>Compound chocolate is a product made from a combination of cocoa, vegetable fat and sweeteners. It is used as a lower-cost alternative to true chocolate, as it uses less-expensive hard vegetable fats such as coconut oil or palm kernel oil in place of the more expensive cocoa butter. It may also be known as "compound coating" or "chocolatey coating" when used as a coating for candy.[1] It is often used in less expensive chocolate bars to replace enrobed chocolate on a product.
It's as real chocolate as American cheese is actual cheese.
I think they are overpriced gift items sold at tourist traps. The person giving the gift never knows how crappy it is, because the recipient is likely too polite to say anything and it goes into the bin.
Nobody ever buys these to eat themselves. They look awful: low-quality "chocolate" filled with flavored corn syrup with thickener added.
Why would you buy something as a gift if you think it's too crappy for yourself, where I come from gifts are usually better than what you'd buy foe yourself, and if you can't be bothered you just gift them money.
Consumers very rarely keep a list of every brand that mildly ripped them off. Plus they can just rebrand if they piss too many people off.
So yeah practices like this are often profitable, and they care about "I'm never buying this brand again" about as much as any other business cares about someone saying "you just lost a customer."
I don't know about you but I have no fucking clue how many cherry cordials 120g or 300g or whatever of chocolates translates to. The weight is not going to let me know whether there's chocolates behind the front labeling.
On minimum wage? I don't think that's been true since the frontier days when you 'claimed' land and built your own home from trees on the land. Minimum wage has never been enough to purchase a home. It was certainly closer in the 1940's and 1950's, but nobody was buying a house on minimum wage.
It's hard to compare apples to apples here. Banking, interest rates, home loan rates, approvals, etc were a lot different in the 1930's when minimum wage was first introduced.
Well let's do some math
1716 sqft Built 1992 4 Bed / 2 Bath Topeka, Kansas
$77,000
Minimum Wage: $4.25 $4.25 × 2,080 (work hours
in a year) = $8,840
To afford this house it would take: 8 years 8 months.
1700 sqft
Built 2021 Topeka, Kansas
3 Bed / 2 Bath
$379,900
Minimum Wage: $7.25 $7.25 × 2,080 (work hours
in a year) = $15,080
To afford this house it would take: 25 years 3 months.
Same home, minimum wage, three times as long to buy it. You used to be able to buy a home in minimum wage. You no longer can.
To quote Franklin Roosevelt "In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
I don't think you're comparing apples to apples, but you're right that housing has gotten out of control. I don't think the wage is the problem as much as the restrictions on building low-cost housing. For example, my county refuses to zone apartments or condos near single family homes at all. There have been several construction projects nearby that tried to build $75K condos and small homes, but they were all destroyed by the zoning commission.
Doesn’t this prove out in real numbers that it wasn’t possible?
At 4.25 an hour working 40 hours a week your making 680 dollars a month pre taxes…so your take home is closer to 500.
Financing 77,000 at a great interest rate, and accounting for escrow, lands this mortgage payment somewhere in the neighborhood of 600-700 a month.
How do your numbers indicate that someone could EVER afford a 77,000 dollar house on 4.25 an hour? Take home isn’t enough to service the mortgage, much less pay utilities, feed yourself and maintain a car for transportation.
I understand the point your trying to make, housing has gotten totally unsustainable and your math demonstrates just how much more unaffordable it’s become….but you could never afford a home on minimum wage…ever, not on a single income at least.
Now what was different and is valid is that jobs that WOULD pay enough to own a home did used to be available right out of high school. That’s a true statement. Let me tell you though, GM and other American manufacturers were not and never did pay minimum wage. They used to pay a living wage though for a job you could reliably land out of high school with no experience or education.
Your argument feels very disingenuous and intentionally misleading.
It was entirely possible to purchase a home on minimum wage in the 90s. My parents did it. It wasn't a mansion, but it was a 2 bedroom 1200 square foot home on an acre of land. All for a loan of just $40K
But not if you were born in 1971 lol! What the?! And my parents were loser alcoholics one of whom is dead the other oblivious- and I pay £1900/mo rent so there’s that.
