Hacker News Reader

Comment by conchy | Hacker News Reader

I found it interesting that the article didn't mention another explanation: maybe people just don't want to waste food.

Perhaps this dilemma can be viewed as a typical example of classical economic 'homo economicus' vs. behavioral economics theories. Classical economic theory would say any rational human would obviously choose 20 over 10 nuggets for the same price. But behavioral economics typically takes into account other factors that classical models ignore to better explain our seemingly "suboptimal" decisions.

I think maybe 10 nuggets is a reasonable number for one person or two children to eat whereas 20 is obviously too much. In a 'fast food' situation where it's unlikely that leftovers would be saved, people may perhaps be choosing less nuggets to adhere to their very rational believe that (any) food should not go to waste.

View on HN

That's me actually.

I can buy two gallons of milk at Costco for the price of one gallon at my local store. But I don't buy from Costco because the second gallon always goes bad and I throw it out. Throwing out food feels bad.

Anyway, what do I care about the "free" second gallon if I don't actually drink it?

Edit: hey look, a study:

> A series of experiments demonstrates that consumers exhibit aversion to waste during forward-looking purchase. These experiments further reveal that such behavior is driven by distaste for unused utility, a reaction that is shown to be distinct from an aversion to squandering money. Waste aversion is especially pronounced when consumers anticipate future consequences and deprivation is salient. In addition to demonstrating robustness across consumers and marketing contexts, the results also demonstrate how waste aversion can lead to self-defeating behavior in which consumers forego desired utility.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057740811...

> Throwing out food feels bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Interesting, this is very observable in the mating selection area.

I'm not sure this is exactly loss aversion, but perhaps it's related. I would happily give the second gallon of milk to anyone who wanted it for free. That loss would make me feel better, even though I've still lost the second gallon.

You can freeze milk, you know!

My chest freezer has probably been the most economical purchase I have made in the past few years. It sips electricity and keeps (almost) everything as fresh as the day I purchased it.

Frozen milk becomes milk fat and off white water. No thanks

Try blending it once de-thawed if you're experiencing that.

Have you actually experienced this personally? Because I freeze milk routinely, and have never had any problems.

Let it thaw completely of course.

>Let it thaw completely of course.

That seems to be the key with any frozen material.

We were worried that our cheese wasn't freezing properly for the first few weeks, until I realized that a 1-2 day de-thaw inside of a refridgerator was necessarry to bring it back to it's true self.

Cream cheese however never returns to its normal self after freezing. It even says so on the package "do not freeze". The flavor is fine, but it becomes crumbly instead of creamy.

Cottage cheese also freezes badly. Hard cheese does fine though.

Skimmed and semi-skimmed milk tends to freeze better than full fat milk.

I make yogurt with the second gallon. It feels like magic: I get cheaper milk and cheaper yogurt (free modulo a very modest investment of effort).

Agreed. Pour a gallon of milk in a crock pot, heat it to the Right Temp (I forget what that is), add a teaspoon of regular yogurt (for culture), and then let it sit (I forget at what temperature). It's tremendously simple.

You basically want it a little above body temperature. My crock pot is too hot, even on its lowest setting, so I just use it as a dumb insulated water bath. I heat it to about 45 C, turn it off and let jars of milk/culture sit in the bath overnight.

I also boil the milk and then let it cool to 45 C. This achieves a few things: it kills off any other bacteria that may be in the milk and it denatures the milk protein so that it sets thicker. Costco milk is probably pasteurized at a high enough temperature that this isn't necessary, but I've always done it this way.

Yogurt is really forgiving. I've daydreamed a bit about making a temperature regulator for my crock with an Arduino or similar, but it's honestly not necessary. People get good results simply wrapping a jar with towels.

Even if you weren't worried about the environmental (or other) impact of throwing out food, there is clearly a non-zero cost associated with acquiring a second gallon which you will not drink. You have to carry more stuff home, keep more stuff in your refrigerator, worry about and monitor the state of the milk in the refrigerator, and throw away the milk once it's bad. It is very clearly a worse deal in every way.

