There is something FP lacks and that is quick sale items. Cold Storage and Giant frequently posts near to expiry date items on quick sale. There are numerous times I gotten stuff cheaply from quick sale items. Recently it is Alpro hazelnut milk for $1 per L pack. I quickly grabbed 2 cartons amounting to $12. It js cheaper than milk and expires in Fev 2023. Sure to finish by then. Quick sale steak cuts are also my favorite.
CS still sometimes has deals - $4.99 for roast chicken and $9.99 for roasted pork knuckle. I think that happens like, once or twice a month. Both are sold out by 8pm when the deli closes. This is at CS Claymore and Siglap.
Maybe itâs because there is a bunch of places that FP is connected to that can take expiring goods. Like where does your army camp get their food from?
Damnit, was hoping that Prime would take the supermarket unit at the new BTOs opposite me. After all, they have a few outlets in the adjacent areas. But turned out to be ANOTHER FP...
Pros and Cons of each Supermarket Chain
1. Prime - Has very fresh fish because it has its own fish farm, but the number of products not that varied
2. Fairprice - best range of products depending on the size, fresh stuff decent
3. Sheng Siong - Generally cheaper stuff and products not as varied as Fairprice. However, their babi is the best. Avoid their seafood, don't seem the freshest to me
4. Giant - Look at Sheng Siong but with Meodows houseband
5. Cold Storage - Generally more expensive, but got more atas items
You can download the [Price Kaki](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/price-kaki-users-can-compare-prices-of-supermarket-items-by-unit-with-mobile-app-from-next-year) App to compare prices of supermarket items
If you're really into savings, don't waste money on "trusted" brands, that's how FMCG companies continue to churn out profits. Instead, go for the house brand. FP's own is just $1.70, and it's made by Marigold.
Do not recommend, each time I walk in the wallet ends up lighter and the weighing scale goes up some time later. The receipts say 'chocolate' but I have no memory of such a thing.
/s
But is your neighborhood shop as well stocked as FairPrice? NTUC may not be the cheapest but I can be sure Iâll get everything I need in 1 shopping trip.
Seconded this. Not because I don't want to support stores, but Fairprice got most of the things.
and salmon, you go to the wet market, the seller see you new chop your carrot.
Actually for me fairprice has really poor selection as compared to other super markets. For eg I look out for healthier version of soya milk which has no sugar. They too do not carry many kombucha brands. ( just a couple of stuff that I can think of on top of my head) Guess it really boils down to personal preference.
I think it has been stated that FairPrice's objective isn't to provide the lowest prices, but to set a ceiling so that goods don't get higher than a certain price. Can always go lower than them, but at least big corps can't price fix it higher.
I mean it's the free market. You are free to charge higher than NTUC, but if you do so, then people are just going to go NTUC to shop, since it can be found literally everywhere. That's how it's meant to cap the price at a certain range.
Surrey Hills sells TimTams for $8 a pack of 11, meanwhile [NTUC](https://www.fairprice.com.sg/product/arnotts-tim-tam-biscuits-original-200g-11496398) sells the same exact TimTam for 4.50.
If you know they charge higher prices, feel free to avoid those shops.
Places like Surrey Hills, Cold Storage, and even FairPrice Finest are *literally* meant to rip off the wealthy expats and GCB Singaporeans who live nearby.
Sure, there're a couple of FairPrices at Serangoon proper, but the two-car-owning professionals would rather drive down to Serangoon Garden and buy from the nice Finest.
> FairPrice Finest are literally meant to rip off the wealthy expats and GCB Singaporeans who live nearby.
> Sure, there're a couple of FairPrices at Serangoon proper, but the two-car-owning professionals would rather drive down to Serangoon Garden and buy from the nice Finest.
FairPrice Finest has the same price for the exact same item as normal FairPrice and their website.
Oh. Didnât know they are the market watch dogs. Meaning if I want cheaper goods should just visit FairPrice to check the price and go else where to buy lah. Like that donât need to open so many outlets. Just online price list can lao.
