Costco has done a really good job of handling this tough situation. Beyond this, I've noticed a few other things:
* Stock most items overnight so that if you absolutely need something you can prioritize getting there before they open and likely getting it rather than having to come back over and over (or go to multiple other stores), which limits exposure.
* Set aside additional hours before the general opening for seniors.
* Limit high-demand items. This does have some perverse ramifications for a few items. For instance, we wanted about 4 dozen eggs to get us through a few weeks. Unfortunately the smaller packs were limited to 1 so we ended up having to buy 5 dozen.
* Flood the market with in-demand items to create confidence. I think this is a Seattle thing, but last week I started seeing social mediate posts showing literal aisles composed of nothing but toilet paper. Many people (myself included to some extent) are just just buying because they don't want to get caught without TP when they run out, but if they feel that it's likely it will be in stock they won't rush out to buy some immediately.
Not in the bay area(San Jose, Coleman Ave). I was there a few days ago. Not as busy as a pre-covid Costco of course, but the aisles were still busy and only a couple of the shoppers seemed to have any awareness of personal space. When I went to Lucky market today, they at least had blue tape near the checkout to indicate proper spacing(although the guy behind me was oblivious). Costco needs to step it up.
At this point, given how poorly I've seen people respect social distancing, I'm beginning to question its cost to benefit ratio. We are not as disciplined as many other countries.
The alternative is a mandatory quarantine. No leaving your house, the national guard will drop off government meal packs and government toilet paper, and we'll figure out the economy later.
A society that has the willingness to abide by voluntary distancing measures wouldn't need it, but the US may not be such a society.
The alternative is recognizing social distancing isn't working. If browbeating people into it doesn't work, then we, as a free society, are stuck. People are, apparently, not responsible enough, as a whole, to follow best-practices. Those best-practices only seem to work if people are nearly fully complying with them. Half-measures are, seemingly, useless, and impose a significant cost. Maybe establishing a government delivery service and tax credits for vulnerable people to go into long-term quarantine is better? I don't know. Initially I was strongly in favor of social distancing, but it was based on an incorrect assumption of how socially conscious my fellow Americans are.
Americans are free spirits, unlike people from more structured or rigidly governed countries. They're not used to giving up their personal freedom when someone tells them its for the good of all.
So unlike the Chinese, who shutter themselves obediently and trustingly at the whim of their government.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remember videos of Chinese people, very unhappily, being forced to stay in their homes by armed guards, as opposed to them obediently trusting their government.
According to the WaPo, it's likely that far more people are infected in Italy than we know about, and therefore the true mortality rate is much lower. Apparently the government is only testing people with "severe symptoms":
> The actual Italian death rate, they say, is probably far lower than what the government numbers suggest. The unofficial estimates assume the actual number of people infected with the virus — people who have not yet been tested — is massive. In other words, several hundred thousand people in Italy may be carrying the virus.
> “It’s a huge iceberg,” said Fabrizio Pregliasco, a virologist at the University of Milan. “We are only looking at those who are sick.”
> Though Italian leaders touted widespread testing at the beginning of the outbreak, the government has applied tight guidelines for who can be given swabs. Health officials have been testing those who have severe symptoms and are in need of obvious medical care.
I’m definitely hoping it’s a statistical artifact. It would be very interesting if some country or ethnic group was genetically resistant to the virus, but that sort of invites the opposite to be true too, which I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
Still, if it’s 3% like everywhere else, that’s horrible enough that the point of the person who said 7% still stands, IMO.
I've been at home for four weeks (as of last Sunday) due to wonky immune system. I made my first trip (not counting walks with dog) to grocery store yesterday and while I was careful about spacing while shopping, when I got to the register I went on autopilot and I was an oblivious guy. I only realized it when I got forward to use my my payment card. I wish someone had said something.
I guess it depends on the Costco. Since before this thing was declared a pandemic my Costco was already handing out wipes at the entrance for people to wipe down their carts with and had a table with hand sanitizer for us to use. The first few days I saw them religiously wiping down the tables at the food court (someone was there full time), and then by the next week they had shut down the food court completely. Today I went there and they still give you hand wipes, but in addition to that they have spaced out their checkout lanes and added plastic see-through barriers between the cashier and customers (like what you’d see at a gas station in a high-crime area). I have pictures of everything I’ve reported here.
I was at that Costco earlier this week. They were cleaning carts and had a line along the carts to throttle entry. I was there pretty early though, so it was not very busy.
I should go earlier. I went around 7pm IIRC. My biggest problem was the people inside. I kept trying to stay out of people's way but it was impossible. People kept walking at me without giving me a chance to move. Other people were travelling down the middle of the aisle, effectively blocking anyone from going by. I think Costco needs to make aisles one-way for now, and tape off sections to give people a hint at the recommended spacing.
