Hacker News Reader

Comment by diputsmonro | Hacker News Reader

"Tolerate" is a funny word, as though consumers actually have a choice about what price they pay and/or can forego buying groceries until prices fall, if ever. I can't simply choose not to eat for an undetermined period of time. Consumers do broadly seem to be upset, but they don't realistically have power to change anything.

View on HN

Consumers making substitutions is how an economy functions. I do not eat caviar toast at every meal, sometimes I have to settle for potatoes. But we are not seeing massive consumer shifts to lower priced options - if anything luxury products and segments are the fastest growing right now.

Because a lot of the people who were wealthy before the pandemic are now even more wealthy.

There has to be a better explanation than extra spending by the wealthy is replacing spending by the poor in such a diverse set of consumer goods and services.

I don't think Bezos and Musk are eating all the eggs and butter, driving up the price.

Im talking about the people who are not struggling right now. All of them.

OK, so you agree that most consumers have more money and therefore are willing to tolerate higher prices.

This seems like the only explanation given that a minority of consumers cant eat all the eggs, beans, and produce to drive the market.

You didn't have that choice before the inflation happened, either. So we're back at the original point, which is the question of what exactly changed in the world to allow more profits.

Nothing changed. Prices in a consolidated market are sticky. Once manufactureres realize they can charge more and make more money, they are going to do that until market forces make them correct.

Thats a contradiction. prices were sticky until they weren't. Something changed if they can charge more in 2023 than in 2003.

Sticky doesn’t imply permanent. They went up legitimately during the covid/supply chain debacle. They haven’t returned because prices are sticky.

The contradiction I was wasn't with sticky, but the statement that "nothing changed". It seems clear that at least one thing changed, namely consumer expectation during the debacle.

The person you were responding to was arguing that that something has changed in the world. It seems you agree and think it is consumer expectation

People are complaining, loudly, about pricing. Demand for staples is just inelastic. Every person I know who isn't making a comfortable salary (6 figs+ in California) constantly complains about having no money and taking a significant QoL hit because of CoL prices.

Complaining does nothing. Shopping behavior does. 99% of goods, even 'staples' have cheaper alternatives that people don't buy.

If they were truly inelastic, there would be no limit to prices

If they were

Prices not returning doesn't cause inflation. If prices returned that would be deflation.

I would accept that if the prices were only confided to necessary foods and good, but it seems to cover most consumption; new cars, luxury items, luxury services, ect.

E.g. profits aren't just coming form raising the price of subsistence rice and beans, but also fillet minion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com