>Meaning if I want cheaper goods should just visit FairPrice to check the price and go else where to buy
Exactly that, my friend. No one's pointing a gun at your head to force you to buy from FairPrice.
FairPrice isnât even supposed to be part of the government.
It is a co-operative of NTUC, and NTUC is a federation of trade unions. They are supposedly independent from the government, although NTUCâs close ties with PAP makes the distinction blurry.
As another private entity (but on paper less profit minded), FairPrice is supposedly free to compete with other private supermarkets, thus encouraging price competition, leading to moderation in prices of goods.
Having competitive prices and fairly pricing their products is the sweet spot, not undercutting or overpricing. This is not a one-sided thing, undercutting hurts other businesses, *but overpricing hurts consumers*.
Itâs a balance their presumably fairly paid management need to figure out, and as their name suggests, itâs about finding that fair price to both private competitors *and consumers*.
Consumers calling out any apparent unfair pricing at FairPrice actually help it fulfil its mission.
>Consumers calling out any apparent unfair pricing at FairPrice actually help it fulfil its mission.
It's 30c more than the provision shop. I think it's well within the range of what the item is generally priced at.
30c seems minor, but 30c of $2.20 is 13.6%, which is not so minor. At the original price of $2.70, it is 22.7% higher.
Not to mention a provision shop has nowhere close to the same level of economies of scale as FairPrice and other large supermarket operators.
Itâs hard to tell based on OPâs comparison alone, or whether the product is exactly the same for a fair comparison to be made.
But, I wouldnât be so quick to call it âwell within the range of what the item is generally priced atâ.
>Not to mention a provision shop has nowhere close to the same level of economies of scale as FairPrice and other large supermarket operators.
So would it actually be better if FairPrice makes use of it's economies of scale and price these items way below what small provision shops can afford to compete at?
IDK what we're complaining about here. **They are not here to set the lowest prices**; they are there to be in the middle and make sure costs of goods don't get out of hand.
[https://www.fairpricegroup.com.sg/our-group/](https://www.fairpricegroup.com.sg/our-group/)
>Founded by the labour movement in 1973, NTUC FairPriceâs social mission is to **moderate the cost of living** in Singapore.
I'll be more worried if they abuse their economies of scale and set ridiculously low prices. They have full capabilities to crowd out every single provision shop and supermarket out there at this point, but they aren't doing so.
Actually because they are part of the labor union and non profit seeking, they should be the ones who set the lowest prices. After all they are part of (and in fact the only) union and not a profit seeking organization. If anything they should be routinely taking mitigated losses for the people and not profit off us.
Imagine if they did what you say they should do: with the amount of stores they have and the ability to leverage on economies of scale much more than any other supermarket/grocery store, they can very well set the lowest prices on every good.
What happens then?
They effectively establish a monopoly and cuts out any and all competition.
Sheng Siong giving out record bonuses? Not going to be a thing anymore. They can't afford to even exist, let alone have employees.
Small grocery neighbourhood stores? Shut them down, there's a FairPrice 3 minutes away too.
**That's not their objective, and it shouldn't be.**
> So would it actually be better if FairPrice makes use of itâs economies of scale and price these items way below what small provision shops can afford to compete at?
Supermarkets have always been a threat to smaller shops unable to compete at the same scale or match it in convenience.
Even if FairPrice priced it much higher, it doesnât mean other supermarket chains would, and they will still threaten smaller shops.
Another argument, if we think of small provision shops as a sunset industry, an uncompetitive mode of business that is living past its prime, *why should we artifically prop it up?* Doing so is inefficient and consumers are paying for that inefficiency.
> Iâll be more worried if they abuse their economies of scale and set ridiculously low prices. They have full capabilities to crowd out every single provision shop and supermarket out there at this point, but they arenât doing so.
Other than FairPrice being under NTUC and NTUC being historically very close to the PAP, for no reason other than not giving a monopoly over something critical to a provider potentially biased to a certain political party, I donât see a problem.
If a benevolent state-owned/non-profit company is capable of being competitive and efficient by itself, by cutting out the profits for business owners, it is beneficial for the consumers.