I would have never thought it was possible to like HEB more. I think I was at a 10, and now I'm at an 11.
They seem to be working lock-step with public health officials. Went there today and they had a LOT of people on hand to manage the entry and checkout lines, and to enforce social distancing.
We are a couple of weeks from having to buy TP, but the fact that it is missing from our local grocery stores (I live in Bellevue) has been making me paranoid. I should try the early morning thing and see if I can get something before its too late.
There's no "too late" (coming from someone who's in Madrid, Spain, which in terms of the pandemic might as well be the future).
The reality is that one or two weeks from now at most most idiots will have toilet paper for months and you'll be able to buy normally again.
Goods considered non essential, however, might be scarce since those shops will close as the workers are told to stay home. For example, I'm doing a lot of studying and I'm out of sheets of paper. Office supplies stores are closed, and buying that on Amazon feels like overkill and a little socially irresponsible, so I have to make do without them.
Check your house for random silly stuff you might miss if you're stuck at home.
When I go to the supermarkets the missing things are snack foods, beer, ice cream, etc. People have a lot of time to kill and those items arent replenished as much since they're considered non essential.
One of the nice things around here is stores like Walmart that sell groceries (so they are considered essential) also sells everything else (such as office paper).
Out of curiosity, I just checked and amusingly, depending on your local store, you can get it through their grocery pick-up service too. Probably also delivery, but I don't live in an area where they do that.
That's what they've done in Bavaria. They apparently missed some shelves at the discounter I was at yesterday, and the cashier reluctantly told me that he couldn't sell me that pack of contact lenses I'd picked up in the health and beauty aisle (contact lenses are usually available on the shelf in Germany). He thought I might be able to get them at a pharmacist.
keep in mind that a store is just a frontend for several supply chains. The workers making the product might stop, the transporters might as well, and even the workers that refill the shelves might stop refilling non essential goods.
Our crockpot cord broke, just a normal power cord that a standard computer monitor would use. However, amazon is quoting April 21st for a basics replacement while bestbuy said they probably would have it for pickup tomorrow but then delayed...so no crockpot food until I can get a dumb cord that comes with every computer monitor.
Anecdata from Australia here - my main supermarket has only once had toilet paper in the last two weeks, and the one time I saw it there were security guards to ensure the elderly were able to get them as priority. It's meant to be coming back online according to TV, but I've not actually seen it at my local supermarkets.
However: a smaller independent market has almost always had some toilet paper, and according to our newspapers that's because their chain introduced a rule of checking ID at purchase to confirm you live in the same suburb, if they didn't already recognise you as a regular customer. I assume you've tried all options, but wanted to mention that if you've not considered smaller local indie retailers. Good luck!
The USA doesn’t really have indies in a lot of locations...maybe the Chinese grocery stores but I know I’m not getting TP there. Here it is just Safeway, QFC, Walmart, and Target, each is stocking TP in the morning before it is completely sold out after an hour.
Just use a towel or water, or whatever. This American obsession with toilet paper is very strange. I lived in Africa for two years and guess what they do there? They dip their hands in some water and wipe their butt with their hands. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this, but like, people need to get a grip and realize how many "essentials" aren't really essential at all.
You could use a portable bidet or a peri bottle. I'm very sure you could DIY a peri bottle out of some household items, to be honest, and it shouldn't be hard or expensive.
It's connecting two screw fittings, and then installing toilet seat (two bolts + nuts). If it's a particularly fancy model you may have to plug it in.
This is about as complicated as replacing a furnace air filter, and takes about as long. If you get someone to do it for you, you're paying for them to drive to your house, not the actual time installing it (which is trivial).
If it needs hot water you can always split off of the sink that is undoubtedly next to it.
But most bidets that do warm water do not use a hot supply, because it takes too long to heat up. Most use a tank or tankless in the seat, and just need a normal 120v plug.
Funny thing: our apartment maintenance crews are working overtime unclogging toilets because people have run out of TP and didn’t realize you shouldn’t flush paper towels and baby wipes down the toilet. Bidets aren’t a thing here, I have no idea how I would even install it, it’s not like there is an extra waterline coming out of the toilet.
The bidets are for a normal home toilet that has a waterline coming out of the wall below the tank and a flex connection/pipe that goes up to the tank for fill.
You shutoff your water, disconnect the toilet fill line, add the bidet connection in-between with a T connection, and hook your toilet back up. They share the same supply line.
And it's very cold water depending on your geographic region and time of the year. Not sure I'd want to try it in Alberta during the winter.
You can also ration your intake of food when it starts to become more scarce. People do this every day due to income constraints during non-Coronavirus times.
It's a little harder to ration your bowel movements. It can be done, but it's a lot less beneficial than forced fasting.
