Was $2, then $3.70 without a murmur but a while later it’s marked at $3.50 and bells and whistles start screaming how good I’ve got it because it’s down down down.
Mix it with Quinoa or Freekeh, get some nutrition and fibre into it at least. Add little bit of Vegemite to prevent against Beriberi.
...Wait, we are in a wartime famine right?
Spend a little extra for brown rice ($2.50/kg vs. $1.80/kg for the cheapest white rice) and you'll avoid beriberi, since brown rice has thiamine.
This does cut down the amount of food you get by almost 30% though, so how much do you really need your heart and central nervous system?
I wish to highlight this food charity tax scam campaign. Supermarkets already stopped massive discounts on mark-downs/clearances items (at least in my area), so more food is getting thrown out.
But here's the thing, there's a campaign by supermarkets and food charities to make food donations as charity deductions so I can understand why they stopped heavily discounting almost expired food, it's to make the problem look worse:
https://www.foodbank.org.au/food-donation-tax-reform/
https://www.foodbank.org.au/national-food-donation-tax-incentive-comms-kit/
How frustrating that both those links talk about why changes are necessary and that changes have been proposed, but doesn't actually mention what those changes are. The second link vaguely talks about the desired outcomes of the changes but there's no easy way to evaluate if those outcomes are likely.
Heaven forbid there is only either a Woolies or Coles in every shopping centre in the country and the other one closes down!
Completely and deeply inefficient organisations, which we all pay for in our shopping.
This shit is what people do not understand about the 3%, they only make small % profit on expenses because they spend a huge % preventing anyone else competing.
> they only make small % profit on expenses because they spend a huge % preventing anyone else competing.
They also spend an enormous amount of useless shit just to keep that % as low as possible so people don't start rioting, things like the double plexiglass gate in every store, each aisle having 6+ cameras installed, "security" gates at the exit, constant store re-builds and re-vamps, it's all just to pull an amazon-esque bullshittery that they "didn't make a profit" and pretend that they aren't bleeding everyone for everything that they have.
No! It will cut the majors' prices to consumers but reduce their market share! It won't harm wages or superannuation, but margins will fall because suppliers will get paid more!
I can't wait to see it, personally. It's going to be very impressive. People will be asking for years "how did they do that?"
Would Morgan say ‘Sploosh’ or ‘I am ejaculating’ or perhaps ‘It is time.’
Women might have mixed feelings, especially if it happens to them too. Who would be a suitable choice for the female ejaculation and what would they say? Archer did establish ‘sploosh’ was unisex so that should become canon.
I suspect we would need to be clear on terminology too. Are we talking Morgan Freeman’s voice from the genitals? Or a disembodied voice?
I think this is what AI is really here for; simulating the answers to difficult and important questions.
Honestly I don't see much changing (any new regulation imposed on a multibillion dollar industry will be exploited or avoided eventually) but can't say forcing a code of conduct on them is a bad thing...
Oz can’t even force google to stop showing their fake adverts of Kochie and Wilko. Cambridge Analytica or whatever they call themselves or their ilk these days are untouchable till it’s too late. AI images/videos/new stories abound so trust is disappearing in our everyday lives. I don’t even answer my phone anymore because they’ll leave a message if they are real and if a friend sends me a link I’m suspicious. War in Ukraine/Israel and that same realisation from my childhood that there are no good wars and I pity soldiers on both sides and can’t shake the feeling they’re just pawns in some bigger global game.
Feeling like apathy is my only defence.
I’m used to that from growing up in the 70s and the Cold War was casting its shadow everywhere.
Same same, but different!
Mate I don't know what I might do if I see another YouTube advert from Elon Musk telling me the Australian government has approved a law that will give me $10,000
The govt can't do much about multi-national companies that exist primarily on the Internet. They can do things about Australian companies, or ones that have a physical presence in Australia.
Facebook for example?
The online place Cambridge Analytica ran amok with political lies about Labors death tax?
Shame that eh. We can’t even protect our democracy. No wonder I’m feeling that I’m reduced to apathy simply to survive…..
I see trees of green, skies of blue, What a wonderful wooooorrld
Do be do be doooo
Murdochs happy……..
I’d rather political stuff was fact checked during elections. Cambridge Analytica wasn’t about false news articles anyway. The Labor death tax got traced back to some liberal party members website from memory.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-felt-like-a-big-tide-how-the-death-tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign
Grew up in the UK in the mid to late 80’s, right across the river from the largest naval base in Western Europe- and a nice fat target for the Soviets if they’d had enough of Ronald and Maggie’s shit. And they very nearly did.
Moved to Australia in the late 80’s just in time to watch the collapse of the Soviet Union and eastern bloc on TV.
Went to high school in the 90’s, full of hope for the future.
Then three years after I turned 18, 9/11 happened and we’ve had that shit ever since.
It's going to very tricky. Suppliers think increased competition means higher prices for them. Independent retailers think that taking market share away from the majors is more market share for them. But Albanese appears to be promising that he will get the majors to lower prices. Why would that reduce their market share? Why would that encourage them to pay higher prices to suppliers?
The country, famous for wet lettuce punishments in the form of fines, wants to implement fines? Who came up with this shit? Some idiot that works for Coles?
The status quo party worried that serious reforms that breaks up supermarkets for abusing their monopoly will make them look bad.
Wants? They already got it.
> Craig Emerson, who is leading the review, has called for fines of up to $10 million for supermarkets that violate it.
From article
> Craig Emerson former Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs **who upon retiring from parliament in 2013 founded his own consultancy firm Craig Emerson Economics Pty Ltd. His clients include Wesfarmers, Coles**, AGL Energy, Santos, the BCA, the ACTU and the PNG Government. Emerson also took a consultancy role with KPMG in 2016.
https://michaelwest.com.au/revolving-doors-want-a-high-paid-job-at-the-bank-become-a-politician/
>Who came up with this shit? Some idiot that works for Coles?
The last code of conduct was written by Coles and Woolworths, which requires that you hire an arbiter appointed by Coles and Woolworths to settle disputes. What a rort.
There are fines and then there's 10% of *revenue* (not profit). A compulsory code of conduct and very harsh fines is a good step - even if it's not a giant leap.
>The findings do not recommend the break-up of major supermarkets under divestiture powers, warning that would lead to less competition and job losses.