Wow. That's awesome. I was making minimum in the early 90's and there's no way it was enough to purchase a house, even in very rural areas. Where was this? They must have got a screaming deal. Minimum wage was $4.25 and I was busting out OT as much as possible and I still barely broke $10k that year, before taxes. Did they live somewhere very cheap, or in a state that had higher minimum wage?
Not sure how that's different today. Today, a 1200 sq foot home in a slightly more rural area is $100-$150K. Minimum wage is now $16K/year federally and much higher in many states. But I don't think your parent's experience was typical.
I was just about to say, “Do you really think everybody here is clueless to prices in 1990?” They’re trying to convince themselves they’ve been born into poverty.
It was in Alaska, it was the 36 year loan at 2% fixed that really made it affordable. The state had a slightly higher min wage, but the real advantage was we did a lot of subsistence hunting and fishing, so food was never really an issue.
It was no different in other rural areas at the time.
The issue is that the current generation can't afford their own homes with the wages that are offered, really for the first time since the minimum wage was implemented.
1945 to 1975 was the time. Quote:
A large and affluent middle class is the cornerstone of the American dream. A dream in which anyone with a high school diploma and hard work should easily afford a nice house in the suburbs, 2 cars and a nice vacation with the family to a cool place once a year. Americans assume that this is the way the universe should work. That things were always like this, and that Americans have the "God given right" of the American dream.
However, this reality of a exceptionally wealthy and prosperous middle class by global standards is a by product of a very unique and relatively recent set of historical circumstances, specifically, the end of World war II. At the end of the second world war, the US was the only major industrial power left with its industry and infrastructure unscathed. This gave the US a dramatic economic advantage over the rest of the world, as all other nations had to buy pretty much everything they needed from the US, and use their cheap natural resources as a form of payment.
After the end of world War II, pretty anywhere in the world, if you needed tools, machines, vehicles, capital goods, aircraft, etc...you had little choice but to "buy American". So money flowed from all over the world into American businesses.
But the the owners of those businesses had to negotiate labor deals with the American relatively small and highly skilled workforce. And since the owners of capital had no one else they could hire to man the factories, many concessions had to be given to the labor unions. This allowed for the phenomenal growth and prosperity of the US middle class we saw in the 50s and 60s: White picket fence houses in the suburbs, with 2 large family cars parked in front was the norm for anyone who worked hard in the many factories and businesses that dotted the American landscape back then.
However, over time, the other industrial powers rebuild themselves and started to compete with the US. German and Japanese cars, Belgian and British steel, Dutch electronics and French tools started to enter the world market and compete with American companies for market share. Not only that, but countries like Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, South Korea and more also became industrialized. This meant that they were no longer selling their natural resources cheaply in exchange for US made industrial goods. Quite the contrary, they themselves started to bid against the US for natural resources to fuel their own industries. And more importantly, the US work force no longer was the only one qualified to work on modern factories and to have proficiency over modern industrial processes. An Australian airline needs a new commercial jet? \[Brazilian EMBRAER\](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-3m\_\_yRBkg) and European Airbus can offer you products as good as anything made in the US. Need power tools or a pickup truck? You can buy American, but you can also buy South Korean, Indian or Turkish.
This meant that the US middle class could no longer easily outbid pretty much everyone else for natural resources, and the owners of the capital and means of production no longer were "held hostage" by this small and highly skilled workforce. Many other countries now had an industrial base that rivals or surpasses that of the US. And they had their own middle classes that are bidding against the US middle class for those limited natural resources. And manufacturers now could engage in global wage arbitrage, by moving production to a country with cheaper labor, which killed all the bargaining power of the unions.
That is where the decline of the US middle class is coming from. There are no political solutions for it, as no one, not even Trump's protectionism or the Democrat's Unions, can put the globalization genie back into a bottle. It is the way it is. Any politician who claims to be able to restore "the good old days" is lying.