Nearly all grocery stores (at least in Seattle) have a seniors-only hour right now, usually first thing in the morning. QFC, Fred Meyer, Safeway, Albertson's, Whole Foods, PCC, Costco, Metropolitan Market, Uwajimaya.
My favorite part of this is that it implies grifters are failing to offload their stock. They bought it all hoping to profit off of shortages, and then not only did Amazon and Ebay clamp down on reselling, there isn't actually a shortage. Justice.
There was never a shortage in the first place, I honestly do not understand the pathology of this, except that a totally unrelated and tragic situation in Venezuela got dumbed down in the west as being a toilet roll shortage.
I'm almost grateful for it; we're hitting peak America, peak capitalism, peak Westernism...
"Panic buying" makes good local news. Empty shelves get attention. On social media, everywhere.
Stop the attention economy and you stop this nonsense.
But also, put these pressures on stores and supply chains and they'll learn to be more elastic which is _necessary_. If demand for a good skyrockets and everybody wants a good inventory at home, it shouldn't be a social evil to go stock up on a month or two of TP, on surgical masks for personal safety, on whatever.
We should have all been able to buy as many surgical masks as we wanted whenever we wanted, we would all be safer if that had been possible.
Shorten lead times and have faster ability to adjust capacity and _you make more money_.
The only peak I hope we're hitting is peak idiocy, where a large portion of people (actually the vast majority of people) choose to elect leaders based on emotional appeal to a chosen sect instead of using reason and valuing real competence.
The peaks I fear we're hitting are peak personal freedom, peak democracy, and peak privacy.
There is a cost, in lives, in not being able to do what China has done to limit and nearly stop the outbreak (once they decided it couldn't be blustered away). I hope we're able, willing, and eager to pay that cost and figure out when it is worth it and when it is not.
The story I heard was that it started with an unconfirmed rumour (possibly completely made up) on social media about it happening in Hong Kong because of people making makeshift masks out of it, the western media picked up on it from Twitter & co, then accidentally created the panic buying in the rest of the world.
The word you're looking for is arbitrageur. Or scalper. Grifter implies some thing dishonest. Arbitrageurs are very up-front with what they're doing, and you get exactly why you're paying for.
>There is dishonesty in this situation. If you ask Costco if it's ok to buy lots of toilet paper to resell, they'll say no.
That's debatable. Plenty of small businesses buy Costco stuff to resell, or for business use. They even have business memberships! Unless they have explicit no resell notices (although even then it's unclear what legal force they have), I wouldn't say it's dishonest.
Costco literally is designed as a small business supply warehouse. There are some Costco they cater exclusively to this. Now not trying to price gouge in a pandemic is another thing.
Right, which is why it's easy to fly under the radar.
It was poorly worded, but if corporate had a button they could press to stop new entrants buying a bunch in hopes of selling online at high markup, I believe they would.
Trouble is, there's no way to filter them out, and any attempt may in itself signal a lack of faith in the system and result in more panic buying.
Eehm... Arbitrage is buying on one market to immediately sell on another market at a profit. Which is exactly what these folks were doing.
Except that the other market administratively blocked them from selling. Then the first market wouldn't reverse the purchase, leaving the would-be arbitrageurs holding the bag.
The ones who were able to unload at the moment they purchased were arbing. If you could sell the toilet paper before you even got it out of the store at Costco, you have executed a successful arb. There was no risk in this trading profit.
The others who carried inventory for a nontrivial period of time were market makers, and carried market maker risk. Market maker risk is the bid-ask moving against you when you are carrying inventory. These guys were basically carrying unhedged physical long positions in toilet paper thinking they had a free option to unwind at par, but Costco changed the game on them.
TP is cheap, large in volume, probably has lots of producers (no patents) and plants (because transport is expensive relative to price), can be replaced by shower/bidet/worn-out socks/even white bread.
I can’t think of a worse product to do this with. The daily newspaper, maybe.
If this really is scammers getting burned, they’re not getting my sympathy (the budget of sympathy-for-the-undeserving is mostly pledged anyway, for the people who insisted on going to Church this Sunday)
Articles were written about someone who tried that with hand sanitizer, bought all the hand sanitizer in a several state region then couldn't offload it after being banned from Amazon, etc.
Search "17000 bottles of hand sanitizer". First article that came up for me that wasn't paywalled,
This. I talked with the manager from one of the CostCo's near us (happens to be a neighbor) and their reasoning was people were overbuying items in the expectation that if they didn't need them all after all they would just return them.
Warehousing is probably a bigger issue. There aren't a ton of TP packs to the pallet. Even a small percentage of people returning TP can result in there not being enough room to store it and the cost to ship it elsewhere is just too high.
It’s not an arbitrary rule that needs advance warning; it’s unethical hoarding, and there will be more instances of hoarding in these communities in the future.