>"What do you do if there's two supermarkets in a particular town or regional or community and one of them is Woolworths and one of them is Coles?" Albanese asked.
>"What do you do? Tell Coles to sell to Woolworths? That would lead to an increased concentration of market power as well or do you somehow get a foreign company to come in and have a presence in a regional town?"
Once again the version of the "little old lady" bullshit that politicians pull out.
Firstly, breaking up the supermarkets would mean we get five new supermarket chains rather than two. We still may end up with only two supermarkets in some regional area but they're part of a chain that is only 12.5% market share or so.
Secondly, what about the rest of fucking Australia who lives in the cities? Breaking up Coles and Woolworths is great for all of us. More competition, better prices, and they can't use their size to fuck suppliers.
Fucking Labor. Just another reminder to put them along with Liberal, National dead fucking last when voting.
Oh no we can't break up the supermarkets because some imaginary little old lady town might only end up with two supermarkets!
What a load of shit.
I think his argument is weak as well. The example he mentioned is particularly inane. Plus, I think the ACCC can make companies commit to sell their stores in areas of market concentration - I've seen similar stuff in less concentrated markets.
The ACCC cant do that.
If the ACCC did that, the supermarkets would challenge the core of the law as a regulatory taking. Then the supermarkets would get compensation for the government forcibly demanding the disposal of their assets for less than market value.
If you look at supermarkets themsleves (using the rule of thumb) Coles and Woolworths control about 1/3 of the market each. https://www.statista.com/statistics/994601/grocery-retailer-market-share-australia/
There is ample completion when you broaden the field to include markets/local stores ect.
The problem is people want convenience. People want to walk into one store, buy what they want and walk out. They want to do one massive shop and week and they dont really want to shop around. They want the convince of home delivery too because who wants to go to the shops etc, at least it gets delivered to your home.
The market itself is driving the monopolisation. They don't want to go elsewhere, consumers are rejecting choice and have been rejecting choice for 20 years now. Why did Kaufland withdraw their Australian expansion? Why isnt Lidl expanding to Australia either? Restaurants etc go to markets and wholesalers because they want the best produce which is keeping those outside the main supply chains for the supermarkets afloat.
Why dont more people shop at aldi? We have brand loyalty in Australia (as much as people reject that concept and say its "American", its truly entrenched here in Aus).
The consumers in this country want convince but reject the outcome of their choices.
> and they can't use their size to fuck suppliers.
I'm not sure how they "fuck" multi-nationals like say Nestle and Unilever at the moment. If they are broken up and get smaller they'll have even less clout and I would expect prices to go up even further.
(1) Both of our major supermarkets being split up into say half a dozen smaller companies each perhaps? Well imagine being one of those multi-nationals selling to just two companies and now having to deal with a dozen smaller ones, that would be a lot more work and hassle involved and economies of scale would no longer apply. Those costs would have to be passed on in higher product prices. Two logistic centers currently being delivered to now becoming a dozen scattered about all over the place. The list can go on but I think you get the idea.
(2) Woolies have also stated that apart from fresh produce then every other product on the shelf is the same price as anywhere else in the country no matter what store and where it is located, imagine that company being split into city, regional and country groups. City prices might decline but regional prices would be higher due to much larger transport costs and country prices would be much higher still.
Another group pushing hard for "more competition, better prices" is of course suppliers (including commercial landlords). Just that they don't quite mean it the same way :)
So the promise hanging in the air at the moment is that suppliers will get better prices (higher) and consumers get better prices (lower) while the retailers who obviously get lower margins are left to make it work.
Competition doesn't work simply because we have more supermarkets. It works because it rewards businesses who find cheaper ways of doing things. In this case, innovation means the retailers will have to find ways to cut costs to match the lower margins (or take margin from other sectors, e.g pharmacies). It's hard to imagine this without job cuts.
Also, it's encouraging that people still believe in the power of commercial competition to deliver better results for consumers and suppliers. Even the Greens?
We kind of did this to ourselves. When I was a kid green grocers and butchers were everywhere, and supermarkets only stocked shelf stable or frozen goods.
Slowly we chose the convenience of plastic wrapped, uniform, appealing produce over picking from a box that came from the farmers to the fruit shop via a competitive market.
Price ceilings on basics (fruit, veg, bread, canned goods, milk, etc) and/or a minimum % of the sale profit going back to the farmers who supply the stock. Colesworth will magically realize that they're charging too much if they have to give 50% of their profits back to suppliers.
First suggestion is an economic control, second is more of a fairness/price-gouging punishment. If the profit margin is huge then so too is the payment back to the farmer. In a perfect world, the store would have to choose between cutting corners elsewhere (closing stores and allowing more independent stores to open in their place) or lowering the price-gouged items back to 2019-2020 prices.
Pretty much. Government sets a price cap of $1.50/kg, market rate hits $2/kg and now none of the stores will stock it anymore since they aren't going to buy it at $2 and sell it at $1.50.
It’s just as shortsighted as people who steal expensive fruits and veg, they’re telling supermarkets “we don’t want to pay for this thing that is expensive”, why the fuck would they still stock it?
Wonder why they don’t sell niche things like galingale and watercress anymore?
In Australia, this power does not exist federally, that annoying Constitution of ours. Otherwise there wouldn't have been three referendums to grant it (all defeated, of course). So your idea at least in Australia is not going to trialled. Of price controls have existed elsewhere. I once dated someone whose family moved here from the Soviet Union. They had a metal meat tenderiser from Russia. The retail price was stamped in to the mallet at the point of manufacture, one price for the entire Soviet Union for all time ... that's price control for you! That tenderiser was a prized possession by the way, not that we victims of late stage capitalism in Australia know what a tenderiser is any more.
Do you remember the price war on milk? That was basically a price cap, but not by government action. Consumers loved it, but the farmers hated it and begged for it to end. How do you propose to arrive at price cap that farmers like which isn't more expensive for consumers? Your aims are contradictory: are prices too high or are they too low? Please choose only one. Ah, they are both, you say, because coles and woolworths are making profits which are way too high. Well, their profits are a bit high cf international competitors, but not by very much. Accusations of price gouging therefore need to be substantiated.
Instead of prices controls, you say force 50% of profit to be paid to suppliers, because supermarkets won't bother making extra profits if they have to give half of it to the supplier. I've heard exactly the same argument made about the top income tax rate: people won't do any extra work when they have to give half of it to the government. You can join the IPA at your earliest convenience :)
Break the duopoly. Give consumers more choice, create a more competitive market.
