Dude, ive literally been in meetings where were it was decided to increase prices by 80% based on the zipcode you were from.
It absolutely is normal market behavior. These fuckers pull this kind of shit all the time. Hell during trumps last admin they killed some worker pay thing and immediately businesses gave a bonus to workers that was worth a fraction of what the bill would have given workers as a ploy.
Hell in this thread alone you can see the massive variability of prices based on regions and no, its not because of mysterious market forces. You dont go from 8 to 2 dollars in a couple months due to market forces for a product that has a lead time of 3-4 months (the time it takes for a chicken to mature and produce eggs)
What has happened here is essentially: flu killed off a truck load of chickens, prices sky rocketted due to supply/demand and farmers redirecting to chicken production to restore the supply. Then as the chickens matured prices stabalized back down. And during this period middle men jacked up the prices because they had cover of a supply issue to blame beyond what the reality dictated.
But this took awhile to occur and started well before this admin. Has nothing to do with testing as you asserted with 100% confidence, in fact trsting is how we managed to limited the damage. Nor does it justify 12.99/dozen prices in one region and 4 in another were both regions magically reverted by 50+% to the baseline.
actually that’s quite normal if something like a disease were to come through a region. The variability in price by region is inherent in the deterioration of all food stuffs. It’s why avocados are cheaper in the SW and oranges are cheaper in the SE. Eggs are also regional, but they’re in every region. This is why there’s wildly different prices in eggs, because bird flu might be wreaking havoc 2 states over, but isn’t a big deal where you live.
That being said, eggs dropping 50% and milk by more than 100% in any one market? That is unusual market behavior.
The cost of producing/shipping eggs is basically constant. For example: if I ship go from penn to NYC, and then distribute to the rural areas from the nyc hub. Its cheaper to deliver to the city than the rural areas.
And yet you’ll see prices in NYC are much higher (probably where that $12 figure came from) than the rural areas.
So effectively our production, shipping, real estate, and labor costs are effectively constant in both regions and yet both experience a 200% price increases due to a supply shortage? Sorry fam, but the price isnt reflecting the cost to produce. Its reflecting what businesses think they can get away with.
The fact is prices were jacked up as high as they could get away with for local markets while they had the cover of a supply shortage. And in no way reflects the cost of the actual disruption, and have nothing to do with your absurd original claim about testing or anything to do with market forces unless you count unrestrained greed as a market force.
The USDA covered farmers for their loss of chickens/production the farmers didnt see a fucking penny of these price increases.
Edit: just to be clear, im not saying variability based on region doesnt make sense. Im asserting that in the case of a disruption in production you’d see a constant price increase across the board, since only production was impacted. So NYC would see $0.05 and so would a town in northern NY.
What you absolutely would not see is a 100%+ hike in prices across the board.
Except that that’s not how market adjustments work, buddy. They never go down that abruptly, pal. They adjust slowly to find the happy medium that maximizes profits, guy. That big of a drop in that short of a time isn’t a market adjustment, friendo. You’ve got a lot to learn before you start talking down to people, champ.
Child, we’re both saying it wasnt market forces. But you have made unsubstantiated claims about testing be the source of these drops. Im calling you out as a moron because you are.
The prices increases were pure corporate greed hence why you’re seeing the rapid adjustments. Because the cost of eggs has never reflected the cost of production.
There is no need for gradual price adjustments for fucking eggs. Business’ make contracts for a set period of time precisely to manage the variability that would require gradual adjustments.
You have cost to produce + cost to deliver + storage costs + profit.
All of those are relatively constant over the span of a year except profit. And the only piece impacted by the flu was availability.
And the only way you fix availability is by sourcing from producers with surplus and in no way justifies nyc jump 200+% and a town a few hours north also jumping 200+% when NYC was already 100+% higher due to real estate and labor costs.
What we should have seen in a market based system is NYC goes up by n% and the town goes up by m% where n < m. Which is not what we saw at all. Cities went up more then rural areas.
Which leaves us back to my original statement of: pure corporate greed. And completely debunks your original claims about testing. Never mind the fact some places saw little to no disruption in prices, which also debunks your claims about testing, since thats federally mandated and uniform across the board.
That’s not normal market behavior, something changed.
Dude, ive literally been in meetings where were it was decided to increase prices by 80% based on the zipcode you were from.
