One of my local grocery stores just replaced many of their weighing scales. The old ones had dials with pounds on the outside and kilograms in smaller type inside. The newer scales, apparently made by the same company, omit the kilograms.
Just thought this was an interesting trend.

I have never seen kilograms on a supermarket scale -- although, if you'll notice, the produce scales do pounds and ounces whereas the cashier's scale does decimal pounds.

The US commerce and industry has shown a strong tendency to express measurements in decimal form, whatever the units may be.

With a bit of a nudge they will realise that it is only a short step to the adoption of a single system of measurement that satisfies that yearning quite naturally. Why metric of course!

Stan, please explain to me why displaying the weight of produce on a scale in decimal kilos is preferable to decimal pounds?

And besides, the new scales at the store I was referring to are not marked decimally.

Bud wrote

<<
Stan, please explain to me why displaying the weight of produce on a scale in decimal kilos is preferable to decimal pounds?
>>

I thought that it was self-evident - a decimal fraction of a pound does not easily map onto a sub-divsion of a pound, but a decimal fraction of a kilogram does map onto a sub-division of a kilogram. Or, in simple language 0.6 lbs = some horrible fraction when represented in ounces, but 0.6 kg = 600g ... an easy conversion.

OK, so maybe that much is self evident. The next step is, why does that matter? It all looks very good in theory, I have to admit, but what is the practical benefit?

The practical benefit is that if one is buying medium-value goods (such as exotic cheeses) can be prices per 100g, high value goods (such as herbs and spices) can be priced per 10g and low value gods (such as potatoes) can be priced per kg. If goods lie somewhere between these boundaries, then the fact that one merchant might choose to price by the kg and another by the 100g will minimise the confusion to the consumer

Of course, the opposite is also true- on scales using fractions of a pound, it is easier to map the sub-divisions of the pound etc.

Bryan,

You appear to have missed my point. If one dealer advertises something at £15.50/kg and another at £1.55/100g (as happens on UK Deli counters), it is easy to see that the two prices aer identical. However, one dealer pricess somehting as £7.20/lb and another at 45p/oz, it take a fair amount of mental effort to compare the two. BTW, both prices are the same, though you would not have guessed it.

In the US, anything that is sold loose is priced per pound. End of story.
The problem in the metric system is that there is no mass unit suitable for groceries. The kilogram is too big and the gram is too small. Some merchant attempted to fill the void by introducing a 100-g unit. So different merchants may now choose price per 100 g or per kg. In the US this situation does not arise, because the pound is perfectly suited for measuring all loose groceries.
This is another example of what I said earlier. The advantages of the metric system look very nice on paper, but they are of little or no meaning when you look at reality.

In the US, anything that is sold loose is priced per pound. End of story.
The problem in the metric system is that there is no mass unit suitable for groceries. The kilogram is too big and the gram is too small. Some merchant attempted to fill the void by introducing a 100-g unit. So different merchants may now choose price per 100 g or per kg. In the US this situation does not arise, because the pound is perfectly suited for measuring all loose groceries.
This is another example of what I said earlier. The advantages of the metric system look very nice on paper, but they are of little or no meaning when you look at reality.

In the US, anything that is sold loose is priced per pound. End of story.
The problem in the metric system is that there is no mass unit suitable for groceries. The kilogram is too big and the gram is too small. Some merchant attempted to fill the void by introducing a 100-g unit. So different merchants may now choose price per 100 g or per kg. In the US this situation does not arise, because the pound is perfectly suited for measuring all loose groceries.
This is another example of what I said earlier. The advantages of the metric system look very nice on paper, but they are of little or no meaning when you look at reality.

In the US, anything that is sold loose is priced per pound. End of story.
The problem in the metric system is that there is no mass unit suitable for groceries. The kilogram is too big and the gram is too small. Some merchant attempted to fill the void by introducing a 100-g unit. So different merchants may now choose price per 100 g or per kg. In the US this situation does not arise, because the pound is perfectly suited for measuring all loose groceries.
This is another example of what I said earlier. The advantages of the metric system look very nice on paper, but they are of little or no meaning when you look at reality.

In the US, anything that is sold loose is priced per pound. End of story.
The problem in the metric system is that there is no mass unit suitable for groceries. The kilogram is too big and the gram is too small. Some merchant attempted to fill the void by introducing a 100-g unit. So different merchants may now choose price per 100 g or per kg. In the US this situation does not arise, because the pound is perfectly suited for measuring all loose groceries.
This is another example of what I said earlier. The advantages of the metric system look very nice on paper, but they are of little or no meaning when you look at reality.

Somebody keeps on telling us that 120 million ignorant American know metric measures better than the rest of the world.

Shut up eric! Making things up again!

^Blip^

Anyhoo:

"However, one dealer pricess somehting as £7.20/lb and another at 45p/oz"

You know very well - martin - that deli counters in the UK mark by the pound and the qtr of a pound. Its not rocket science.