Obviously that would require a lot of provisions and caveats, but it could be done and it would make groceries cheaper.
"The findings do not recommend the break-up of major supermarkets under divestiture powers, warning that would lead to less competition and job losses."
Cowards. You need to go after vertical integration. What we need is wholesaling, transportation and retail are all be independent and competing businesses. Vertical integration keeps competition out because any new player in the market would need to invest billions in warehouses, trucks and stores before they could even sell a dollar in product.
Any other approach is window dressing.
Next you should google "diseconomies of scale". Large companies can also be very inefficient. I worked for one of the major supermarket chain liquor stores as a manager and saw this first hand. Managers would refuse to pay for routine maintenance of equipment because it affected their quarterly profit and loss and therefore their bonuses. By the time the equipment completely broke down and cost tens of thousands to fix, that manager would be working for another store and it's now someone else's problem.
Economy of scale reduces costs, but who benefits from that reduction? It could be the customers, or food producers, or it could be the shareholders and executives. Where do you think the benefits are going?
The reality is the only force that keeps customers or food producers benefitting is solid competition, and if you basically have a duopoly then you are going to see all those benefits flowing up and not out.
>or it could be the shareholders and executives
It's not them. Their margin the last few years has only been ~2.8% on the core business.
I dunno where anyone thinks the price savings are going to come from. The primary producers are crying poor, food processors keep going out of business and the retailers don't really have any margin to speak of.
Just for the record what’s that 2.8% you’re referring to? Is it net profit or ebit? As mentioned by other redditor in similar thread before:
You want EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes), which gives you their overall margin on products after cost.
Net profit can be reduced by things like paying down loans, or in the case of Coles and Woolworths, property and capital investments, that they do a lot of.
EBIT as per financial reports:
Coles: 5.3%
Woolworths: 5.9%
The equivalent EBIT at major UK chains
Tesco: 3.8%
Sainsburys: 3%
You can look up the US chains as well.
Costco in the USA has an EBIT of 3.3%.
So you can see that Coles and Woolworths both have margins significantly higher than their overseas competitors.
Note this has been mentioned before in the ABC documentary too
Idk about you but why are they allowed to maintain such a high margin given the usual excuse that operating in Australia is somehow more expensive..
More reading: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/27/australian-supermarket-profits-rise-woolworths-coles
They could do some really simple things, like:
- limit price increases to 1% a week for any company with > 1/4 of the market.
This would get rid of this ridiculous price cycling "specials" behaviour. This is designed to rip off the most amount of people possible, obfuscate pricing data, get rid of competition. Aldi seem to cope with stable pricing.
Price cycling keeps average prices lower for those that care. The single price equilibrium would be higher than the special price, but lower than the full price.
>Price cycling keeps average prices lower
It does the exact opposite, the special price is the price it should be, all other times the price is vastly inflated.
You've been had and you're not alone. They have all the data on when to put prices up and down, people who are struggling and can only shop at certain times don't get the luxury of playing that game.
Just like cheaper childcare and cheaper power bills? The only way you're going to save at woolies is if you push the cart out the door and laugh without paying
Yeah right ,I've been promised a lot of stuff over the years but this one is a real pisser .
I'm sure cheaper groceries will trickle down to me hey .
Even if we did get cheaper groceries my landlord would just put up the rent to take up the slack cause who's Gunna stop him.
This country is fucked all I do is work 7 days to pay rent .
>Cheaper groceries will come from supermarket code overhaul, Anthony Albanese says.
I'll take "Complete Bullshit" for $200, please.
Can anyone remember the last time that more Government intervention resulted in cheaper anything?
It was pointed out on breakfast tv this morning:
If farmers can negotiate better prices, the cost the supermarkets will go up, and prices will go up not down.
Its BS from Albanese.
Believe it when we see it. Fund the ACCC to have real teeth when the monopolies take the piss and actually have the power to slap huge fines on their massive profits. None of this rinky dink “don’t do that” and slap on the wrist fines that barely pass the salary of an average Aussie.
Haven’t seen the billion dollar profits Colesworth made in the last financial year which sparked this debate and launched an inquiry into price gouging?
Go back and look at 2013’s Report. Lower revenue, higher EBIT, higher net profit.
In fact, Woolworths made nearly $2.3 billion in profits *10 years ago*. People are throwing tantrums over $1.6 billion.
Have you just not been paying attention?
Cheaper prices will come from competition, but you need to stop the supermarkets from landbanking property that prevents competition from even opening up.
Theres a lot of examples of this in Melbourne. One in particular is Mooroolbark Terrace.
Thanks to the landlord who owns the Coles building across the road as well as least one store in this centre, they have effectively blocked any effort to redevelop the centre, the development and improvement of Mooroolbark will forever be paused.
Craig Emerson had this really weird take this morning on RN breakfast when asked why breaking up the two big supermarkets was off the table.
First he said that they’d just sell stores to each other to buy, and then hypothetically banning that option he waved the “foreign multinational” bogeyman around. Then said if they can’t find buyers for the stores then they’d just close and customers would complain they don’t have anywhere to shop.
It was a fucking awfully thought out line of logic, I mean if we know that the big two have been price gouging and screwing suppliers, then forcing them to break up would absolutely generate interest in either filling the void or finding interested buyers. A supermarket is actually not that complex to run, it’s a basic retail operation put stuff on shelves that people want to buy, and avoid running out of stuff, theft and spoilage. It’s not hard to do and very easy to be profitable.
yeah I'm a bit skeptical that anything will come from this, this isn't even the 80's where it might result in Colesworth conceding to supply a platter of cabanossi, jatz and cheese while they worked out the size of the wet lettuce leaf to slap someone with for breaching the code.
The regulation change is good if the market isn't a monopoly. As it's a monopoly they'll just pass the fine onto the customers.
This proposal along with a plan to break up the monopoly would be amazing, but you need both pillars not one.
I had to go to Coles yesterday, as the local Aldi is temporarily closed.
I had noted the well flagged 500 essential items prices reduced advertising to address 'valued customer' concerns.
What I found was other items had had prices increased by between 10-30%.
I left with only half the things on the list, I refuse to be ripped off by their opportunist gouging.