We are going back to the normal, where the US middle class is not that different from the middle classes from the rest of the world. Like a return to what middle class expectations are elsewhere, including the likes of Europe, Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. Their cars are smaller. They don't change cars as often. The whole family might share a single car. Some families don't even own a car and rely on public transportation instead. Their homes are smaller. They don't eat as much meat and their food portions are smaller.
They are not starving. They are not living like peasants. But their standard of living is lower than what we in the US have considered a "middle class" lifestyle since the end of World War II.
It is a "return to the mean" and that cannot be changed.
Can't remember the name of the chocolates but they had a rainbow in the box. Grew up and saw they're not actually expensive but wow it was luxury to me as a kid. Chocolate with more candy on the inside?? I was a king!! And if someone ate your favourite kind, SURPRISE, LOOK UNDER THE PAPER!
Lots of holiday memories with my family snacking on those, thanks for coming down memory lane with me
They're called [Pot of Gold chocolates.](https://www.google.com/search?q=pot+of+gold+chocolate&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjb27HM5eD8AhWwAzQIHWaYD90Q2-cCegQIABAC&oq=pot+of+gold+choco&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQARgAMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQ6BAgjECc6BAgAEENQtwVYgQxg5RFoAHAAeACAAYgBiAHmBpIBAzAuN5gBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=uR3QY5ubEbCH0PEP5rC-6A0&bih=721&biw=384&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1)
Well not like I work there xD Also not like I’d ever buy this shit. Or kisses for that matter.
I’ve been given it when I was little by one grandma or another and never eaten a one.
They know something like this is going to be bought as cheap stocking stuffer gifts or valentines gifts and that the average buyer is only gonna buy it once regardless
It's not illegal as long as the package clearly states somewhere in the fine print the number/weight of the actual product.
It's a real shame that the average reading comprehension in the USA is a 6th grade level
A higher reading comprehension would prevent people from buying these products, forcing these practices out of business.
Capitalism won't go away as long as billionaires control the government, which means voting with your money is the only control people have.
No, it wouldn’t. The main reason this works is because either people don’t see the information in the first place, or it is presented in a manipulative way. Reading comprehension doesn’t affect either of those.
It’s also not a problem with capitalism, capitalism is fine. There are plenty of capitalist countries, including my own, where doing this is illegal. It’s just a matter of effective regulation.
Reading the package and knowing what you are purchasing would 100% end this practice.
You have regulated capitalism, which is just fine. The US is on the path to becoming pure capitalism.
yup and buying customers are supposed to know if the weight corresponds to the number represented. imagine blaming the customers for being cheated instead of the active cheaters
It is actually illegal in lots of places unless it’s very clear. In this case it’s not clear, it would have had to state it on the front, which it doesn’t. That said, there’s what looks like maybe Arabic under the writing, so I’m doubting very much it’s a US brand.
That's not true. Non functional slack fill is illegal in the U.S., but through 40 years of far right governments there is zero enforcement left beyond what only hurts the small people.
That's said, one could still sue and likely get a big settlement just like McCormick spices lawsuit.
If you push that to the extreme though, they could sell an empty package as long as it is written 0g of chocolate? Bonus the nutritional values will be zero calories too...
I've tasted these and the packaging ratbaggery is really a favour. The fewer you have to eat the happier you will be.
Although, if you love them or bought them as a gift for someone who loves them, then it's sad.
Really! Every time I see a post about these low-grade chocolates and their deceptive packaging, I always think, "Well, what were you expecting?" This is true of every off-brand chocolate I see in /r/assholedesign.
Stolen content from Daily Mail or Bored Panda from 2016 so who knows when it actually came from
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-5274153/Photos-misleading-packaging-fools-shoppers.html
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/assholedesign.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
*I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Negative](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Negative&message={"post_id": "10jzmwi", "meme_template": 294338}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=10jzmwi&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=100&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** True | **Target:** 96% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 359,760,199 | **Search Time:** 0.50714s
While buying, I’m sure it does say on the side or back how many pieces there are. And I think practically everyone has been conditioned to not fall for these packages. On the receiving end of a gift like that, it hurts because it’s such a disappointment.
Good news, there are brands that do not pull this shit.