As far as I understand it, changes in a contract require notice, arbitrary or not. I don't believe it's legal for a company to change their contract, in this case stating that something is no longer returnable, after the fact. It still applies after the notice is provided of course.
> As far as I understand it, changes in a contract require notice, arbitrary or not. I don't believe it's legal for a company to change their contract, in this case stating that something is no longer returnable, after the fact. It still applies after the notice is provided of course.
IIRC, lots of consumer contracts contain language saying the terms are subject to change at any time with little or no notice.
I've seen similar language, but I don't think they can change the terms with no notice. I think it's usually little to no advance notice, but they still need to provide notice when they change the terms. Providing notice seems to be something fundamental in our legal system.
> but they still need to provide notice when they change the terms. Providing notice seems to be something fundamental in our legal system.
Maybe so, but the "notice" probably could be something that's practically meaningless, like updating the terms on their website, or something.
Alternatively, their return policy may have language forbidding some kind of ill-defined "abuse" of the policy, which can be interpreted to forbid anything they'd want to forbid.
In any case, Costco has lawyers that unilaterally write this stuff in its favor, so I highly doubt it violated any of its own contracts.
> I don't believe it's legal for a company to change their contract...
IANAL, but that's breach of contract. To amend the contract, both parties have to assent. That's why you get those "terms of service" updates that always mention, "and if you don't like the new terms, here's how to delete your account," since your usage of the service constitutes assent to the terms.
Purchasing a good is different, it's more bilateral because both parties are still responsible after the initial exchange for delivering on their promises. So if your check bounces, you still owe them, and if the goods are junk, they still owe you.
The tricky part here is figuring out what the contract is. When you purchase goods in the US, the framework of the contract you're engaging in is laid out by the Uniform Commercial Code, if you want to look that up.
Costco has a satisfaction guarantee[1] and they will refund your money but there's an asterisk: "*Limitations apply. See the membership counter or Costco.com for details."
I couldn't find anything more on their site.
A "guarantee" has a legal meaning[2]:
> 4) a promise to make a product good if it has some defect.
So I think it means a customer would be required to explain why he's unsatisfied with the goods, in what way they're deficient.
That someone bought too much TP doesn't make it deficient.
Yes, the famous we-can-change-the-contract-if-enough-people-don’t-like-you provision.
Does it only apply to return policy? Or could CostCo also, say, change the price retroactively?
Does it work the other way around? Say I order from Amazon. Then, I notice many people don’t like them. Labor safety, no paid sick leave, etc. Can I refuse to pay? I’ll tell them why and they can better themselves.
> It’s not an arbitrary rule that needs advance warning
Yes, it is. Until now, absolutely nobody would care if you wanted to buy TP by the pallet, and Costco would be happy to let you return it if you wanted to.
> there will be more instances of hoarding in these communities in the future.
By all means make a new rule and communicate it for the future. I only object to retroactively punishing previously-allowed behavior.
Costco isn’t bound by the Constitution. Their fine print lets them basically do what they want to and if you didn’t want them to have that right you shouldn’t have signed their membership agreement.
Incremental levels of management get involved and sometimes a lawyer. By that point everybody loses. But that's enough for an idiot customer. All on top of lost future sales.
Buying back their unsaleable junk is quick. Costco tracks customers so it's fairly easy for them to track abuse and find a cut off point.
I think the idea is that not many people will actually misuse the return policy, and those that do make the tiniest fraction of the returners. Therefore, it's easier just to accept all returns to speed up the returns and eliminate complaints.
Nordstrom was famous for refunding customers' money. One person brought in a used tire (Nordy's sells clothes) and was refunded his money. A Nordy's salesman I know told me that people would return obviously well worn shoes and would get a refund, no questions asked.
Nordstrom doesn't do that anymore. Too many abusers.
One of the outdoor retailers (REI?) had to give up their "No Questions Asked" return policy because of idiots doing things like buying a tent, using it for a trip, and then returning it.
I used to run a gourmet food retailer. We would refund anything, no questions (except what we needed to improve).
The secret to this policy was that we had gross (?) margins of 60%+. Throwing away a $20 product would cost us maybe $8.
The other secret was that for the few incidents where we felt someone was trying to scam us, the next time you wanted to order, just as you were about to enter your credit card number, you would be redirected to our competition.
It seems clear that Costco customers are willing to pay higher prices for this feature, though. Costco is not that inexpensive compared to e.g. Sam's Club, a large part of their reputation is based on their excellent return policy and customer service in general.
These are probably rare enough its easy to consider just a cost of doing business. The toilet paper thing seems like it would be happening a lot these days.
I was in the Redwood City Costco today, just as they were running out of TP. It was 11:30 AM, and an employee said to the fellow taking the last pack: "I unload 16 pallets of the stuff every day, and it always runs out!"