It absolutely is normal market behavior. These fuckers pull this kind of shit all the time. Hell during trumps last admin they killed some worker pay thing and immediately businesses gave a bonus to workers that was worth a fraction of what the bill would have given workers as a ploy.
Hell in this thread alone you can see the massive variability of prices based on regions and no, its not because of mysterious market forces. You dont go from 8 to 2 dollars in a couple months due to market forces for a product that has a lead time of 3-4 months (the time it takes for a chicken to mature and produce eggs)
What has happened here is essentially: flu killed off a truck load of chickens, prices sky rocketted due to supply/demand and farmers redirecting to chicken production to restore the supply. Then as the chickens matured prices stabalized back down. And during this period middle men jacked up the prices because they had cover of a supply issue to blame beyond what the reality dictated.
But this took awhile to occur and started well before this admin. Has nothing to do with testing as you asserted with 100% confidence, in fact trsting is how we managed to limited the damage. Nor does it justify 12.99/dozen prices in one region and 4 in another were both regions magically reverted by 50+% to the baseline.
actually that’s quite normal if something like a disease were to come through a region. The variability in price by region is inherent in the deterioration of all food stuffs. It’s why avocados are cheaper in the SW and oranges are cheaper in the SE. Eggs are also regional, but they’re in every region. This is why there’s wildly different prices in eggs, because bird flu might be wreaking havoc 2 states over, but isn’t a big deal where you live.
That being said, eggs dropping 50% and milk by more than 100% in any one market? That is unusual market behavior.
They’re paying people to take milk now?
OJ is at $3/qt here, but a gallon of no name from concentrate is 9.
Sigh, please stop talking you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Here are where eggs are produced in the US
The cost of producing/shipping eggs is basically constant. For example: if I ship go from penn to NYC, and then distribute to the rural areas from the nyc hub. Its cheaper to deliver to the city than the rural areas.
And yet you’ll see prices in NYC are much higher (probably where that $12 figure came from) than the rural areas.
So effectively our production, shipping, real estate, and labor costs are effectively constant in both regions and yet both experience a 200% price increases due to a supply shortage? Sorry fam, but the price isnt reflecting the cost to produce. Its reflecting what businesses think they can get away with.
The fact is prices were jacked up as high as they could get away with for local markets while they had the cover of a supply shortage. And in no way reflects the cost of the actual disruption, and have nothing to do with your absurd original claim about testing or anything to do with market forces unless you count unrestrained greed as a market force.
The USDA covered farmers for their loss of chickens/production the farmers didnt see a fucking penny of these price increases.
Edit: just to be clear, im not saying variability based on region doesnt make sense. Im asserting that in the case of a disruption in production you’d see a constant price increase across the board, since only production was impacted. So NYC would see $0.05 and so would a town in northern NY.
What you absolutely would not see is a 100%+ hike in prices across the board.
Except that that’s not how market adjustments work, buddy. They never go down that abruptly, pal. They adjust slowly to find the happy medium that maximizes profits, guy. That big of a drop in that short of a time isn’t a market adjustment, friendo. You’ve got a lot to learn before you start talking down to people, champ.
Child, we’re both saying it wasnt market forces. But you have made unsubstantiated claims about testing be the source of these drops. Im calling you out as a moron because you are.
The prices increases were pure corporate greed hence why you’re seeing the rapid adjustments. Because the cost of eggs has never reflected the cost of production.
There is no need for gradual price adjustments for fucking eggs. Business’ make contracts for a set period of time precisely to manage the variability that would require gradual adjustments.
You have cost to produce + cost to deliver + storage costs + profit.
All of those are relatively constant over the span of a year except profit. And the only piece impacted by the flu was availability.
And the only way you fix availability is by sourcing from producers with surplus and in no way justifies nyc jump 200+% and a town a few hours north also jumping 200+% when NYC was already 100+% higher due to real estate and labor costs.
What we should have seen in a market based system is NYC goes up by n% and the town goes up by m% where n < m. Which is not what we saw at all. Cities went up more then rural areas.
Which leaves us back to my original statement of: pure corporate greed. And completely debunks your original claims about testing. Never mind the fact some places saw little to no disruption in prices, which also debunks your claims about testing, since thats federally mandated and uniform across the board.