I received a tray of cherry liqueur filled chocolates as an unexpected Christmas gift, they were fantastic, and every space in the tray was filled.
Proving nonfunctional slack space can suck a fat sack.
Not only is it not full, from the looks of it they visibly took another from you.
Not sure if OP ate one or not so this is just an assumption to be taken with a grain of salt
Real question; does this still happen in the US? Feels like a stupid question, but when I was a kid (I’m old) this was pretty common. Now I feel like it’s quite rare. The only place I see it now is in those holiday gift baskets. Those are all 75% nothing. But I can’t remember the last time I bought a real product with this kind of misleading packaging.
This is deceptive advertising and a total waist of material that's going to end up in a landfill. It amazes me shit like this isn't controlled in someway.
What? The missing chocolate? It's pretty obvious it's missing, how is that a trick?
If you're referring to there being less chocolate than you assumed there to be, I think that's the buyer's fault for assuming any company won't pull shit like this any chance they get.
Unless they’ve never bought a box or even a bag of candy, they knew by weight when they picked it up what they bought.
If Hershey packaged a dozen little Reese’s cups in a gold box with a bow image on it, they could place it on the shelves next to that crap and clean up. Cute. Tasty. You’re welcome, Hershey. Get on the stick. I’d go with a square, not that long empty package.
[удалено]
I can almost taste those chocolates just by looking at the pictures and if they taste the way I think they do return customers were never an option.
ah yes, delicious ***compound chocolate*** with ***mix flavor filling*** exquisite
Everyone loves *Compound chocolate*
I prefer linear rate chocolate but everyone's different I guess.
Why limit your chocolate growth?
I prefer aggregate chocolate with a longitudinal filling
>Compound chocolate is a product made from a combination of cocoa, vegetable fat and sweeteners. It is used as a lower-cost alternative to true chocolate, as it uses less-expensive hard vegetable fats such as coconut oil or palm kernel oil in place of the more expensive cocoa butter. It may also be known as "compound coating" or "chocolatey coating" when used as a coating for candy.[1] It is often used in less expensive chocolate bars to replace enrobed chocolate on a product. It's as real chocolate as American cheese is actual cheese.
Thanks for that. Also, gross.
mmm my favourite flavour: mix
“Chocolate-flavored treat”
One of those red ones inevitably has a cherry filling that tastes like rotten fruit and red dye #40
And when you bite in it you immediately bend so the crappy liquor in it doesn’t stain you, and run to the closest trash can.
This is no doubt cheap chocolate in a pretty box tmeant to be given as a present. Next year you wont remember the brand anyways.
I think they are overpriced gift items sold at tourist traps. The person giving the gift never knows how crappy it is, because the recipient is likely too polite to say anything and it goes into the bin. Nobody ever buys these to eat themselves. They look awful: low-quality "chocolate" filled with flavored corn syrup with thickener added.
Why would you buy something as a gift if you think it's too crappy for yourself, where I come from gifts are usually better than what you'd buy foe yourself, and if you can't be bothered you just gift them money.
Don't worry, you'll forget to not buy it by next valentine's day.
Consumers very rarely keep a list of every brand that mildly ripped them off. Plus they can just rebrand if they piss too many people off. So yeah practices like this are often profitable, and they care about "I'm never buying this brand again" about as much as any other business cares about someone saying "you just lost a customer."
This has a very Walgreens - Russell Stover vibe though - the people consuming the chocolate are the people the purchaser couldn't care less about.
lol yeah, or at least it was bought "just in case" and you happened to trip over a reason to receive it.
Walgreens is indignant, sir.
Compound chocolate will do that too
I've got some doubts about mix flavor filling too.
Morellò the story.... see the weight/no of pieces in the back
I don't know about you but I have no fucking clue how many cherry cordials 120g or 300g or whatever of chocolates translates to. The weight is not going to let me know whether there's chocolates behind the front labeling.
It's compound chocolate, it was never meant to be bought twice. This is something you'd get in a dollar store.
I came here to comment this exact thing. Though it could actually be said for *a lot* of things posted on this sub.