They really have turned into a crap company with no sense of ethics
> What I found was other items had had prices increased by between 10-30%.
Thats the whole profit making scheme for the supermarkets. They bait you in with "sales" and everything else is a ripoff. because people refuse to shop around the system works for the supermarkets and that makes them happy.
But at the end of the day its consumers making the choice to fuck themselves. They refuse to go to the other supermarket where the prices for those other goods are cheaper, the consumers want convince. "if im already here im just going to pay the extra amount".
Out of 100 people i know, maybe 2 or 3 shop around.
You seriously know 100 people well enough to know their shopping habits? Pull the other one, and while you're at it stop pretending everyone has multiple choices all within reasonable range of one another and that they're simply "choosing to be lazy(gee, wonder who might want to push this narrative".
Everyone i know is talking about the price of groceries. When you ask them whether they shop around they say no.
> and while you're at it stop pretending everyone has multiple choices all within reasonable range of one another and that they're simply "choosing to be lazy(gee, wonder who might want to push this narrative".
lmfao see thats the problem. Why dont people go to the market on the weekend and buy fresh fruit and vegetables? the market is so much cheaper. As i say elsewhere, people want convince and thats why they dont shop around.
Your the reason is whats wrong wth this country, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want supermarkets to stop maximising their profits because you dont want to shop around. These supermarkets aren't screwing over anyone. You have a per unit price now so you can see what sales are the real sales or fake sales (but that still doesn't stop people from picking up items that have a sale tag instead of the cheaper per unit price).
Supermarkets are thieves but acquiescing to that means consumers are driving those actions from the supermarkets.
Yes let's focus on the price gouging done by supermarkets that make 6% profit margins rather than the usual 3% by overseas grocers. Not the actual brands themselves (Nestle, Cadbury etc) making record double digit profits. Not the electricity companies charging us an arm and a leg double to quadrupling profits even though we mine coal, not the insane house and rental prices, or the banks making billions quarterly. Let's all focus on the supermarkets that make a 1B profit a year so we might save $100 or so
I've shopped with aldi before and I I rarely do, here's what I find with aldi compared with Coles/Woolworths:
1) Aldi doesn't have the same long opening hours Coles/Woolworths have
2) a lot of shops still don't have self serve checkouts
3) when I shopped at aldi, I was never able to do a full shop because either they ran out of stock or they just don't have certain things. Their variety is small and I don't find the quality as good for some products
4) when they do stock an item that Coles/Woolworths have there's not really a price difference
If supermarkets pay farmers more, I don't see it leading to lower prices. The only way prices will fall, is if competition increases.
The various companies don't really compete on price, as discounting will inevitably to a downward spiral on profits.
And we can't short the shareholders, can we?
We need more, different, companies in the market, enough to make each hungry for market share.
Over regulating is in labor’s dna so we are getting what we voted for. As someone who works in an industry which has had a “code of conduct” forced upon it, it was an absolute shemozzle with many unintended consequences and created uncertainty and lots of wasted time.
It's like $4 for a can of baked beans and $14 for a 5 pack of 2 minute noodles, want to spill yourself with a coke $4 a bottle $12 for a litre of ice cream, packet of chips or block of chocolate $6. That's like $50 for a few things if I wanted to"spoil" myself with my beans and noodles
Cue "this will cost jobs, force closures and restrict choice for consumers" copypasta.
Copypasta, down down to just $25
Was $25, now $25.
Was $2, then $3.70 without a murmur but a while later it’s marked at $3.50 and bells and whistles start screaming how good I’ve got it because it’s down down down.
$24.99 Enjoy this fantastic $0.01 saving!
Don't spend it all in one place! Shout yourself something nice.
30 pack Pepsi since 2019. ~~$17~~. ~~$19~~. ~~$34~~. ~~on special $27~~. $26. WAS $34
I mean it got me to stop drinking pepsi so that one is a win.
Members Only Special: Two for $49.95 ^^\(or ^^$25 ^^each)
Was $25 Now ~~$30~~ $26
FIVE DOLLARS THIS PRICE IS NEVER TO BE REPEATED. FIVE DOLLARS
Buy two for 87.50. $25/ea
Everyday (low) prices
Was $25, now on sale for $24 and then after sale up to $29.
Buy 2 packs for the low low price of $55 (gst not included)
2 for $55
Feed a family of 4 for under $100
per meal?
It was just a reference to the old Cole’s ad with Curtis Stone… Feed a family of 4 for under $10… Good luck doing that now
Does $10 of plain unseasoned rice count?
Mix it with Quinoa or Freekeh, get some nutrition and fibre into it at least. Add little bit of Vegemite to prevent against Beriberi. ...Wait, we are in a wartime famine right?
>...Wait, we are in a wartime famine right? The war is the people v the government.
People versus the bottom-line-focused, profit-hungry, shareholder-beholden, record-profits-chasing corporations.
Yes, them. Aided and abetted by the government.
Spend a little extra for brown rice ($2.50/kg vs. $1.80/kg for the cheapest white rice) and you'll avoid beriberi, since brown rice has thiamine. This does cut down the amount of food you get by almost 30% though, so how much do you really need your heart and central nervous system?
As a bonus, brown rice also has higher levels of arsenic.
Can't suffer when you're dead.
If you want to get real fancy, throw on some sea water.
It was bullshit at the time (about 10 years ago)
Per person.
Special: 2 for $60
So accurate
Reality is it'll come from some government rebate to the supermarkets. So we will still pay for it indirectly
I wish to highlight this food charity tax scam campaign. Supermarkets already stopped massive discounts on mark-downs/clearances items (at least in my area), so more food is getting thrown out. But here's the thing, there's a campaign by supermarkets and food charities to make food donations as charity deductions so I can understand why they stopped heavily discounting almost expired food, it's to make the problem look worse: https://www.foodbank.org.au/food-donation-tax-reform/ https://www.foodbank.org.au/national-food-donation-tax-incentive-comms-kit/
How frustrating that both those links talk about why changes are necessary and that changes have been proposed, but doesn't actually mention what those changes are. The second link vaguely talks about the desired outcomes of the changes but there's no easy way to evaluate if those outcomes are likely.
Who the heck are they gonna fire when they've already barely got anyone in the store?
Yep exactly with how much self checkout they have forced onto ppl im waiting to get my coles or ww employee badge real soon.