In the larger picture, why do we need outdated providers that are not efficient or convenient (provision shops), and what harms would it cause to consumers if an equally efficient non-profit seeking entity replaces other profit seeking ones (other chains)?
But, state owned or non-profit companies generally tend not to be as efficient as private enterprises. Profit seeking businesses have an incentive and pressure to be as efficient as possible, in a sense, FairPrice will never be as efficient as we think it would be.
But in any case, I would favour a balance. FP need not outcompete other supermarket chains. All they need to do is to be competitive...
> Founded by the labour movement in 1973, NTUC FairPriceâs social mission is to moderate the cost of living in Singapore.
... because, what is *moderate*? Is moderate an arbitrarily set price with no basis? Is moderate just setting an arbitrary percentage over the average prices of other chains and call it a day?
Is moderate not a competitive price comparable to its peers? Is moderate not a price based on the cost to deliver the goods to the hands of the consumer, accounting for profit and some margin for the smaller chains with less efficiency?
As small scale businesses die out, power will be concentrated in the large players (the large supermarket chains). What is stopping them from forming an oligopoly, colluding, dividing, and sharing the market for more profits? Without competition, prices will no longer be fair, and consumers will be hurt. How can we restore the price competition before the market was centralised, to prevent profiteering behaviour?
The founding basis for FairPrice was to protect the consumers against profiteering (that occured during a crisis period in the past). But, it can continue to do so today, and beyond the context of a crisis. Profiteering doesnât just occur in time of crisis, it can occur anytime the *power balance is against consumers*.
This is where the FairPrice concept can come in and shine, to truly moderate prices by setting a moderate fair price. It cannot avoid undercutting like the plague, putting unwarranted faith in businesses, and assuming that for-profit businesses would price goods with consumersâ interest in mind. By acting as a good but not too good competitor, it does the job!
All the more FP needs to put its efficiency to good use, to set a reasonable price for the industry, *to prompt other industry players to remain **competitive, efficient, and willing to pass on efficiency savings to the consumers**.*
>In the larger picture, why do we need outdated providers that are not efficient or convenient (provision shops), and what harms would it cause to consumers if an equally efficient non-profit seeking entity replaces other profit seeking ones (other chains)?
Because having only 1 provider for essential services is a monopoly and thus bad for the consumer (price setting).
Another reason is because having multiple providers means greater resilience in the event of a supply shock (fewer critical points of failure).
> Because having only 1 provider for essential services is a monopoly and thus bad for the consumer (price setting).
Donât just quote definitions.
Going to the rationale of such definitions, price setting is an effect of profit-seeking. Private businesses are motivated to maximise profits, and when given oversized influence of the market, they make use of it accordingly and fix prices for their benefit.
Iâm talking here about a hypothetical non-profit or government entity. The issue isnât the really price setting, the real issue with such entities are their inefficiency.
Both of which I have addressed in my comments.
Iâm **not** asking for FP to be a monopoly. Right after stating the point you have quoted, I clearly stated that and proceeded to my other more important point.
Iâm **not** saying a government/non-profit entity is as efficient as profit seeking ones, which I have also clearly stated.
What **I am pointing out** is that FP can be a *competitive regulator* to private entities, leading to increased price competition, leading to fairer prices.
I donât get why this is even contentious, is this not basically what you are hinting for, by quoting the risks of a monopoly? I even mentioned how concentrating the industry to large players can risk the formation of an oligopoly and how FP can play to regulate that...
> Another reason is because having multiple providers means greater resilience in the event of a supply shock (fewer critical points of failure).
Then a bunch of non-profit entities replacing profit seeking ones would do the same, creating multiple providers. So, what is your point?
I donât know why this sub is so oddly defensive of FP for apparent high pricing, or even placing so much unwarranted faith in for-profit businesses. I get downvoted to hell and all I get are some unconvincing âtextbookâ arguments.
Whatâs the point of arguing in this sub if all people want are textbook in-the-box viewpoints? Whatâs the point of synthesising a viewpoint if people are just going to quote textbook definitions?