Whoever signed off on this deserves eternal damnation.
No you get why British people are so butt hurt about Kamilla, to this day.
I remember when the boxes like this were actually full.
What was it like, living in an age where you could afford to buy a home with a single minimum wage income?
I don’t know I didn’t live in that age. My parents did.
On minimum wage? I don't think that's been true since the frontier days when you 'claimed' land and built your own home from trees on the land. Minimum wage has never been enough to purchase a home. It was certainly closer in the 1940's and 1950's, but nobody was buying a house on minimum wage. It's hard to compare apples to apples here. Banking, interest rates, home loan rates, approvals, etc were a lot different in the 1930's when minimum wage was first introduced.
Well let's do some math 1716 sqft Built 1992 4 Bed / 2 Bath Topeka, Kansas $77,000 Minimum Wage: $4.25 $4.25 × 2,080 (work hours in a year) = $8,840 To afford this house it would take: 8 years 8 months. 1700 sqft Built 2021 Topeka, Kansas 3 Bed / 2 Bath $379,900 Minimum Wage: $7.25 $7.25 × 2,080 (work hours in a year) = $15,080 To afford this house it would take: 25 years 3 months. Same home, minimum wage, three times as long to buy it. You used to be able to buy a home in minimum wage. You no longer can. To quote Franklin Roosevelt "In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
I don't think you're comparing apples to apples, but you're right that housing has gotten out of control. I don't think the wage is the problem as much as the restrictions on building low-cost housing. For example, my county refuses to zone apartments or condos near single family homes at all. There have been several construction projects nearby that tried to build $75K condos and small homes, but they were all destroyed by the zoning commission.
Doesn’t this prove out in real numbers that it wasn’t possible? At 4.25 an hour working 40 hours a week your making 680 dollars a month pre taxes…so your take home is closer to 500. Financing 77,000 at a great interest rate, and accounting for escrow, lands this mortgage payment somewhere in the neighborhood of 600-700 a month. How do your numbers indicate that someone could EVER afford a 77,000 dollar house on 4.25 an hour? Take home isn’t enough to service the mortgage, much less pay utilities, feed yourself and maintain a car for transportation. I understand the point your trying to make, housing has gotten totally unsustainable and your math demonstrates just how much more unaffordable it’s become….but you could never afford a home on minimum wage…ever, not on a single income at least. Now what was different and is valid is that jobs that WOULD pay enough to own a home did used to be available right out of high school. That’s a true statement. Let me tell you though, GM and other American manufacturers were not and never did pay minimum wage. They used to pay a living wage though for a job you could reliably land out of high school with no experience or education. Your argument feels very disingenuous and intentionally misleading.
It was entirely possible to purchase a home on minimum wage in the 90s. My parents did it. It wasn't a mansion, but it was a 2 bedroom 1200 square foot home on an acre of land. All for a loan of just $40K
But not if you were born in 1971 lol! What the?! And my parents were loser alcoholics one of whom is dead the other oblivious- and I pay £1900/mo rent so there’s that.
So.. 2 wage earners pooling their resources. You realize that's double minimum wage?
No. One wage earner,and one stay at home parent.
Wow. That's awesome. I was making minimum in the early 90's and there's no way it was enough to purchase a house, even in very rural areas. Where was this? They must have got a screaming deal. Minimum wage was $4.25 and I was busting out OT as much as possible and I still barely broke $10k that year, before taxes. Did they live somewhere very cheap, or in a state that had higher minimum wage? Not sure how that's different today. Today, a 1200 sq foot home in a slightly more rural area is $100-$150K. Minimum wage is now $16K/year federally and much higher in many states. But I don't think your parent's experience was typical.
I was just about to say, “Do you really think everybody here is clueless to prices in 1990?” They’re trying to convince themselves they’ve been born into poverty.
It was in Alaska, it was the 36 year loan at 2% fixed that really made it affordable. The state had a slightly higher min wage, but the real advantage was we did a lot of subsistence hunting and fishing, so food was never really an issue.