Conveniently, they had a sign out front showing things they did or did not have in stock, to save you time in case you just came for one thing. The sign included things like TP and bottled water.
Costco allows purchases to members only. I do not understand why in the very beginning they did not enforce the purchase limit of each membership to something reasonable e.g. 2 big boxes (~70 rolls) per month.
A lot of their members are various types of small businesses. Remember when Costco was becoming popular like 20-30 years ago they mostly marketed themselves as a place for small businesses to stock up. It is hard to say what would be reasonable for a small business.
Absolutely. It's hard to say what would be reasonable for any person really. What if someone is looking after relatives, friends, or neighbors who are quarantined? What if someone is buying a bunch to give out to the homeless? When we take pictures of people "hoarding", how do we really know their intentions?
That's the problem with these systems. You either limit the good people from doing reasonable things or you expose yourself to bad people. There are some reasonable compromises in between but I wish people were a little less quick to judge an entire person's being from what's in their shopping cart.
Are the unfortunate consequences worse than the alternative? Depends on what is being rationed and your view on equality measures and economic inequality generally. For example healthcare services are partly rationed in places with public healthcare.
> Are the unfortunate consequences worse than the alternative?
Yes. For one thing, it mis-allocates things from where they are needed to where they aren't. (Because rationing assumes that everyone has an equal need when they never do.)
For example, during WW2 gas was rationed. This produced a nation of people who either had more gas than they needed, or didn't have enough. Naturally, this produced a black market to clumsily compensate, with the resulting crime.
Ok so that's one other example. But we risk getting into anecdotes.
Basically rations are an income transfer when they are used to distribute scarce products. It can result in bartering like you describe, yes, but it's not obvious that this negates the advantages. Does the bartering have to be forbidden for rationing to work? Maybe not?
For a commodity that is in short supply, mis-allocating it to people who literally do not need it seems like a strong negative.
For another example, let's say tp was being rationed. The amount each person gets is calculated to be the amount the average person uses.
One person uses 90% less tp than average, because he's got a bidet. Another uses 3x the average because he's got a bowel problem. Anyone who gets more than they need will feel no need to conserve it, while those who get less will treat each square as precious.
Is this equity? How does this make practical sense?
(Disallowing bartering won't help here, it'll just make things worse.)
This logic would work if people who cannot afford TP = people who don't need it, but this assumption would make the model unrealistic imo.
If bartering was allowed, even bowel prob guy night have a shot.
There are variables in the model, the price of the rationed goods still reduces waste. Similarly the income distribution of the presumed society affects how many couldn't afford any 10x priced tp. Etc.
The amount of waste caused by the rationed/unrationed price difference, minus waste refuced by bartering, is unlikely to be worse than the high prices scenario if there is high economic inequality. Especially if we give value to fairness (that everyone should have access to some tp). Of we agree that everyone needs some tp, isn't there always a level of tp rations that isn't wasteful? Then we can think what the best ration size is for the overall outcome.
Allowing the market price for tp will eliminate wasteful use which means MORE tp will be available as people won't hoard or waste it. Secondly, higher prices for tp will cause the supply to increase. Thirdly, you won't have all the administrative costs associated with rationing and trying to imagine what the "best" ration size is. Fourthly, you won't have a crime wave that rationing engenders.
(In WW2, organized crime got involved in supplying gasoline due to rationing. Complete with drive-by shootings.)
...really? Cuz there’s a homeless person outside my window. I don’t see a comparison benefitting the US. I would give all my money to live in a country where bread lines are what people fear.
What can I pay to live in a world where people fix homelessness? I suspect this is beyond my individual luck and ability.
Edit: I do not wish to have an ideological argument. Despite all the conversation about coronavirus relief, many will still die preventable deaths. Much of this is for purely ideological reasons that have been addressed in my opinion more suitable ways in countries with different ideological heritage.
Huh, that homeless dude is still there despite Gates getting it done. Sucks for him, I guess, because there is no better way of doing things than relying on the misguided charity of rich folk.
I'm always entertained when the guy next to me is buying 50 cases of canola oil or something. Turns out Costco is still often cheaper than a lot of wholesalers.
On the flip side, they have been more expensive on quite a lot of things that the normal grocery store carries. Beware that just because Costco sells a giant pack of something doesn't necessarily mean it is cheaper.
This is often very noticeable because Costco primarily carries name brands. For example, purchasing the large cases of soda at Costco is cheaper than buying the same brand at a grocer, but appreciably more expensive than buying the grocer's store brand. Costco hasn't built their reputation necessarily on being the cheapest, but also on carrying quality brands, so they are often not the cheapest if you compare across brands. This is particularly clear for products like soda where it's not that certain that the name brand is actually any better.
