I'd argue that the author's choice of volume as the metric to compare against is a poor one.
The costco hotdog contains 580 calories, approximately 110 of which is the bun. If the bun shrinks by 30%, the calories of the entire dog shrinks by 5.7%%. But also the $1.50 is for a combo that includes a drink of up to 270 calories, so the caloric content of the combo shrinks by 3.9% -- substantially less than the 37% claimed volume loss (which does not account for the drink).
EDIT - The drink also allows for a refill which would add another 270 calories bringing the total to 1120, and the caloric shrinkage down to 2.9%
When looking at protein the meal loses 1 gram out of 23, or 4% loss, which is less than inflation. Good for all the gym rats.
The Costco hot dog is not a health food to most people, so I don’t think soda is a problem.
Also, it is not possible to buy the hot dog without a soda. So really, people are going for the soda when they get the hot dog, whether they want it or not.
People want something to wash down the salty protein and fat. They've always had the choice of water, several sodas, and usually bad ice tea, bad lemonade and a diet soda or two.
Soda isn't my preference and personally I'd probably skip out, but it feels disingenuous to completely ignore something included in the price when discussing the value of an item.
That's why I have percentages for both the dog alone and the combo.
You're welcome to break this down however you wish. I don't think there's any perfect measurement or stat here as every consumer values the various components of the combo differently. If you are a consumer that values the drink highly, then a dog-only analysis is incomplete. If you only care about the dog then you want to leave the drink out. Neither of these calculations is inherently more or less accurate than the other, they're just relevant to different preferences.
My original point is that by changing what metric and how much of the combo you look at the calculated loss can vary significantly: over an order of magnitude difference between the dog-only volume loss and the refilled drink calorie loss.
I got a Costco hot dog the other day, and it looked like the 2023 version. The 2026 one looks comical, like someone took an off the shelf bun and put the dog in it. Maybe that particular Costco ran out of the normal buns?
It definitely does. As I just learned today, Costco stores source buns from different local/regional bakeries, so the size and quality can vary widely. I also learned that people have been complaining about the Costco hot dog buns getting smaller for at least a couple of years now.
Once, I watched a boomer in a red cap fill a soda cup with 50 pumps of mustard from the Costco condiment commons as a little take-home treat. I'm surprised that any condiments are still self-serve.
What’s funny is that up in Canada the buns look like the 2023 bun, and the price is still $1.50CAD.
Indexed to the USD, the price is actually dropping in the past few years in Canada, and we still have the option of a polish dog (and poutine, and smoked meat sandwiches).
Last time I got a costco hot dog the bun didn't look like that. Probably what happened is they ran out of hot dog buns and someone just grabbed some off the self and they weren't big enough.
The author seems to just assume the hot dog has stayed exactly the same size at 8"; I suppose it's unlikely it'd have gotten larger, but that seems a big assumption to base the entire analysis on.
I'm skeptical that you can derive these conclusions from those assumptions. Here in Canada they are required to post the caloric content of the hot dogs, so even a 10% change in content will be obvious. A 37% cut means they would have changed the signs from 540 calories to 340, but nothing like that has happened.
The food court has always been accessible/usable without a membership. Just depends on how hard the store polices the people coming in through the exit.
It’s been policy that membership is required to eat at the food court, but some stores with outdoor food courts don’t enforce it. It’s absolutely false to say they’ve “always been accessible “.
I got a slice of pizza a couple of weeks ago and they wanted to see my card. I can't remember ever having to show my card for the food. (in southern California)
The Costco Pharmacy is accessible to anyone who is filling a prescription there. Because of state and federal regulations on this, you do not need to be a member if you are there to fill a valid prescription (not OTC.) You can enjoy Costco's ordinary low prices, but not the member-exclusive discounts. You can inform the person checking IDs and they will admit you to the store.
Now off to my PCP for a Polish Dog with Mustard and Onions Prescription...
Costco shoppers love shoving these wieners in their mouth. If they don't have one in their mouth, they're telling everyone in the vicinity about it. This is the one of the cringiest things about Americans.
The costco hotdog contains 580 calories, approximately 110 of which is the bun. If the bun shrinks by 30%, the calories of the entire dog shrinks by 5.7%%. But also the $1.50 is for a combo that includes a drink of up to 270 calories, so the caloric content of the combo shrinks by 3.9% -- substantially less than the 37% claimed volume loss (which does not account for the drink).
EDIT - The drink also allows for a refill which would add another 270 calories bringing the total to 1120, and the caloric shrinkage down to 2.9%
When looking at protein the meal loses 1 gram out of 23, or 4% loss, which is less than inflation. Good for all the gym rats.
Edit 2 - fixed percentage calculations
Also, it is not possible to buy the hot dog without a soda. So really, people are going for the soda when they get the hot dog, whether they want it or not.
That's why I have percentages for both the dog alone and the combo.
My original point is that by changing what metric and how much of the combo you look at the calculated loss can vary significantly: over an order of magnitude difference between the dog-only volume loss and the refilled drink calorie loss.
lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Potato chips are generally very low weight, and include other calorie containing products, such as oil.
But you cannot eat that, so potato chips are a distant second (at least from the products I checked)
And no, the calories in chips added by the oil offset the lesser amount of weight you buy per unit - at least in my locality.
If I just look at calories per dollar, potato chips seem the most cost effective - at least as long as you take the cheapest ones
Pure potatoes are somewhere around 200-500 calories per dollar, cheap potato chips are around 1000/dollar
Pure noodles or rice might be even better, I didn't check those admittedly.
$1.50 in 1984 money is $3.21 in today's money.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd love to see a photo from 1984 though! Seen old photos from fast food chains where the same food items used to be much larger.
Kid: Dad, why is my sister named Rose?
Dad: Because your mother really like roses.
Kid: Oh, ok, thanks Dad!
Dad: No problem, Costco Hot-Dog!
IMO, Canada has the superior bun. They also have the smoked meat sandwich, but their pizza is ass.
Indexed to the USD, the price is actually dropping in the past few years in Canada, and we still have the option of a polish dog (and poutine, and smoked meat sandwiches).
Shrinkflation is a thing and the bun has been its victim. They could slowly shrink the sausage now until it fits the bun again.
Afaik, it's location dependent now with the default being no.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/27/the-reason-why-costco-is-ban...
Now off to my PCP for a Polish Dog with Mustard and Onions Prescription...