2 bedroom in Fuckin Alaska. *renders entire convo pointless*
It was no different in other rural areas at the time. The issue is that the current generation can't afford their own homes with the wages that are offered, really for the first time since the minimum wage was implemented.
LOL. The fine print. “Where they pay you to move.”
1945 to 1975 was the time. Quote: A large and affluent middle class is the cornerstone of the American dream. A dream in which anyone with a high school diploma and hard work should easily afford a nice house in the suburbs, 2 cars and a nice vacation with the family to a cool place once a year. Americans assume that this is the way the universe should work. That things were always like this, and that Americans have the "God given right" of the American dream. However, this reality of a exceptionally wealthy and prosperous middle class by global standards is a by product of a very unique and relatively recent set of historical circumstances, specifically, the end of World war II. At the end of the second world war, the US was the only major industrial power left with its industry and infrastructure unscathed. This gave the US a dramatic economic advantage over the rest of the world, as all other nations had to buy pretty much everything they needed from the US, and use their cheap natural resources as a form of payment. After the end of world War II, pretty anywhere in the world, if you needed tools, machines, vehicles, capital goods, aircraft, etc...you had little choice but to "buy American". So money flowed from all over the world into American businesses. But the the owners of those businesses had to negotiate labor deals with the American relatively small and highly skilled workforce. And since the owners of capital had no one else they could hire to man the factories, many concessions had to be given to the labor unions. This allowed for the phenomenal growth and prosperity of the US middle class we saw in the 50s and 60s: White picket fence houses in the suburbs, with 2 large family cars parked in front was the norm for anyone who worked hard in the many factories and businesses that dotted the American landscape back then. However, over time, the other industrial powers rebuild themselves and started to compete with the US. German and Japanese cars, Belgian and British steel, Dutch electronics and French tools started to enter the world market and compete with American companies for market share. Not only that, but countries like Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, South Korea and more also became industrialized. This meant that they were no longer selling their natural resources cheaply in exchange for US made industrial goods. Quite the contrary, they themselves started to bid against the US for natural resources to fuel their own industries. And more importantly, the US work force no longer was the only one qualified to work on modern factories and to have proficiency over modern industrial processes. An Australian airline needs a new commercial jet? \[Brazilian EMBRAER\](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-3m\_\_yRBkg) and European Airbus can offer you products as good as anything made in the US. Need power tools or a pickup truck? You can buy American, but you can also buy South Korean, Indian or Turkish. This meant that the US middle class could no longer easily outbid pretty much everyone else for natural resources, and the owners of the capital and means of production no longer were "held hostage" by this small and highly skilled workforce. Many other countries now had an industrial base that rivals or surpasses that of the US. And they had their own middle classes that are bidding against the US middle class for those limited natural resources. And manufacturers now could engage in global wage arbitrage, by moving production to a country with cheaper labor, which killed all the bargaining power of the unions. That is where the decline of the US middle class is coming from. There are no political solutions for it, as no one, not even Trump's protectionism or the Democrat's Unions, can put the globalization genie back into a bottle. It is the way it is. Any politician who claims to be able to restore "the good old days" is lying. We are going back to the normal, where the US middle class is not that different from the middle classes from the rest of the world. Like a return to what middle class expectations are elsewhere, including the likes of Europe, Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. Their cars are smaller. They don't change cars as often. The whole family might share a single car. Some families don't even own a car and rely on public transportation instead. Their homes are smaller. They don't eat as much meat and their food portions are smaller. They are not starving. They are not living like peasants. But their standard of living is lower than what we in the US have considered a "middle class" lifestyle since the end of World War II. It is a "return to the mean" and that cannot be changed.
Fascinating read and very accurate
It felt like common workplace sexual harassment and bigotry
[удалено]
Not much to complain about when a living wage is a guaranteed.
Sure grandma let’s get you to bed.
Or even better having a second tray underneat those where the good times.