On the other hand, there's the Costco store brand, "Kirkland Signature". On the other, other hand, Kirkland Signature is a fairly premium store brand, if that makes any sense--there are some products where I trust Kirkland Signature as much if not more than many name brands, similarly to Trader Joe's.
Also,
> This is particularly clear for products like soda where it's not that certain that the name brand is actually any better.
This hasn't been true in my experience. A lot of soda drinkers have very strong preferences not just between brand to brand (Coke vs. Pepsi) but even within the same brand (Mexican vs. US Coke). About the only time I'd buy any store brand soda would be if (a) I was serving it to people and didn't particularly care how much they enjoyed it or (b) if I was buying it for some non-drinking purpose.
Definitely the products are different - I say that because there are a lot of people, at least in my experience, who prefer an off-brand. RC is somewhat famous for being a discount soda with a strong following. Given the number of people who have a strong preference between name-brands Coca Cola and Pepsi, if they squared those against the few dozen off-brands would there be another they preferred? In another market space Coca Cola and Pepsi are now the underdog fighting back against National Beverage, a discount manufacturer which managed to sweep the market with their La Croix brand. At the same time their Shasta brand still runs fifty cents a can at the right vending machine and in my opinion isn't that bad. Coca-Cola tends to be better regarded than Pepsi due to their history, while Pepsi more often wins blind comparisons. This consumer preference is famously reversed in the soviet bloc. At the same time Coca Cola's Mr. Pibb is decidedly "off-brand" compared to the smaller Dr Pepper-Snapple group.
So I think it's hard to say that there's a clear quality hierarchy with sodas. Rather, they drive strong consumer preference and two brands happen to be the best known and most widely distributed. This is more or less true of a lot of other products as well where there isn't a clear objective measure of quality, it just seems especially noticeable with sodas.
In reality, customer preference is the only “clear objective measure of quality” that matters. You and I will have different opinions, and those opinions will motivate our purchasing decisions, and only once everyone’s opinions are priced in does the market deliver a verdict. And the most parsimonious reading of that verdict I can offer is simply: Coke and Shasta are two completely different products.
Incidentally, Russians drink Pepsi because the Pepsi company bartered distribution rights to the Soviet Union in exchange for the US distribution rights to Stolnichnaya vodka. After the Cold War ended they renegotiated and the Russians threw in a bunch of old naval ships and submarines—for scrap value, but still.
I've only noticed it on produce. Fruit and vegetables can be a bit cheaper at the normal grocery store. I assume it's because Costco usually sells those items packaged while the grocery store typically does not.
Real example since I just did groceries so I still remember all the prices and still have my receipt from my last Costco run last week. Asparagus is $0.99/lb at the grocery store bundled with a rubber band; Costco had it for $3.68/lb but it came in a nicely sealed plastic bag with nutritional facts. $0.99 per bell pepper at the grocery store, pick from a pile; $9.59/6-pack (effectively $1.59/per) at Costco, also in a plastic bag with two of each color selected for you.
Peppers looks like the right word. Pepperoni is a type of sausage typically used as a pizza topping. Paprika is usually sold in the US as a spice, not as the fruit/vegetable.
Funny thing is my grocery store doesn't even stock green bell peppers anymore, probably for that reason. Makes the value even more biased towards the grocery store since it's cheaper per pepper and you don't get stuck with the undesirable green ones.
This isn't the case 100% but I'll buy some sort of snack at Costco that sounds good (because I went to the store hungry). I'll come home and try it and either I don't like it at all or I like it enough to finish most of it but not all because I get sick of it after awhile. I technically saved money buying it in bulk but I probably wasted more on what I didn't eat. I try not to buy things at Costco that I haven't already tried before in significant quantities. I've been burned too many times by the free samples that taste great but then I get sick of eating it over the course of the month or more. I try to limit Costco trips to only staples and essentials, things I use all the time and enjoy and only buy new things or things I don't want to eat for months on end at the normal grocery store. I also stay away from things at Costco that are hard to preserve, things like giant bags of chips where once you open it, it's going to go stale just as fast as a small bag of chips.
Staple items. Dishwashing liquid. Peanut butter. Even things that I thought only Costco carried, like those dinosaur chicken nuggets (hey, what can I say, I have young kids...). Brand name foods, not "equivalent" items. All cheaper on a per-unit basis at Fred Meyer. And Fred Meyer is most assuredly not the cheapest source of groceries.
Once I started paying attention, I was startled how many things we buy at Costco are actually cheaper at the grocery store.
It would be insane for a small business to buy items at retail prices. They should be going to a wholesaler to buy what they need.
I used to work for my uncle's coin-op business. I would often go to the wholesaler to purchase vending machine stock. Cases of cigarettes were insanely expensive ($2K each??) even at a wholesaler back in the late 1980s early 1990s.