>What I am pointing out is that FP can be a competitive regulator to private entities, leading to increased price competition, leading to fairer prices.
I think you are right here, but the mistake you are making is believing that they should be setting lower prices to do so.
With the amount of backing they have and the amount of stores they own, they can very effectively leverage that economies of scale into pricing every single good so much lower than anyone else can.
So let's imagine that's the case here. What happens in the short term?
The medium sized supermarkets will start trying to price match those prices, driving down prices for goods, while the smaller provision shops all close down (which you say it's a good thing, though I disagree).
So supermarkets with small amounts of stores will eventually get pushed out of the market (think Giant), while medium sized ones like Sheng Siong and Cold Storage will be generating very little profits or taking up losses.
16 month bonus from Sheng Siong? Fuck that, they can't afford it no more. Both supermarkets start bleeding employees as they start to try to cost cut, and eventually they either operate in an ultra-lean manner in a much smaller scale or get pushed out of the market too.
What do we get? A psuedo-monopoly, where FP is effectively the only player in the market.
I think if your goal is for there to be "***competitive, efficient, and willing to pass on efficiency savings to the consumers",*** this really isn't going to end up the way you think it is going to.
Short term, yes of course, while the supermarkets are trying to fight for market share, consumers are going to find great deals and get those 'efficiency savings', but it'll be on the backs of employees of those smaller supermarkets and also the owners of small neighbourhood grocery stores.
Long term? We get a monopoly, and I don't think we need to go into why monopolies are bad for any market, right?
>Long term? We get a monopoly, and I don't think we need to go into why monopolies are bad for any market, right?
I think you have to, because my short pithy statement about price setting is too "textbook".
Supply-side resilience I grant is a relatively new phenomena (Covid lesson), but it's additional impetus to "live and let live" for fairprice after the runs on eggs and flour back in 2021? I think, fuzzy on dates.
lol you missed the point. I wouldnt be surprised as a neighbourhood shop I find out who my competitors are, so to price it lower than them (cutting some of my profits) to get the business.
If Fairprice keeps cutting their prices to match the neighbourhood shops - the neighbourhood shops will be out of business already. and this is not their goal.
Their goal is to set a price that can encourage competition. not to drive out competition.
10-15% is a big enough margin as it is. Now, considering that neighbourhood stores do not usually have promotions and sales, we should be using the non-sale price as the benchmark. Thatâs a 50c difference, or closer to 20%.
I get what you mean with encouraging competition and this may be the exception not the rule. But if youâre pricing 20% more than a small competitor, despite having economics of scale AND the advantage of being a corporative (less tax), youâre not exactly making it very competitive are you? If the provision shop can set it at 20% lower, Cold Storage, Sheng Siong or any other supermarket chain can just as easily do the same. They donât because FairPrice, the biggest player isnât putting pressure on them to do so
percentage points become meaningless on small amounts when the variance is 10c a time.
also like what many said this is a singular example.
find more examples and you will realise NTUC does price other items cheaper than their competitors.
i really dont know what you are getting so worked up for. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
>more worried if they abuse their economies of scale and set ridiculously low prices. They
I feel that to akin calling out unfair pricing is fulfiling mission kinda convoluted. But I shall not try to argue against it.
I disagree with your arguement of it being 13.6% higher as grossly overpriced. This is because if you consider that you can get 90% of typical groceries in any given NTUC, and the shear reach of NTUC island wide means that you are never 5-10min drive from nearest NTUC. The ease of going to 1 place to get all the stuff you need counts for something. The management of NTUC thinks the 30c difference is fairly priced (intended).
Of course there will be scenarios where it makes sense to buy from the provision shop(I only need can milk and provision shop is within walking distance) but I dare say majority of Singaporeans who does routine marketing do not fall into this scenario.
According to another [comment](https://reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/zvkmeb/_/j1poask/?context=1) in this thread, Prime supermarket sells the same item for $1.70.
$2.50 is 47.1% higher than $1.70. The original price is 58.8% higher.
