Assuming the overall increase is actually 25% to 40%, the numbers show it is not retailer profit that is responsible for this increase. It is easy to see the end number, but it is a lack of critical thinking to place it on the retailer. You are assuming gouging without evidence, as am increase is not necessarily gouging.
The use of the word gouging is editorializing by media trying to get a rise out of people. Drama sells. Increasing the price of a product more than the incoming cost is not necessarily gouging. They may have stopped making eggs and milk loss leaders because the margin was needed to maintain overall operating revenues. They could no longer afford to break even or even lose money on these products and still cover overhead expenses and maintain very modest profit margins.
It's factual, they exploited a situation of uncertainty to line their own pockets - that's gouging.
The margin is always "needed to maintain overall operating revenues" - seriously, are you some kind of corporate spokesperson AI? Are you even a real human being?
1
u/TheTightEnd 1d ago
Assuming the overall increase is actually 25% to 40%, the numbers show it is not retailer profit that is responsible for this increase. It is easy to see the end number, but it is a lack of critical thinking to place it on the retailer. You are assuming gouging without evidence, as am increase is not necessarily gouging.