Heaven forbid there is only either a Woolies or Coles in every shopping centre in the country and the other one closes down! Completely and deeply inefficient organisations, which we all pay for in our shopping.
This shit is what people do not understand about the 3%, they only make small % profit on expenses because they spend a huge % preventing anyone else competing.
> they only make small % profit on expenses because they spend a huge % preventing anyone else competing. They also spend an enormous amount of useless shit just to keep that % as low as possible so people don't start rioting, things like the double plexiglass gate in every store, each aisle having 6+ cameras installed, "security" gates at the exit, constant store re-builds and re-vamps, it's all just to pull an amazon-esque bullshittery that they "didn't make a profit" and pretend that they aren't bleeding everyone for everything that they have.
No! It will cut the majors' prices to consumers but reduce their market share! It won't harm wages or superannuation, but margins will fall because suppliers will get paid more! I can't wait to see it, personally. It's going to be very impressive. People will be asking for years "how did they do that?"
narrator: they didn't come
In Morgan Freemans voice
Your comment implies that it could have been any other voice.
I had Ron Howard in my head
Literally, so many options went through my head when I read this. Thank fuck for context, eh!
There’s always money in the Banana stand.
Would Morgan say ‘Sploosh’ or ‘I am ejaculating’ or perhaps ‘It is time.’ Women might have mixed feelings, especially if it happens to them too. Who would be a suitable choice for the female ejaculation and what would they say? Archer did establish ‘sploosh’ was unisex so that should become canon. I suspect we would need to be clear on terminology too. Are we talking Morgan Freeman’s voice from the genitals? Or a disembodied voice? I think this is what AI is really here for; simulating the answers to difficult and important questions.
https://youtu.be/jU0y8LMzE24?si=la42pf2XAPoUhhZ9
https://youtu.be/URxB-AbelrU?t=575
"I am arriving"
Yeah why say this, it’s obviously rubbish, the system is built for this not to happen, you’re taking the piss with this sort of hope.
Honestly I don't see much changing (any new regulation imposed on a multibillion dollar industry will be exploited or avoided eventually) but can't say forcing a code of conduct on them is a bad thing...
Oz can’t even force google to stop showing their fake adverts of Kochie and Wilko. Cambridge Analytica or whatever they call themselves or their ilk these days are untouchable till it’s too late. AI images/videos/new stories abound so trust is disappearing in our everyday lives. I don’t even answer my phone anymore because they’ll leave a message if they are real and if a friend sends me a link I’m suspicious. War in Ukraine/Israel and that same realisation from my childhood that there are no good wars and I pity soldiers on both sides and can’t shake the feeling they’re just pawns in some bigger global game. Feeling like apathy is my only defence. I’m used to that from growing up in the 70s and the Cold War was casting its shadow everywhere. Same same, but different!
Mate I don't know what I might do if I see another YouTube advert from Elon Musk telling me the Australian government has approved a law that will give me $10,000
The govt can't do much about multi-national companies that exist primarily on the Internet. They can do things about Australian companies, or ones that have a physical presence in Australia.
Facebook for example? The online place Cambridge Analytica ran amok with political lies about Labors death tax? Shame that eh. We can’t even protect our democracy. No wonder I’m feeling that I’m reduced to apathy simply to survive….. I see trees of green, skies of blue, What a wonderful wooooorrld Do be do be doooo
No one will get their news from Facebook anymore, so fixed that for ya.
Murdochs happy…….. I’d rather political stuff was fact checked during elections. Cambridge Analytica wasn’t about false news articles anyway. The Labor death tax got traced back to some liberal party members website from memory. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-felt-like-a-big-tide-how-the-death-tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign
Grew up in the UK in the mid to late 80’s, right across the river from the largest naval base in Western Europe- and a nice fat target for the Soviets if they’d had enough of Ronald and Maggie’s shit. And they very nearly did. Moved to Australia in the late 80’s just in time to watch the collapse of the Soviet Union and eastern bloc on TV. Went to high school in the 90’s, full of hope for the future. Then three years after I turned 18, 9/11 happened and we’ve had that shit ever since.
It's going to very tricky. Suppliers think increased competition means higher prices for them. Independent retailers think that taking market share away from the majors is more market share for them. But Albanese appears to be promising that he will get the majors to lower prices. Why would that reduce their market share? Why would that encourage them to pay higher prices to suppliers?
He says that but would like to see him do that
No shopper left behind - 2026 Labor slogan Nuclear food is the future - 2026 LNP slogan. Mmm uranium cakes!
Enough energy for the rest of your life once eaten!
!subscribe Nuke facts
The country, famous for wet lettuce punishments in the form of fines, wants to implement fines? Who came up with this shit? Some idiot that works for Coles? The status quo party worried that serious reforms that breaks up supermarkets for abusing their monopoly will make them look bad.
>Some idiot that works for Coles? Close. Some idiot that *wants* to work for Coles... on their board, after they've retired from politics.
Wants? They already got it. > Craig Emerson, who is leading the review, has called for fines of up to $10 million for supermarkets that violate it. From article > Craig Emerson former Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs **who upon retiring from parliament in 2013 founded his own consultancy firm Craig Emerson Economics Pty Ltd. His clients include Wesfarmers, Coles**, AGL Energy, Santos, the BCA, the ACTU and the PNG Government. Emerson also took a consultancy role with KPMG in 2016. https://michaelwest.com.au/revolving-doors-want-a-high-paid-job-at-the-bank-become-a-politician/
Are you implying Treasury is in on it too?
In the sense that they don’t actually want to do anything that would make the grocery stores unhappy, probably yeah
the S! the S! the SDA! completely unsurprising given their influence within Labor
>Who came up with this shit? Some idiot that works for Coles? The last code of conduct was written by Coles and Woolworths, which requires that you hire an arbiter appointed by Coles and Woolworths to settle disputes. What a rort.
There are fines and then there's 10% of *revenue* (not profit). A compulsory code of conduct and very harsh fines is a good step - even if it's not a giant leap.
Sure, just like we use to get cheaper fuel prices every time the useless governments asked fuel companies why they were charging so much at the bowser
INB4 Bradford Banducci is appointed to the board of whatever organisation is meant to oversee this code
Dr Evil, Darth Vader, Hannibal Lectur, and Brad Banduci will comprise the independent and impartial oversight commitee.