Which might work with milk (maybe not), but not with the nuggets you buy at Maccas.

> Throwing out food feels bad.

There's a positive side effect where your purchase impacts Costco's sales volume, which impacts their negotiating position with the suppliers, which makes the same product cheaper for everyone else.

You mean, it's better to throw away milk, so you can screw farmers by proxy?

The farmers get to sell more milk.

have to sell more milk.

For an established cow farmer adding additional cows at marginal cost to receive additional revenue is economies of scale. Forcing them to allocate resources to the areas where they don't enjoy economies of scale is likely to raise their cost and not lead to optimal outcome.

> Throwing out food feels bad.

I always thought it was a strategy to train your progeny for the next famine / war.

Instead of the abstract advice "By the way, if your grandchildren are even in a middle of a famine, they should remember to eat all the food they can find."

You give a concrete actionable threat "Eat the last nugget, but now!" and wish it get passed down until it's useful.

I've been doing this for 35 years. I don't recommend it :)

Yep, I agree here. Sounds like to me the article is trying too hard to sound smart in its "research" and "economics", and consequently fails to make some simpler reasonings, such as perhaps they didn't want to waste food. Or in other words: 20pcs for 6.40 is the REAL pricing, they just offer a smaller portion (making them more profit) for the same amount of money, if you so desire.

I so wish more places would let me get a smaller portion, or opt out of certain things, even at the same price.

Yeah, me too. Some places seem to think that they're doing you a favor by heaping mountains of food on a plate. I'm not a big eater (and yet still eat too much...), and I don't like having to send back a half full plate. Just give me a normal portion already; although I've stopped asking for it, because 90% of restaurants have no clue on how to approximate the size of a 'normal' portion, or the concept of 'balance' (half the amount of pasta with the same amount of sauce - thanks but no thanks).

Seem like the article wanted to explain a few cool concepts in an interesting way.

I don't see how there is a contradiction between homo economicus and behavioral economics theories. If people derive disutility from wasting food, then it's perfectly rational to choose 10 nuggets over 20 if you only plan to eat 10 nuggets.

There is a contradiction, you just chose not to see it. Homo economicus assumes that the utility of the person is reflected in price optimization. If you define utility in a circular way, based on the behavior of real humans, then it will become completely meaningless concept.

As far as I can tell, the homo economicus model just describes humans as seeking to maximize their own utility function.

If there is disutility in throwing away 10 nuggets, then it is optimal to order only 10, because there is only utility from 10 either way. The article seems to suggest that people's utility is measured in kcal/dollar - which is silly even to the most socially inept economist.

>Homo economicus assumes that the utility of the person is reflected in price optimization.

But obviously only price optimization between two identical bundles. It only says we'll pick the lower price between bundles A and B if we have the same valuation of them. You may be confused because often intro econ textbooks assume that the marginal value for something never goes negative. But that assumption is broken here.

Chicken nuggets do not have a consistent per-nugget valuation. When purchased ten at a time, they are more valuable per nugget than when purchased twenty at a time. To such a degree, clearly, that even when the twenty nuggets are costed at a much lower unit price they are less attractive.

There are actual challenges to homo economicus and the assumption of rationality, as in this paradox: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/10/12/how-rational-are-y.... But the chicken nugget result is not one of those challenges.

Rather, it becomes "revealed preference theory".

I thought that was part of classical homo economicus. If buying something would cause you some emotional disquiet (because you suspect you're wasting resources), then your willingness to pay for that product is lower, and you won't buy it. So it explains it pretty well. Also, the article mentioned this possibility (that 20 is simply too many) repeatedly.

They also mention (indirectly) that the nuggets themselves are pretty much free. So the cost to McDonalds is the same (largely) for 10 and 20 pieces: labour, energy, rent etc.

I don't think even McDonald's have such good quality control in place that if, say 10 nuggets costs 50 cents, and 20 a dollar, other factors than if people buy 10 or 20 totally dominates the profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com