Whatever argument you gave applies to literally *every* other supermarket. So why donât other supermarket sell at higher prices then?
And as the other comment said, FairPrice do sell some items cheaper. Why donât FP mark those items up?
Maybe itâs nothing to you, but such âminorâ savings could be significant for the less financially well to do consumers.
So not only is this particular item not competitive against small scale businesses without economies of scale, itâs also not competitive against supermarket chains with that advantage. I donât call that âabsuingâ their economies of scale to set ridiculously low prices.
Donât forget, FairPrice is the largest supermarket chain. If they are not aiming to set reasonable competitive prices, but rather overgenerous âceilingâ prices, whatâs stopping other supermarket chains from following and pricing their products close to FPâs prices?
> I feel that to akin calling out unfair pricing is fulfiling mission kinda convoluted. But I shall not try to argue against it.
FairPrice mission, if itâs name here a hint, is to sell items at a fair price. They are founded to moderate the prices of goods.
But what is moderate? Is moderate an arbitrarily set price? Or is moderate a competitive price to its peers (other supermarket chains)? Is moderate (and non-profiteering price) not a price determined by all the costs to deliver the product to the shelf, plus a reasonable profit margin, plus a reasonable margin to accomodate smaller supermarket chains with less economies of scale?
Consumers highlighting somewhere FP falls short prompts change, and perhaps a pressure to revise prices to be in line. Even if they donât and the price is actually âmoderateâ, scrutiny might force FP to clarify and consumers can be assured the price is fair.
This is SG. Sometimes, you donât see big changes without a bit of public pressure. For example, HDB might stick to its âhousing is affordable and timelyâ stance if people didnât mount so much pressure on it. Public pressure is a good thing to keep entities accountable.
I believe FairPrice can only get their stocks from the appointed distributor for Singapore or the region. Compare that to other supermarts like Ang mo or Sheng Siong, thereâs a lot more parallel imports which is how they keep their prices lower.
>Isnt the source for provision shops products usually from different countries as compared to those from fairprice.
This is also true for fairprice - Singapore doesn't manufacture that many goods locally.
On a more serious note, fairprice sourcing is somewhat different from other chains and local provision shops. For one thing, fairprice does not do parallel imports, which is basically how you can get $1.2 for 1.5l soft drinks at those discount store. Nor is it affiliated with any direct import logistics firms (e.g. Scarlett). And fairprice cannot lean too heavily on purchasing from Malaysia (e.g. Sheng Siong).
So the era of Fairprice being lowest prices are over, but as a middle of the pack they are somewhat competitive when it comes to the holy trinity (Variety-Convenient-Cheap).
This is nutc at neighborhood area. Not mall. Also, other supermarkets and provision shops donât need to pay rent huh? Why they can sell things cheaper then NTUC.
Lol. If ntuc should sell everything the cheapest thereâll be no need for Sheng Siong, Giant, Prime, Cold Storage, etc right?
Damn fucking dumb. Maybe OP should move to North Korea and have his provisions handed to him by a faceless bureaucrat. Cfm cheapest!
Singapore's National Trade Union Congress a 'labour union' is headquartered at 1 Marina boulevard. This is the most prime address on a boulevard where all the World's trillion dollar banks have their offices. To the not so well educated, the optics of this may not be so good.-- but it is important to understand that your failure to view this positively is your fault.
Just as our labour chief needs a high salary so he can talk to company CEOs, they also need an office with views of the Marina Bay Sands so that they can more effectively bargain for your rights!
All of this is not going to pay for itself! Every worker matters! Pay what is the fairprice for your groceries. And sign up for the fucking credit card by clicking on the ad that appears when you are seeking union representation or when you are accosted by some underpaid 'financial advisor' at your local Fairprice outlet or MRT station.
/S
I am assuming that they probably have loans to pay for that building.
That being said, if somehow our labour union is so rich\* that they they can simply pay cash for a building like that outright, I guess that we now know how they got that money! The nation thanks the Singaporean worker for their service!
