the highest quality. I've bought plenty of meat from Sam's in years gone by and it's fine but it's not as good a product as I can get at Whole Foods either. Whether that matters to you or not is of course a decision unique to you.

Great logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it's impractical to insist on 100% locally-grown foods, 100% of the time, at 100% of possible locations, this means that any food which IS locally-grown is no better than shipping the same thing half-way around the world.

Impeccable!

Not so simple

[sjbe]

Much better: buy locally produced stuffed, pay fair prices, eat less meat.

Locally produced is not always better nor is it always more environmentally friendly. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. It's also not always cheaper or better for the economy in general. Buying local isn't a bad thing but it isn't the cure all many pretend it is either. Not to mention the fact that a lot of locations don't produce a wide variety of foods locally. Good luck buying locally grown mangoes in Idaho.

Fair prices? That's such an open ended concept that it's hard to know where to start. What do you mean by "fair"? Fair to who? It's easy to say pay more if you are wealthy but a lot of people have a pretty hard time making ends meet. How is it fair to expect a single parent making a low wage to pay high prices in the interest of supporting people she's never met?

Eat less meat? Agreed. Most people should.

Pain isn't bad

[sjbe]

Amazon can't put them all out of business, but they can certainly make them all feel some pain.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Amazon is forcing other companies to improve just like Walmart did and others before them. As long as it is to the benefit of people like you and me then bring on the pain.

Granted Wal-Mart and Target don't truly target the same people, and Amazon will be it's own niche, but it can certainly reduce those companies' profitability considerably.

There is a heck of a lot of overlap and any reduction in their profitability is only to the benefit of you and me most likely. Amazon is going to go head to head with Walmart in a big way. The largest threat to Amazon is probably Walmart getting their Internet sales up to Amazon's level. Combined with the store footprint Walmart has that is a potentially existential threat. That's why Amazon is putting warehouses everywhere and starting to get in bricks and mortar retail. Walmart stores are effectively warehouses and Walmart is VERY good at logistics. Amazon is trying to get local before Walmart figures out ecommerce.

Whole Foods was extremely overpriced before, IMO.

[Futurepower(R)]

"The race to the bottom."

No. Whole Foods was extremely overpriced before, in my opinion. There are many shoppers who don't care about spending money, but they want their food to be "Whole". Wouldn't want to eat Half Food!

For example, there are women who don't like their husbands, but their husbands make a lot of money. Since the two don't talk much, they don't talk about money.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you greenie, I only eat keto.

I have a better idea: disinflation

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices always get lower, our money buys more, and eventually everything is free.

Less money, more data

[DogDude]

You be paying less cash for items, but now even more of your data is being mined. People are just selling all of their shopping habits, their whereabouts, their schedules, etc for a few pennies.

Re:Less money, more data

[Major_Disorder]

You be paying less cash for items, but now even more of your data is being mined. People are just selling all of their shopping habits, their whereabouts, their schedules, etc for a few pennies.

You are probably right. But most people not only do not care, but have no idea why you care.

Re:Less money, more data

[DogDude]

Yeah, well, maybe I'm stupid for caring. Maybe my dignity of not having all of my life's most intimate little details bought and sold by a bunch of mega-corporations isn't worth the savings from buying cheaper toilet paper.

Avocado's number

[rwa2]

Oh, thanks... that sounds about right. I don't enjoy animal fats as much as most other people seem to either, so this makes sense to me. Maybe I just need to find a dish where they're marbled in moderation with the rest of the schlopp... which explains why I likes me some guacamole in burritos but not really alone or as a dip or even as a salad topping.

Mod parent up to +10. Okay, 5.

[Futurepower(R)]

Mod parent up.

Amazon gross revenue, 2016: $135.99 billion.

Walmart gross revenue, 2016: $485.87 billion.

"Gouging"

[GPS Pilot]

Higher prices create an incentive for more Uber drivers to go out and drive -- quickly alleviating an imbalance between supply and demand.

Wouldn't you want lots of Uber drivers to be incentivized to help evacuate a city?

"Gouging" is a populist, and unfortunate, name for the practice.

A monopoly that can't compete with a startup

[GPS Pilot]

no new competition arises, because everyone knows that the minute they enter the market the monopolist can drop prices long enough to drive you out of business, so trying to compete is just an exercise in throwing away your startup investment, which could have been better spent entering a market not dominated by a monopolist.

Obviously that's not always the case. United Launch Alliance had a monopoly on launching U.S. government payloads. Then along came SpaceX, whose low prices ULA is unable to match.

You have to love the attitude of COO Gwynne Shotwell:

Ms. Shotwell was asked why the company claimed to be able to offer its services for 25 per cent of the ULA price. "It's hard for me to say," Ms Shotwell replied. "I don't know how to build a $400 million rocket. The more difficult question would be to say that I don't understand how ULA are as expensive as they are."

Re:A monopoly that can't compete with a startup

[Immerman]

Quite. And that does seem to be the primary vulnerability of monopolists/oligopolists - they eventually get complacent with their massively overinflated profit margins and stop even trying to improve cost effectiveness - that may even be a rational response - it's going to be bad PR if word gets out that you cut launch expenses in half but that only translates to a 5% reduction in customer costs because 90% of the customers cost is "overhead".

Re:Whole Foods was extremely overpriced before, IM

[Doug Jensen]

The "whole paycheck" canard is empty headed. It makes sense to compare prices at different stores for the exact same product. But it does not make sense to label an entire store as being "extremely overpriced" when it sells a lot of expensive products that no other store sells at any price. By that standard, Neiman Marcus is "overpriced" compared with Walmart, when they do not compete.

A store for an "extremely overpriced" lifestyle?

[Futurepower(R)]

For the same product, Whole Foods often charged more, it has seemed to me. Quote from the linked story:

"Some of the new discounts nearly cut prices in half. Bananas, for example, used to be sold for $0.79 a pound. Now they cost $0.49 a pound. The price of local grass-fed 85% lean ground beef went to $6.99 a pound from $10.99."

At Walmart, $4.47 per pound.

Whole Foods charged higher prices for the same product.

However, to me, the real issue is very healthy food at minimum expense. There are many ways to eat wheat. Eating a wheat product that has been processed to seem to justify high expense is not likely to be healthier than a product that required less processing.

Re:A store for an "extremely overpriced" lifestyle

[Doug Jensen]

I agree that sometimes I find what seems to be the identical product priced higher at WF than at my regional grocery store. But I also find the identical product priced higher at the regional store than at WF (my favorite brand of lemonade for example). My objection is that random items priced higher than another grocery store does not rationally qualify WF to be "whole paycheck" since everything I buy simply is not available anywhere else (I don't buy bananas anywhere, I have to take prescription Klor-Con pills and I'm not fond of bananas). Nothing I buy at Neiman Marcus is sold at any other store I have found, so I don't think it should be called "whole paycheck."

Re:A store for an "extremely overpriced" lifestyle

[thecatt]

Local grass-fed 85% lean ground beef is not the same product as pre-packaged "ALL NATURAL*" 85% lean ground beef.