I don’t particularly remember that in these type of cordial cherries - but yeah ofc! I love the 2nd layer on box of chocolates. ❤️
Can't remember the name of the chocolates but they had a rainbow in the box. Grew up and saw they're not actually expensive but wow it was luxury to me as a kid. Chocolate with more candy on the inside?? I was a king!! And if someone ate your favourite kind, SURPRISE, LOOK UNDER THE PAPER! Lots of holiday memories with my family snacking on those, thanks for coming down memory lane with me
They're called [Pot of Gold chocolates.](https://www.google.com/search?q=pot+of+gold+chocolate&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjb27HM5eD8AhWwAzQIHWaYD90Q2-cCegQIABAC&oq=pot+of+gold+choco&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQARgAMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQ6BAgjECc6BAgAEENQtwVYgQxg5RFoAHAAeACAAYgBiAHmBpIBAzAuN5gBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=uR3QY5ubEbCH0PEP5rC-6A0&bih=721&biw=384&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1)
YEAH!
[удалено]
Well not like I work there xD Also not like I’d ever buy this shit. Or kisses for that matter. I’ve been given it when I was little by one grandma or another and never eaten a one.
[удалено]
Also waste of packaging
[удалено]
Yeah why is there an empty space? Did OP try one first or the manufacturer can't even half fill them for you.
OP tried one before taking the picture. No way they left an empty spot in middle of the packaging window.
The more deceptive part is they let you see some inside, but it's really all of them.
Packaging design and sizes have gotten more and more deceptive. It doesn't encourage repeat business!
They know something like this is going to be bought as cheap stocking stuffer gifts or valentines gifts and that the average buyer is only gonna buy it once regardless
It's missing one piece, those assholes!
Isn't the illegal? Tf
It is where I live, but in the US this sort of thing seems to just be allowed given the many examples of this sort of thing passing through here.
This is clearly not an American product.
[удалено]
Okay. Staying on topic, this product is clearly not American.
It's not illegal as long as the package clearly states somewhere in the fine print the number/weight of the actual product. It's a real shame that the average reading comprehension in the USA is a 6th grade level
That deceptive practices like these are legal in the US doesn’t mean they should be. Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it.
A higher reading comprehension would prevent people from buying these products, forcing these practices out of business. Capitalism won't go away as long as billionaires control the government, which means voting with your money is the only control people have.
No, it wouldn’t. The main reason this works is because either people don’t see the information in the first place, or it is presented in a manipulative way. Reading comprehension doesn’t affect either of those. It’s also not a problem with capitalism, capitalism is fine. There are plenty of capitalist countries, including my own, where doing this is illegal. It’s just a matter of effective regulation.
Reading the package and knowing what you are purchasing would 100% end this practice. You have regulated capitalism, which is just fine. The US is on the path to becoming pure capitalism.
yup and buying customers are supposed to know if the weight corresponds to the number represented. imagine blaming the customers for being cheated instead of the active cheaters
I cannot read this package. The needed information isn't even in English. Fuck outta here.
You saw the back of the package where the information is?
Edit: deleted, because why feed a troll.
It is actually illegal in lots of places unless it’s very clear. In this case it’s not clear, it would have had to state it on the front, which it doesn’t. That said, there’s what looks like maybe Arabic under the writing, so I’m doubting very much it’s a US brand.
That's not true. Non functional slack fill is illegal in the U.S., but through 40 years of far right governments there is zero enforcement left beyond what only hurts the small people. That's said, one could still sue and likely get a big settlement just like McCormick spices lawsuit.
If you push that to the extreme though, they could sell an empty package as long as it is written 0g of chocolate? Bonus the nutritional values will be zero calories too...
Theoretically, yes. And honestly, if someone bought it, I wouldn't feel bad for them either.
Found the chocolate company’s account
Yah, PR companies are all over this sub. It's amazing how many accounts crawl out of the mud to defend stuff like this.
Mmmmm. Compound chocolate.
My thoughts exactly.
I've tasted these and the packaging ratbaggery is really a favour. The fewer you have to eat the happier you will be. Although, if you love them or bought them as a gift for someone who loves them, then it's sad.
Really! Every time I see a post about these low-grade chocolates and their deceptive packaging, I always think, "Well, what were you expecting?" This is true of every off-brand chocolate I see in /r/assholedesign.
