Food reporting is often framed like this, as if the smaller size was a bad thing, or the price / gram, pound or ounce is the relevant criteria. Esp in the case of candy, you would think smaller sizes would satisfy the other framing for food items, esp in America, that over-sized food leads to obesity. It is a lose-lose framing, with nutritional value completely ignored. Instead, the reporting is always how people are being ripped off or making an unhealthy choice.
You must be extremely naive if you think corporations do anything other than what benefits them in a very direct and often monetary way, especially food corporations.
You're paying more and getting less, usually both in quality and quantity, I don't see any reason to be happy about it.
The problem is deception. People aren't going to check the weight and ingredients label every time they buy a product. A small size decrease won't get caught.
Your framing makes it seem like these companies decided to reduce the size of their products for the health of their customers. We all know they're doing it to save on costs and increase profits.
Why would news outlets go the extra mile and re-frame it as "Companies are reducing the size of unhealthy products while maintaining the same price and here's why that's a good thing..." unless they were in the pocket of these companies? That would be editorializing to me.
The bad thing isn't the smaller size, it's the deception that goes along with it. Sometimes companies introduce a smaller size as a smaller size, and nobody cares when that happens. Small size candy bars are common and everybody's fine with it. The uproar is when they shrink an existing product while hiding the size change as much as they can.
Well, yes. They're the ones who actually employ the hundred lawyers and PR staff. But that's what it takes, and it's not about clicking some buttons on a Web 2.0 Day Trading UI.
It's really not far from it. You don't need to do a private off-exchange sale (though you can), they do incremental execution (where you break the trade in small batches)
I don't get it. I'm in the rural south and male nurses are common (although it is facility by facility I imagine). Not as many as women, but still, it isn't something I notice anymore.
It feels the same here - I've visited hospitals (as a guest, not a patient) quite a bit over the past year+, and I've noticed quite a few. I think women still outnumber men by at least 2:1, but it's not uncommon.
I'm guessing the goal is to get that parity up to 1:1, or something close.
I see quite a few male nurses too, except for in the birthing and family care suites when my wife gave birth. All women across the several days we were in hospital, with the exception of a few male OBs and lab techs.
Geography and time periods cherry-picking. The US is not the world so this is irrelevant to a discussion re global warming. Pre-1960 in the US includes the Dust Bowl droughts, a multi-year drought with a vicious positive reinforcement loop, exactly the kind of thing we want to avoid by addressing global warming.
reply