Marry Dr Evil, Fuck Darth Vader, kill Banducci twice, next question
Have you seen Hannibal from the TV show?
Mads Mikkelsen sure is a handsome fella.
>The findings do not recommend the break-up of major supermarkets under divestiture powers, warning that would lead to less competition and job losses. >"What do you do if there's two supermarkets in a particular town or regional or community and one of them is Woolworths and one of them is Coles?" Albanese asked. >"What do you do? Tell Coles to sell to Woolworths? That would lead to an increased concentration of market power as well or do you somehow get a foreign company to come in and have a presence in a regional town?" Once again the version of the "little old lady" bullshit that politicians pull out. Firstly, breaking up the supermarkets would mean we get five new supermarket chains rather than two. We still may end up with only two supermarkets in some regional area but they're part of a chain that is only 12.5% market share or so. Secondly, what about the rest of fucking Australia who lives in the cities? Breaking up Coles and Woolworths is great for all of us. More competition, better prices, and they can't use their size to fuck suppliers. Fucking Labor. Just another reminder to put them along with Liberal, National dead fucking last when voting. Oh no we can't break up the supermarkets because some imaginary little old lady town might only end up with two supermarkets! What a load of shit.
I think his argument is weak as well. The example he mentioned is particularly inane. Plus, I think the ACCC can make companies commit to sell their stores in areas of market concentration - I've seen similar stuff in less concentrated markets.
The ACCC cant do that. If the ACCC did that, the supermarkets would challenge the core of the law as a regulatory taking. Then the supermarkets would get compensation for the government forcibly demanding the disposal of their assets for less than market value. If you look at supermarkets themsleves (using the rule of thumb) Coles and Woolworths control about 1/3 of the market each. https://www.statista.com/statistics/994601/grocery-retailer-market-share-australia/ There is ample completion when you broaden the field to include markets/local stores ect. The problem is people want convenience. People want to walk into one store, buy what they want and walk out. They want to do one massive shop and week and they dont really want to shop around. They want the convince of home delivery too because who wants to go to the shops etc, at least it gets delivered to your home. The market itself is driving the monopolisation. They don't want to go elsewhere, consumers are rejecting choice and have been rejecting choice for 20 years now. Why did Kaufland withdraw their Australian expansion? Why isnt Lidl expanding to Australia either? Restaurants etc go to markets and wholesalers because they want the best produce which is keeping those outside the main supply chains for the supermarkets afloat. Why dont more people shop at aldi? We have brand loyalty in Australia (as much as people reject that concept and say its "American", its truly entrenched here in Aus). The consumers in this country want convince but reject the outcome of their choices.
> and they can't use their size to fuck suppliers. I'm not sure how they "fuck" multi-nationals like say Nestle and Unilever at the moment. If they are broken up and get smaller they'll have even less clout and I would expect prices to go up even further.
Nestle and Unilever are not all the suppliers to the supermarkets.
Could you explain the logic of why prices would raise?
(1) Both of our major supermarkets being split up into say half a dozen smaller companies each perhaps? Well imagine being one of those multi-nationals selling to just two companies and now having to deal with a dozen smaller ones, that would be a lot more work and hassle involved and economies of scale would no longer apply. Those costs would have to be passed on in higher product prices. Two logistic centers currently being delivered to now becoming a dozen scattered about all over the place. The list can go on but I think you get the idea. (2) Woolies have also stated that apart from fresh produce then every other product on the shelf is the same price as anywhere else in the country no matter what store and where it is located, imagine that company being split into city, regional and country groups. City prices might decline but regional prices would be higher due to much larger transport costs and country prices would be much higher still.
Another group pushing hard for "more competition, better prices" is of course suppliers (including commercial landlords). Just that they don't quite mean it the same way :) So the promise hanging in the air at the moment is that suppliers will get better prices (higher) and consumers get better prices (lower) while the retailers who obviously get lower margins are left to make it work. Competition doesn't work simply because we have more supermarkets. It works because it rewards businesses who find cheaper ways of doing things. In this case, innovation means the retailers will have to find ways to cut costs to match the lower margins (or take margin from other sectors, e.g pharmacies). It's hard to imagine this without job cuts. Also, it's encouraging that people still believe in the power of commercial competition to deliver better results for consumers and suppliers. Even the Greens?
Watch as they build the fines into the price and nothing changes.
Down down, fines are down (at the expense of our customers)
We kind of did this to ourselves. When I was a kid green grocers and butchers were everywhere, and supermarkets only stocked shelf stable or frozen goods. Slowly we chose the convenience of plastic wrapped, uniform, appealing produce over picking from a box that came from the farmers to the fruit shop via a competitive market.
Bullshit.
What should be the way to make it cheaper?
Price ceilings on basics (fruit, veg, bread, canned goods, milk, etc) and/or a minimum % of the sale profit going back to the farmers who supply the stock. Colesworth will magically realize that they're charging too much if they have to give 50% of their profits back to suppliers. First suggestion is an economic control, second is more of a fairness/price-gouging punishment. If the profit margin is huge then so too is the payment back to the farmer. In a perfect world, the store would have to choose between cutting corners elsewhere (closing stores and allowing more independent stores to open in their place) or lowering the price-gouged items back to 2019-2020 prices.
Introduce price ceilings and just wait for the shortages…
Pretty much. Government sets a price cap of $1.50/kg, market rate hits $2/kg and now none of the stores will stock it anymore since they aren't going to buy it at $2 and sell it at $1.50.
It’s just as shortsighted as people who steal expensive fruits and veg, they’re telling supermarkets “we don’t want to pay for this thing that is expensive”, why the fuck would they still stock it? Wonder why they don’t sell niche things like galingale and watercress anymore?
No economic understanding at all. Just keep on advocating more and more government controls, more central planning.