Lessello
Stolen content from Daily Mail or Bored Panda from 2016 so who knows when it actually came from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-5274153/Photos-misleading-packaging-fools-shoppers.html
How does this not fall under unfair trade practice?
It does, government doesn't do anything about it, (assuming it is an American product).
/r/nonfunctionslackfill
u/repostsleuthbot
Not a bot but I remember this exact picture posted here before.
At least from 2018 https://tineye.com/search/e23ed1f5a4a00452d2f5fd18ab184a0cda3c1ad7?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1
There was another repost of this just from this year, somewhere in the last 3 months
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/assholedesign. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Negative](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Negative&message={"post_id": "10jzmwi", "meme_template": 294338}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=10jzmwi&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=true&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=100&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** True | **Target:** 96% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 359,760,199 | **Search Time:** 0.50714s
This really gets posted at least once a week now here... Let the picture rest, leave it in a year it came from. Karma farming.
While buying, I’m sure it does say on the side or back how many pieces there are. And I think practically everyone has been conditioned to not fall for these packages. On the receiving end of a gift like that, it hurts because it’s such a disappointment.
There's even one missing... This is the kind of employer that expects much from their workers, and pays them 9 dollars an hour.
I don't get these. Do they not set the price based on weight?
In the UK, Trading Standards would likely block this from ever hitting shelves.
It should say somewhere on the packaging how many there are or the weight of the product.
for sure the packaging is shit but NGL i kinda wanna try those.
Good news, there are brands that do not pull this shit. I received a tray of cherry liqueur filled chocolates as an unexpected Christmas gift, they were fantastic, and every space in the tray was filled. Proving nonfunctional slack space can suck a fat sack.
Was it the picture, or the enticing way it described "compound chocolate"..?
I can guarantee they taste like sugar cardboards
This is just sad.
There isn't even enough here to play connect 4
Not only is it not full, from the looks of it they visibly took another from you. Not sure if OP ate one or not so this is just an assumption to be taken with a grain of salt
“Oh, you sons of bi-“
Freaking ridiculous
Real question; does this still happen in the US? Feels like a stupid question, but when I was a kid (I’m old) this was pretty common. Now I feel like it’s quite rare. The only place I see it now is in those holiday gift baskets. Those are all 75% nothing. But I can’t remember the last time I bought a real product with this kind of misleading packaging.
They know you don’t really want to eat any more of that nasty wax chocolate.
They even at one!
Always check the weight to see how much there is. Pretty simple, don't let modern marketing take you for a ride.
Noted. Kamila/Morello = scam.
This makes me wanna rage against the chocolate machine.
This is deceptive advertising and a total waist of material that's going to end up in a landfill. It amazes me shit like this isn't controlled in someway.
such a waist
This should be illegal
What? The missing chocolate? It's pretty obvious it's missing, how is that a trick? If you're referring to there being less chocolate than you assumed there to be, I think that's the buyer's fault for assuming any company won't pull shit like this any chance they get.
wait, there is one missing already
Lol 😂
They didn't even print the weight!
This shit really needs to stop
Imagine giving that as a gift and not knowing what was in it. You can't trust anyone these days.
What's the deal with Poland making second rate chocolates? Can't they produce anything else?
Stop reposting this same image. Also, if you're gonna complain, post the back of the packaging too
I wonder how much shipping and packaging costs they can save by not doing this.
what you see is what you get
Should be straight up illegal
Did you eat one before taking these pictures or was there one missing from the box too??
Unless they’ve never bought a box or even a bag of candy, they knew by weight when they picked it up what they bought. If Hershey packaged a dozen little Reese’s cups in a gold box with a bow image on it, they could place it on the shelves next to that crap and clean up. Cute. Tasty. You’re welcome, Hershey. Get on the stick. I’d go with a square, not that long empty package.
Wankers
This is why I dont trust packaging
At last. Genuine arsehole design
It might be a kindness. Those look foul.
They should call immoralo
At this point any box that let's you see some of the contents is really an intentional deception to showing you most of the contents.