Re: US Supermarket Observation November 8 2004, 2:12 AM

metre:
Somebody keeps on telling us that 120 million ignorant American know metric measures better than the rest of the world.

Since posting above, I came across more accurate figures. As an American put it so aptly, its only 59 million utterly ignorant Yanks that decide who and how the country is run. That of course includes measurements. Is it a wonder if people like these decide anything that Yankeeland is in such a mess? Mind you, he used a much stronger and perfectly fitting word to describe these 59 million people.

<<
As an American put it so aptly, its only 59 million utterly ignorant Yanks that decide who and how the country is run.
>>

The person with the most votes won the election. What is the problem here, metre?



Predicted answer: anyone who would vote for Bush must not know metric measurement. Therefore, since Bush won, most Americans don't know metric measurement.

Re: US Supermarket Observation November 9 2004, 4:15 AM


metre:<<
As an American put it so aptly, its only 59 million utterly ignorant Yanks that decide who and how the country is run.
>>
Bud:
The person with the most votes won the election. What is the problem here, metre?
Predicted answer: anyone who would vote for Bush must not know metric measurement. Therefore, since Bush won, most Americans don't know metric measurement.

metre:
Ever heard about the lowest common denominator?
That among many other problems is the reason you still use medieval measurements.

Or mayby this explains it?
Now that religious and predominantly naval gazing super patriotic Americans have re-elected their crusading cowboy again, one can only pity a world held to ransom by such an ignorant and Midas stricken lot.

Sorry, should be navel.

Note the tone of his post and then go to the "Qustions to BWMA" group of threads and see how he backtracks on his insults to *all* americans.

Bud:
Therefore, since Bush won, most Americans don't know metric measurement

metre:
Since when are 59 million Bush voters most Americans?

Bush got the most votes, period.




Why the heck am I still responding on this thread?

Because he's a grade-A troll?

Re: US Supermarket Observation November 10 2004, 7:55 AM

Bud:
Bush got the most votes, period.
Why the heck am I still responding on this thread?

metre:
Sorry, does that make them most Americans?

It makes them most of the ones that bothered voting.
You can't force people to vote.

And indeed, you SHOULDN'T (because they DO force people to vote in some European countries).

and also in Australia too.

On the other hand - you do get farces like the Welsh Assembly being voted for in a referendum on the back of just 20% of the electorate bothering to turn up to vote.

And you can imagine who the majority of that 20% is likely to be!

Face it Bud - eric hates Bush and everything he stands for, infact he hates americans. It's a lose-lose argument trying to reason with the bigot on anything to do with measurements.

You'll note (by now) that his hatred of imperial is *because* of America using it rather than just about imperial.

As he's said in one of his posts, he's old enough to have been taught it in a UK school as the predominant measure and criticized me for once telling him that he was metric - apparently I'd been "presumptuous"

Remember that when he calls everyone "imperialists" - to him even Berenger is an "imperialist" !!

Bryan wrote

<<
And indeed, you SHOULDN'T (because they DO force people to vote in some European countries).
>>

Two points:

1. Being forced to vote does not mean that you have to actually vote for anybody - you can always spoil your paper.

2. It is totally impractical to force people to vote in the UK - the voter's list is not a population register. For example - a university student whose parents are divorced and who spends an equal amount of time with each parent and who is also in the university hall of residence might well find himself on three different voter's rolls - though it is illegal for him to vote more than once in any one election. In other countries, such as Germany, he would be registered at the town hall and that register would be used by the tax authorities, social security and the electoral office.

With regard to Martin's post about spoiling the paper, I believe that "Mickey Mouse" has recieved most votes in some Australian council elections. I think they refuse to count the votes for fictional characters.

Still think we have to do something in the UK to improve voter turnout though, even if we don't go as far as Oz.

<<
In other countries, such as Germany, he would be registered at the town hall and that register would be used by the tax authorities, social security and the electoral office.
>>

Sorry to go off topic, but do Germany and other European countries keep central registers of all people living there?

Bud
Re: US Supermarket Observation November 11 2004, 3:04 AM


It makes them most of the ones that bothered voting.
You can't force people to vote.

metre:
No need to use force, just use religion (good and evil) it achieves the same result as we have seen.

Bud asked

<<
Sorry to go off topic, but do Germany and other European countries keep central registers of all people living there?
>>

Yes - In some cases such as the Netherlands it is a local register. The concept was introduced by Napolean.

.....not him again!!!


To Berenger

"With regard to Martin's post about spoiling the paper, I believe that "Mickey Mouse" has recieved most votes in some Australian council elections. I think they refuse to count the votes for fictional characters."

Hmmm, pity the poor candidate who's full name is Micheal Jonathon Mouse.


"Still think we have to do something in the UK to improve voter turnout though, even if we don't go as far as Oz."

The euro elections were suprisingly high - and look what happened!

;-)

BTW It's good to see that when the posts get interesting everyone still gets involved (and 'he' gets ignored).

It's a good sign.

(and not a "Phelps" in sight!!!)