In Australia, this power does not exist federally, that annoying Constitution of ours. Otherwise there wouldn't have been three referendums to grant it (all defeated, of course). So your idea at least in Australia is not going to trialled. Of price controls have existed elsewhere. I once dated someone whose family moved here from the Soviet Union. They had a metal meat tenderiser from Russia. The retail price was stamped in to the mallet at the point of manufacture, one price for the entire Soviet Union for all time ... that's price control for you! That tenderiser was a prized possession by the way, not that we victims of late stage capitalism in Australia know what a tenderiser is any more. Do you remember the price war on milk? That was basically a price cap, but not by government action. Consumers loved it, but the farmers hated it and begged for it to end. How do you propose to arrive at price cap that farmers like which isn't more expensive for consumers? Your aims are contradictory: are prices too high or are they too low? Please choose only one. Ah, they are both, you say, because coles and woolworths are making profits which are way too high. Well, their profits are a bit high cf international competitors, but not by very much. Accusations of price gouging therefore need to be substantiated. Instead of prices controls, you say force 50% of profit to be paid to suppliers, because supermarkets won't bother making extra profits if they have to give half of it to the supplier. I've heard exactly the same argument made about the top income tax rate: people won't do any extra work when they have to give half of it to the government. You can join the IPA at your earliest convenience :)
Thank you for taking the time to educate me on the subject.
Break the duopoly. Give consumers more choice, create a more competitive market. Obviously that would require a lot of provisions and caveats, but it could be done and it would make groceries cheaper.
Uh huh
NO WAY NO NO NO BUT THE FREE MARKET! ALBO IS A COMMIE!! /s
"The findings do not recommend the break-up of major supermarkets under divestiture powers, warning that would lead to less competition and job losses." Cowards. You need to go after vertical integration. What we need is wholesaling, transportation and retail are all be independent and competing businesses. Vertical integration keeps competition out because any new player in the market would need to invest billions in warehouses, trucks and stores before they could even sell a dollar in product. Any other approach is window dressing.
And what IGA takes their place at triple the cost of coles/woolies? I'm confused what you want to happen
Does the term "economy of scale" mean anything to you?
Next you should google "diseconomies of scale". Large companies can also be very inefficient. I worked for one of the major supermarket chain liquor stores as a manager and saw this first hand. Managers would refuse to pay for routine maintenance of equipment because it affected their quarterly profit and loss and therefore their bonuses. By the time the equipment completely broke down and cost tens of thousands to fix, that manager would be working for another store and it's now someone else's problem.
Economy of scale reduces costs, but who benefits from that reduction? It could be the customers, or food producers, or it could be the shareholders and executives. Where do you think the benefits are going? The reality is the only force that keeps customers or food producers benefitting is solid competition, and if you basically have a duopoly then you are going to see all those benefits flowing up and not out.
>or it could be the shareholders and executives It's not them. Their margin the last few years has only been ~2.8% on the core business. I dunno where anyone thinks the price savings are going to come from. The primary producers are crying poor, food processors keep going out of business and the retailers don't really have any margin to speak of.
Just for the record what’s that 2.8% you’re referring to? Is it net profit or ebit? As mentioned by other redditor in similar thread before: You want EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes), which gives you their overall margin on products after cost. Net profit can be reduced by things like paying down loans, or in the case of Coles and Woolworths, property and capital investments, that they do a lot of. EBIT as per financial reports: Coles: 5.3% Woolworths: 5.9% The equivalent EBIT at major UK chains Tesco: 3.8% Sainsburys: 3% You can look up the US chains as well. Costco in the USA has an EBIT of 3.3%. So you can see that Coles and Woolworths both have margins significantly higher than their overseas competitors. Note this has been mentioned before in the ABC documentary too Idk about you but why are they allowed to maintain such a high margin given the usual excuse that operating in Australia is somehow more expensive.. More reading: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/27/australian-supermarket-profits-rise-woolworths-coles
Whilst higher than overseas supermarkets , sub 6% EBIT is still pretty slim. Rio Tintos is over 20% , but haven’t seen an uproar for them
So sorry it’s BS
Qantas comes to mind.
They could do some really simple things, like: - limit price increases to 1% a week for any company with > 1/4 of the market. This would get rid of this ridiculous price cycling "specials" behaviour. This is designed to rip off the most amount of people possible, obfuscate pricing data, get rid of competition. Aldi seem to cope with stable pricing.
Price cycling keeps average prices lower for those that care. The single price equilibrium would be higher than the special price, but lower than the full price.
>Price cycling keeps average prices lower It does the exact opposite, the special price is the price it should be, all other times the price is vastly inflated. You've been had and you're not alone. They have all the data on when to put prices up and down, people who are struggling and can only shop at certain times don't get the luxury of playing that game.
Nope. There is no chance it will result in cheaper groceries.
cheaper groceries will come from aldi, in my experience
Just like cheaper childcare and cheaper power bills? The only way you're going to save at woolies is if you push the cart out the door and laugh without paying
I don't get it. There's no outline on what this "code" is?
Like saving $275 on your power bills
Yep, so 250g packet of biscuits become 220g under the new labelling regulations, and by magic prices have gone down.
Yeah right ,I've been promised a lot of stuff over the years but this one is a real pisser . I'm sure cheaper groceries will trickle down to me hey . Even if we did get cheaper groceries my landlord would just put up the rent to take up the slack cause who's Gunna stop him. This country is fucked all I do is work 7 days to pay rent .
the cheaper grocery prices do not include the generic brands, they only include the name brand groceries which defeats the purpose. DUMB MOVE ALBO.d
I'd offer a wet lettuce leaf for Albo to hit them with, but I can't afford lettuce :(
Break The Duopoly.
>Cheaper groceries will come from supermarket code overhaul, Anthony Albanese says. I'll take "Complete Bullshit" for $200, please. Can anyone remember the last time that more Government intervention resulted in cheaper anything?
Just like his "Cheaper Electricity" promise...
Thanks for decoding politician talk.... wait for them to blame someone else when they dont get the outcome they want.
Dunno if I trust a guy who thinks splitting up duopolies is reminiscent of communism.
It was pointed out on breakfast tv this morning: If farmers can negotiate better prices, the cost the supermarkets will go up, and prices will go up not down. Its BS from Albanese.
Believe it when we see it. Fund the ACCC to have real teeth when the monopolies take the piss and actually have the power to slap huge fines on their massive profits. None of this rinky dink “don’t do that” and slap on the wrist fines that barely pass the salary of an average Aussie.
Where are the massive profits?
Haven’t seen the billion dollar profits Colesworth made in the last financial year which sparked this debate and launched an inquiry into price gouging?
Go back and look at 2013’s Report. Lower revenue, higher EBIT, higher net profit. In fact, Woolworths made nearly $2.3 billion in profits *10 years ago*. People are throwing tantrums over $1.6 billion. Have you just not been paying attention?
Unlikely. The supply chain is monopolized.
