News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by ams6110 on Monday June 29, 2015 @12:32AM (#9796420)
You're not accounting for the size of the portion. The nickel bottle of Coca-Cola was 6oz. Today's standard vending machine bottle is 20oz.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by dunham on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:28AM (#9796559)
Which gives us 480,000 ounces of coke in 1950 vs 505,000 ounces of coke in 2015. A 5.2% increase in the amount of coke you can buy for a year's salary. (I'm actually kinda surprised the price is that stable.)
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by vetinari on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:06AM (#9797216)
It's easier to sell one bigger package than several smaller.

I would not be surprised, if the 505,000 ounces in 20oz packages cost less to produce in 1950 prices, than 480,000 ounces in 6oz packages. (Just one physical package, not three separate).

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by ams6110 on Monday June 29, 2015 @11:01AM (#9798486)
It's a set of tradeoffs. The 6oz bottles were (I think) returnable. Even better than recycling, they only needed to be washed/sterilized to re-use. I'm old enough to remember Coke and other brands in returnable bottles up to 16oz.

They were heavy. The transportation costs savings with the lighter plastic bottles (combined with maybe the raw materials savings, and savings not having to transport, handle, wash, and sterilize the emptys) made plastic more economical than returnable glass.

Manufacturing cost for glass bottles almost certainly higher than plastic. You have to melt either sand or recycled crushed glass which takes a lot of energy.

Some jurisdictions do have returnable plastic bottles. They are much heavier than the disposable ones but still lighter than glass.

Interestingly for some reason beer in plastic bottles has never caught on, it's mostly sold in glass bottles and cans.

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by carussell on Monday June 29, 2015 @12:04PM (#9798924)
And then neither has canned water caught on, despite all the hand-wringing about waste from water bottles.

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/06/banning-bottled-water-increa...

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by LordKano on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:04PM (#9799340)
What I love about that study is that it's confirmation of what should be common sense. People purchase disposable bottles because of the convenience.

This is just my opinion but I don't believe that the first step should be trying to regulate people into better behavior, you have to educate them.

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by cpwright on Monday June 29, 2015 @11:36AM (#9798724)
At Islanders hockey games, beer is sold in plastic bottles with the cap taken off.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by tbomb on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:06PM (#9799351)
This has been a growing trend in many arenas and stadiums in Florida too. I've seen them in at least 5 different venues across the state now.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by pimlottc on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:07PM (#9799366)
This is pretty standard for bottled water at music festivals as well.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by peterfirefly on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:54AM (#9797348)
Plastic bottles instead of glass bottles probably also help. You don't have to be nearly as careful when you handle plastic bottles.

(I /think/ they are also cheaper to produce.)

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by csn on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:20AM (#9797580)
And considerably lighter. Good for logistics.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by afterburner on Monday June 29, 2015 @10:46AM (#9798386)
I wouldn't be shocked if they make sure it's always about as affordable as it used to be, since they do want everyone drinking it (as opposed to companies like Apple going for status/luxury bucks).
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by jsprogrammer on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:57PM (#9799725)
Lesser quality ingredients are also used. Additionally, Coca-cola is mostly water, which means its price will largely be driven by the price of water, which hopefully means that everyone will still be able to drink it.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by netcan on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:00AM (#9797360)
This thread is damn good economics.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by deciplex on Monday June 29, 2015 @02:27AM (#9796663)
Your standard 2010s American is also roughly 3x as large as the typical 1950s American, though.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by netcan on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:02AM (#9797364)
Sounds like you're suggesting that instead of doing a headcount for population growth, we should be looking at biomass. Interesting. This would mace sense for big mac economics and the newly founded field of coke economics.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by deciplex on Monday June 29, 2015 @09:28AM (#9797896)
Yes. GDP per capita is a meaningless statistic - what we want to know is GDP per kilogram. Likewise, American productivity as measured per worker is a meaningless statistic, but the productivity of the American worker-kilogram will determine our global competitiveness.

It makes sense when you think about it. Measuring things at the level of an individual implies some sort of "consciousness", but we're learning in neuroscience/philosophy class that consciousness is mostly an illusion. I mean, our brains are made of meat. How can meat be conscious?

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by netcan on Monday June 29, 2015 @09:44AM (#9797983)
Never mind how! If meat can be conscious.. lets just say it can for the moment.. than it stands to reason that more meat can be more conscious. They're growing more, bigger meat all the time! Maybe if their meatbodies get big enough... Nevermind, this is stupid.. yep, you're right... meat can't be conscious... I know I know. I got carried away.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by jeffbr13 on Monday June 29, 2015 @12:04PM (#9798923)
relevant: THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT <http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html>
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by ptaipale on Monday June 29, 2015 @10:12AM (#9798155)
Besides, we could solve the world's energy problems by burning idiots - they are renewable, and often contain lots of fat.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by netcan on Monday June 29, 2015 @11:04AM (#9798520)
This solves the matrix plot hole!
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by carbocation on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:35AM (#9797640)
Your typo ("this would mace sense") is actually quite topical, because MACE stands for "major adverse cardiac events".
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by camhenlin on Monday June 29, 2015 @02:53AM (#9796722)
No
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by bluedino on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:43AM (#9797689)
Did they sell 2-liters in 1940? A 2-liter costs less than a 20oz bottle in many cases.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by Altay- on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:13AM (#9797246)
And you're not accounting for the price of the bottle relative to the cost of the water/syrup.