You misunderstood. It’s for small businesses to stock up on items they need for their place of business, not for resale. Countless small offices in the US may need a lot more TP than a 3 person family but doesn’t need enough to justify a direct wholesale account. Same goes for coffee, snacks, various office appliances.
There are businesses that buy stock for resale at Costco too. It's usually because the volume they buy is too small for wholesalers to take them seriously. Examples around here are small vending businesses and movie theaters.
The cafe near my office resells Costco baked goods like muffins and cookies. They primarily do hot breakfast/lunch/sandwiches, but hey, sometimes people just want a cookie.
A small business isn't going to go to a wholesaler for small items that they use. If you are a small shop, with a handful of employees youll probably just go to Costco to get the small number of items you need. That is how Costco got started
I don't think there can be any volume discount for cigarettes by law. I'm pretty sure tobacconists always make the same amount per pack regardless of how many they manage to move.
That might be the case in the US but I'm sure it's not in the EU. As a matter of fact I think most European countries (except Germany) also forbid packets that don't have 20 cigarettes.
Yes, Sam's club and Costco are/were mostly for small biz.
We didn't renew our membership at either because our family of 3+1 small dog can't consume the enormous minimum quantities fast enough. (How are we supposed to consume 3 larger containers of ketchup, etc)
Normally it’s not a problem if one person needs 10 packs of toilet paper. Many folks who live far away from a Costco or any other store make quarterly trips and fill a trailer. I have relatives in Wyoming that travel hours to do this. Businesses are a more boring example of a customer with a need for more paper products than others. In my own personal experience planning my wedding, not every venue supplies paper products. There are plenty of very “boring” reasons to need more than two bulk packs of something per month. The great convenience of Costco is having a one stop shop vs contacting the paper company for plates and cups and the baking company For bags of flour. One stop shopping.
Right now it’s a problem that swarms if people are acting like this.
Probably because they know their supply chain better than the average panic buyer, and figured they could sell as much as was in demand and still restock the next few days. Most TP is made domestically.
Under normal circumstances, there's simply no reason to do this. Some people really do prefer to buy six months' of toilet paper twice a year. Why not let them?
Especially that they would "hoard" it at the last minute when a disaster was already in progress.
People who stock up on necessities as a normal part of their lives would have been stocked up already and typically only buy these things to backfill from their current consumption. I don't know if this applies to toilet paper, but it's common in the LDS community to have at least 6 months' supply of nonperishable food at all times. Mormons don't typically buy 6 months of food at a time though, they just buy groceries at a normal rate to backfill their pantries via a FIFO rotation.
Of course, the rare occasions where someone would buy 6 months of something at a time--e.g. if they recently adopted a lifestyle and/or religion that encouraged this behavior--are easily absorbable by the supply chain assuming not everyone does it at once.
I suppose there was a delay realizing 'The shit has hit the fan! Hoard TP", and they took it too literally. Honestly, the compulsion to 'do something..anything' panic mode is a good explanation, aside from profiteers.
There's something very viscerally gross about an imaginary scenario where you've been locked inside your own home for weeks and you run out of TP. I think a lot of people reacted emotionally to that scenario without thinking critically about it.
If I were the panicky type, I'd prioritize input before 'output', it seems more limited and difficult to remedy by comparison. edit: besides, if I've done the former properly, the latter takes care of itself.
If you were the panicky type, you wouldn’t address the issue rationally. A lot of people can’t really imagine long term hunger. They can imagine running out of toilet paper.
They must have really big data on all purchases, could probably prevent hoarding in a crisis by algorithmically imposing a limit of items from a particular category bought by a member in a timeframe in case of a massive statewide surge in demand.
Hoarders should just hold on to the toilet paper. It's not perishable, so at least they will have a stash for the next time there is a similar scare, and fewer regular customers will be affected.
I'm guessing there are some people who had visions of making bank on resale, but are now willing to settle for getting their spare room back sometime before the end of the decade.
These panic buyers are a different kind of hoarder. These aren't hoarders buying it due to a mental illness. The people who panic bought a lot of toilet paper did so for what they thought were rational reasons: to get toilet paper before everyone else bought it all, to get toilet paper in case of long term quarantine, perhaps to resell it a higher price, or fear of long term disruption of supply lines. Once these rational reasons turn out to be incorrect they may desire to return their purchase.
It seems odd to me that their concern was availability of TP, which is not actually essential if times are tough. If they were buying up all the canned food, I'd understand that. But the grocery store I go to ran out of TP, not canned food.
I don't know, man, I "hoarded" 2 months worth of TP: two large packs of 18 "mega-rolls". If I bought enough to fill a room, that'd be like 10 years of TP. I have 2 people in my home, if that helps. Anyone who bought more than ~2-3 large packs was hoarding for resale OR has a huge family.