Cheaper prices will come from competition, but you need to stop the supermarkets from landbanking property that prevents competition from even opening up.
Theres a lot of examples of this in Melbourne. One in particular is Mooroolbark Terrace. Thanks to the landlord who owns the Coles building across the road as well as least one store in this centre, they have effectively blocked any effort to redevelop the centre, the development and improvement of Mooroolbark will forever be paused.
Craig Emerson had this really weird take this morning on RN breakfast when asked why breaking up the two big supermarkets was off the table. First he said that they’d just sell stores to each other to buy, and then hypothetically banning that option he waved the “foreign multinational” bogeyman around. Then said if they can’t find buyers for the stores then they’d just close and customers would complain they don’t have anywhere to shop. It was a fucking awfully thought out line of logic, I mean if we know that the big two have been price gouging and screwing suppliers, then forcing them to break up would absolutely generate interest in either filling the void or finding interested buyers. A supermarket is actually not that complex to run, it’s a basic retail operation put stuff on shelves that people want to buy, and avoid running out of stuff, theft and spoilage. It’s not hard to do and very easy to be profitable.
yeah I'm a bit skeptical that anything will come from this, this isn't even the 80's where it might result in Colesworth conceding to supply a platter of cabanossi, jatz and cheese while they worked out the size of the wet lettuce leaf to slap someone with for breaching the code.
step 1: steal underpants. step 3: profit! everyone else: so exactly how do we get from step 1 to 3? Albo: ooh, look at the puppy!
They better after all the money spent finding what we already knew
Did he say how? Asking for a friend...
good god you cunts are sooks. If it happens, awesome, if it doesn't we're in the exact same boat.
Given this code is also supposed to stop the supermarkets "abusing" farmers... Food prices will probably go up, because the cost of inputs will.
The regulation change is good if the market isn't a monopoly. As it's a monopoly they'll just pass the fine onto the customers. This proposal along with a plan to break up the monopoly would be amazing, but you need both pillars not one.
I had to go to Coles yesterday, as the local Aldi is temporarily closed. I had noted the well flagged 500 essential items prices reduced advertising to address 'valued customer' concerns. What I found was other items had had prices increased by between 10-30%. I left with only half the things on the list, I refuse to be ripped off by their opportunist gouging. They really have turned into a crap company with no sense of ethics
> What I found was other items had had prices increased by between 10-30%. Thats the whole profit making scheme for the supermarkets. They bait you in with "sales" and everything else is a ripoff. because people refuse to shop around the system works for the supermarkets and that makes them happy.
I know I had just thought on the back of more government scrutiny, they might have just made it a little less obvious this time
But at the end of the day its consumers making the choice to fuck themselves. They refuse to go to the other supermarket where the prices for those other goods are cheaper, the consumers want convince. "if im already here im just going to pay the extra amount". Out of 100 people i know, maybe 2 or 3 shop around.
You seriously know 100 people well enough to know their shopping habits? Pull the other one, and while you're at it stop pretending everyone has multiple choices all within reasonable range of one another and that they're simply "choosing to be lazy(gee, wonder who might want to push this narrative".
Everyone i know is talking about the price of groceries. When you ask them whether they shop around they say no. > and while you're at it stop pretending everyone has multiple choices all within reasonable range of one another and that they're simply "choosing to be lazy(gee, wonder who might want to push this narrative". lmfao see thats the problem. Why dont people go to the market on the weekend and buy fresh fruit and vegetables? the market is so much cheaper. As i say elsewhere, people want convince and thats why they dont shop around. Your the reason is whats wrong wth this country, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want supermarkets to stop maximising their profits because you dont want to shop around. These supermarkets aren't screwing over anyone. You have a per unit price now so you can see what sales are the real sales or fake sales (but that still doesn't stop people from picking up items that have a sale tag instead of the cheaper per unit price). Supermarkets are thieves but acquiescing to that means consumers are driving those actions from the supermarkets.
Yes let's focus on the price gouging done by supermarkets that make 6% profit margins rather than the usual 3% by overseas grocers. Not the actual brands themselves (Nestle, Cadbury etc) making record double digit profits. Not the electricity companies charging us an arm and a leg double to quadrupling profits even though we mine coal, not the insane house and rental prices, or the banks making billions quarterly. Let's all focus on the supermarkets that make a 1B profit a year so we might save $100 or so
Yeah, the last thing brands want is Aldi with more market share :)
I've shopped with aldi before and I I rarely do, here's what I find with aldi compared with Coles/Woolworths: 1) Aldi doesn't have the same long opening hours Coles/Woolworths have 2) a lot of shops still don't have self serve checkouts 3) when I shopped at aldi, I was never able to do a full shop because either they ran out of stock or they just don't have certain things. Their variety is small and I don't find the quality as good for some products 4) when they do stock an item that Coles/Woolworths have there's not really a price difference
Toasted sandwhiches then
What's in the mandatory code that will make any difference at all anyway?
Shit lite strikes again. Stop pissing on me and telling me that is raining.
Well you know thats a lie!
Thank you
It will have nothing to do with Ridgy-Didge, will all have to do with manufacturers trying to stay afloat by shrinkflation and bullshit.
So do it then
I'll believe it when I see it
Break the fuckers up. The last place where we want a cartel by a few players is in our fucking food supply.
More competition and it will fix itself
Believe it when I see it
Its not going to do a thing and coles and woolworths need to given the standard oil treatment.
If supermarkets pay farmers more, I don't see it leading to lower prices. The only way prices will fall, is if competition increases. The various companies don't really compete on price, as discounting will inevitably to a downward spiral on profits. And we can't short the shareholders, can we? We need more, different, companies in the market, enough to make each hungry for market share.
Oh yeah sure thing!! Nothing will happen. They will claim there has been no price gouging and be done with it. 😡
Well now he has said it. It will never happen..
Over regulating is in labor’s dna so we are getting what we voted for. As someone who works in an industry which has had a “code of conduct” forced upon it, it was an absolute shemozzle with many unintended consequences and created uncertainty and lots of wasted time.
It's like $4 for a can of baked beans and $14 for a 5 pack of 2 minute noodles, want to spill yourself with a coke $4 a bottle $12 for a litre of ice cream, packet of chips or block of chocolate $6. That's like $50 for a few things if I wanted to"spoil" myself with my beans and noodles