If This Keeps Up, They Will Have To Start Putting Armed Guards On Food Trucks

TEC ^ | 7-16-2014 | Michael Snyder

[blam]

By Michael Snyder
July 16th, 2014

The basic necessities in life just keep getting more expensive. On Tuesday, Hershey announced that the price of all of their chocolate bars is going to go up by about 8 percent. That is particularly distressing to me, because I am known to love chocolate. But if it was just chocolate that was becoming significantly more expensive perhaps that would be okay. Last month, it was coffee. J.M. Smucker, one of the largest coffee producers in the United States, announced that it planned to raise coffee prices by about 9 percent. And Starbucks has announced a bunch of price increases across the board on their coffee products. Of course we could all survive without chocolate and coffee, but as you will see below just about every food category is becoming more expensive. If this keeps up, could we eventually see armed guards in grocery stores and on food trucks?

On Wednesday, Robert Wenzel of the Economic Policy Journal shared some new data that has just been released by the federal government about food inflation over the past year. Without a doubt, these numbers are quite startling...

According to the latest data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, year-over-year gains in some food products at the producer level have been truly spectacular.

* Eggs for fresh use are up 33.9%.

* Pork is up 28%.

* Processed turkeys are up 20.4%.

* Dairy products are up 10.7%.

* Fresh and dry vegetables are up 8.4%.

* Fresh fruits and melons are up 7.5%.

Unfortunately, paychecks for most American families are not going up at similar rates.

(snip)

[Justa]

Just put this after the .jpg, separated by a space.

width=1024 height=720

Then enclose it with the >

Done.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Try this instead:

<img src="http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/current/current_usdm.png" width="100%">

[Arrowhead1952]

See my tagline to shrink images.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Here is a general rant on sizing images to fit displays :

With the proliferation of display devices, screens now come in a wide variety of sizes and aspect ratios. The image below illustrates the range of screens possible. Differing aspect ratios are shown on the diagonal lines with the ratio in circles towards the lower right.

Given the wide variation in screen resolution and size when we step from mobi to fondleslab to display to HDTV it is lunacy to specify screen position in term of pixels. There is no way to know what sized screen you are imaging to so it is best to reference screen sizes and positions in percentages instead. The resulting size is the percentage of the width (or height) of the enclosing container. This is most useful when specifying positions and sizes of tables and images. The HTML for the image above looks like:

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Vector_Video_Standards5.svg" width="95%">

The width="95%" part sets the image width to 95% of the width of the enclosing container. We leave the height unspecified so that the computer will figure out the correct value so as not to distort the image. If you wish to distort the image you may specify a height as well.

Things that are text related, such as the whitespace around a paragraph or header and text sizes are best specified in em. One em was originally the width of an M in the current font. In a multi-lingual world where not all alphabets have an M in them, the meaning has evolved to mean the height of the current font. As the user changes the magnification on a page the size of an em changes with it. This produces a pleasing scaled effect to the eye not possible when spacing objects in pixels.

Other unit values available are in inch, cm centimeter, mm millimeter, ex x-height of a font (x-height is usually about half the font-size), pt point - 1/72 of an inch, pc pica - 12 points and px pixels - a single dot on the screen. If no units are specified pixels are used by default. Best results across the broad spectrum of displays are achieved by exclusively using em and percent to specify size and distance. Try not to do anything else.

	Freedom ≠ Free Stuff☭
	I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /.
Mash Dobbshead® for HTML, bop Hello_Cthlhu for XAMPP

[IYAS9YAS]

Or a pound of coffee - now 11 or 13 ounces.

Or what used to be a pound of bacon coming in at 12 ounces to a package.

[MrB]

Those things are included in EBT calculations, for sure.

No matter how much food costs inflate, EBTs will go up accordingly,

so, you’re gonna pay more for YOUR food at the same time you’re gonna pay more in taxes for someone else’s food.

[deport]

Looks like help has arrived. I’ve never used the percentage approach but that seems
to be ideal to get it into alignment with the viewing monitor. Anyway try some of the
varying suggestions and see how they adapt best for you. Take care.

[Fightin Whitey]

willing to learn

One more primer using specific sizes rather than percentages.

When you go to post the graphic you obviously start out with the command "img src=" followed by the 'property' info for the jpg., right?

In this case the property code reads "http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/current/current_usdm.png"

Since this graphic is so huge you will want to include a width spec (or height...use one or the other and the proportion will be carried out automatically).

A width somewhere between 300 and 500 is usually a good size for FR...you can experiment on the preview.

So you take the property description at the end of it add the width spec, in this case 450...

"http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/current/current_usdm.png width=450... and close it out with the usual close image command.

Using 450 you get this:

[blam]

Thanks everyone. This was done with width=700.

[RWB Patriot]

Armed guards, no. Government checkpoints manned by goon squads, requiring a government ration card and proof of “political reliability”, definitely.

[Mycroft Holmes]

So, you choose to ignore my ongoing jihad against pixel specifications in HTML... Well, it is a choice.

	Freedom ≠ Free Stuff☭
	Percent rules! Pixels drool!
Mash Dobbshead® for HTML, bop Hello_Cthlhu for XAMPP

[TMSuchman]

Now tie this in with a either a natural or man made disaster, & sit back and watch up circle the drain for the last time!

[Carriage Hill]

Try this one:

< img src=”???.jpg” height=”?”width=”?” Border=”1”>

[ELS]

But we can’t include food and energy inflation when figuring gvt benefits for Social Security recipients. Oh, no, we can’t do that

Right, because SocSec recipients don't spend any of their money on food or energy. </sarc>

[Patriotic1]

I buy fancy-pants peas: LeSeuer in the silver can. I joke that they are free range because they are so expensive. A couple of years ago they were routinely 1.10 or so, going on sale for under $1. Now, the cans run about 1.80 and rarely go on sale.

I still have the cheaper cans in my pantry but am having a hard time “shelling” out the money for more peas. But it’s not like they’re going to get cheaper.

[ELS]

So, you choose to ignore my ongoing jihad against pixel specifications in HTML...

LOL! Thanks for the graphic in reply #44.

[upchuck]

I agree, using percentage is the way to go. Here's blam's original pic set to 97% width:

That's better but some of the wording gets fuzzy.

[upchuck]

Those things are included in EBT calculations, for sure.

I don't believe they are.

Food stamps for all recipients went down last October (2013) when a stimlus, part of porkulus, ran out.

[GOPJ]

* Eggs for fresh use are up 33.9%.

* Pork is up 28%.

* Processed turkeys are up 20.4%.

* Dairy products are up 10.7%.

* Fresh and dry vegetables are up 8.4%.

* Fresh fruits and melons are up 7.5%.

Unfortunately, paychecks for most American families are not going up...

****************************************************************

The New York Times won’t notice because a democrat is President.

[upchuck]

Here's the raw image pulled straight off the web site. No resizing or other refinements:

That image is 1056 x 816 pixels.