Hoarders who lose their source of income (as many are expected to, under lockdowns) might look at a $400 pile of toilet paper and decide they want to eat this week instead.
These are mostly bulky items, it would be an inventory-storage nightmare. Let the d-bags who bought a years supply of toilet paper deal with that themselves.
Whole Foods had signs all over about not taking returns on food due to coronavirus. It's a reasonable position for them to take, given the risk. Months ago I remember seeing a sign in a Whole Foods in SF that asked customers not to load up their reusable bags while shopping (to use a basket/cart instead). The reason was that if you take something off the shelf and later put it back, then you've potentially contaminated someone else's food. This is basically the same logic for not accepting returns (that have been in someone's house) now.
Not surprisingly, the signs were mostly clustered near goods that people might stockpile, like pasta and canned tomatoes. Aside from liability, they also want to discourage hoarding.
Costco has a very liberal return policy. This has already been discussed here, but people are buying toilet paper with the ability to easily return in mind. If they can't use it, they will just return it for a full refund.
This is an excellent step by Costco to cut down on the return mindset. If you buy pallets worth of toilet paper, good on Costco for not letting you return them. You better have the square footage to deal with your own inventory.
You still need to wait 2-3 hours to get just a pack of toilet paper. In addition, you need to enter a closed space and potentially get infected. High-demand items should be sold outside on the parking lot with either their key fobs or credit cards. This way, the store won't be crazy and infected with so many people wasting hours just to get toilet paper and water. Stop praising Costco too much!
I've often wondered if there isn't a "secret" mailing list of people who go around and buy some product with the intention of creating a shortage and making a buck on amazon. The retail equivalent of a bunch of traders gaming some commodity.
I have a feeling some people bought HUGE quantities in hopes of selling on Amazon/ebay for inflated prices. When these plans fell through, they're trying to return it.
Literally every other card in the deck is in the hands of the kind of people who will hoard toilet paper to sell it for 10 times its value then publicly complain when outrage mounts.
So lets say I own a business - and buy for the business, now al the sudden everyone is working from home. As a business owner I can either, return it so others can get it or I can save it for later.
Seems like there could be good reason to allow returns.
If this is the case, you speak to the Costco management staff and explain the situation. Maybe they'll let you. Maybe they won't. But either way, not allowing returns is the correct move to keep people from hoarding.
This doesn't stop hoarding. Hoarders keep things well past their usefulness. These are failed amazon/ebay resellers who tried to make a profit but no market existed.
Your parent comment meant short-term, "screw you poors, I've got $7000 cash, so buying it ALL" hoarders, who went in with bad faith motives of reselling/gouging and/or returning excess stock when the run has completed its course.
…RIGHT?
Anyway, pretty sure that practically none of these people trying to return toilet paper bought it for their business. They just went into quarantine panic (or maybe profiteering?) mode back then.
Or just let your employees take some home, or share with your neighbors. This is easy to "solve", and it's not like the value of the toilet paper is going to make that much difference in the run of a business.
I'm glad this is happening. But I could see how a consumer would be upset with this. Were these rules listed when I purchased the product? Why didn't you limit me if you had intentions of limiting what I can return?
Costco is very open about their return policy and it's part of the reason people shop there. They can buy things and know they can return them if they don't need them. It may be the wrong reason to buy things, but if that's the case Costco should alter their return policy.
God, give them a break. People who work there are risking so much to keep a job and in turn provide us a safe shopping experience. I wouldn’t want to burden them more by returning something you can very well store and use. If the person was hoarding to make a profit elsewhere, well they deserve it.
I think a return policy like costco is a two way street. The fact it even is still like it is with the abuse potential is amazing.
If they make the effort to stock this in-demand stuff, and people want to abuse their return policy and make their hoarding/arbitrage costco's problem, I don't think costco should have to deal with that, before or after the fact.
Other stores with generous return policies (REI, etc) have had to cancel them because of abuse. I'm glad Costco recognized the abuse that was in play and acted to shut it down.
* Stock most items overnight so that if you absolutely need something you can prioritize getting there before they open and likely getting it rather than having to come back over and over (or go to multiple other stores), which limits exposure.
* Set aside additional hours before the general opening for seniors.
* Limit high-demand items. This does have some perverse ramifications for a few items. For instance, we wanted about 4 dozen eggs to get us through a few weeks. Unfortunately the smaller packs were limited to 1 so we ended up having to buy 5 dozen.
* Flood the market with in-demand items to create confidence. I think this is a Seattle thing, but last week I started seeing social mediate posts showing literal aisles composed of nothing but toilet paper. Many people (myself included to some extent) are just just buying because they don't want to get caught without TP when they run out, but if they feel that it's likely it will be in stock they won't rush out to buy some immediately.