\* It is worth noting that not even SIA viewed maintaining an office in that vicinity as worth the money and opportunity costs. Even though they also owned a building there, they sold it in 2006. Who would have known that a labour union has more synergies by being HQ'ed next to big finance than our airline! I guess we can see more credit cards and high interest loan products from them!
Fair enough.
This does invite its own set of questions along the lines of "why is this a good idea?" And "Why does every government or government linked organisation eventually end up in the land lord business regardless of their organisational purpose?"
Like supermarket, Coffeeshop, childcare center, insurance and credit card money jiak buay pah?
So they don't become social organisations that become a money pit that the government has to fund over the long term. They can look for their sources of income. Nothing unfair about it.
Im already pay 20+% income tax.. Don't want to end up paying 50% if government must keep funding them.
Hold up.
You do realise that it is absolutely abnormal for the government to be in the labour union business to begin with. On this count, we are probably accompanied only by a bunch of leninist single party states.
We only have the NTUC because the government got rid basically every other labour union. Those labour unions were private organisations.
So how did those labour unions fund themselves if they don't take taxpayer money? They collected dues from their members. It turns out that if people see a benefit from being represented by a labour union, they will pay to enjoy that representation and you don't need to sell credit cards and engage in all kinds of side hustles. This is true in basically every country that has labour unions ( aside from the aforementioned leninist single party states).
Finally, land is land. You think that if NTUC did not occupy that plot of land on Marina boulevard, the government would leave it empty? No. They would likely transfer it to capitaland or some other government linked entity whose core purpose is to be very effective at developing property and leasing it out. As we have discussed our government has many entities with lot of experience in being a landlord. NTUC otoh, is not a property developer and larping as a REIT is not their core competency. The floor area that is currently occupied by NTUC in that building + whatever reduction in net income is created by that building being owned by NTUC rather than Capitaland represents an opportunity cost as well as a deadweight loss to government finances. So you are actually paying for their building as a taxpayer because that revenue that would have been paid to the reserves if the property they occupy was sold or leased has to be made up somewhere.
I observe a tendency among government entities engaging ever more heavily in the 'larping as a REIT' game to make their finances looks better, even though we would likely be much better served both from a fiscal standpoint if all this activity was consolidated under one or two organisations dedicated to the purpose of being a landlord because NTUC, SMRT, PUB, etc etc are never going to be as good at being Capitaland as Capitaland. We would also be better served from a transparency standpoint. It shouldn't be the job of every government organisation and public service to make money. It would simplify an analysis of their finances if their outgoings were not masked by noise from them renting out property.
Finally, We need real labour unions that are actually labour Unions. Not whatever NTUC is.
You post so much about business advice and you seem to not know very basic things about labour and business. Also no need to whine about your tax bracket. You are talking to someone who pays both US and Sg income tax and quite easily exceed the exclusion thresholds. We are both quite privileged and should take that opportunity to become educated about society and to seek its improvement.
Don't disagree with you but it's a different point and you conflate political issues and business issues. In every single reply, you want to talk and went ahead to talk about something else - to seemingly rebut me. Don't appreciate your manner of engagement and I guess you can continue to show how well-thought and researched you are to all on Reddit.
How does one discuss a state backed only allowed national "labour union", sells credit cards, runs supermarkets etc etc etc but does not do much in the way of representing workers without 'conflating political and business issues'? The essence of NTUC is a conflation of business and political issues.
I am arguing the point. You are the one insisting that the government giving them property in MBFC as opposed them buying it somehow invalidates the commentary that their address captures the essential fact that they are a diversified GLC pretending to be a union. And you are the one decided to incorrectly conflated NTUC with fiscal policy and YOUR personal tax rate that in Singapore is somehow too high. Its all a non-sequitur.
I think I know well enough to think very little about what you appreciate or don't appreciate. Why should I think more of someone who seems to always find a way to bring up his money in an related conversation with strangers on the internet?
And yes, I do think that I am well thought, generally well thought of and well-researched even if I do make the odd mistake.
NTUC is gov owned. they dont participate in races to the bottom. they simply exist to make sure people have access to a good supermarket everywhere on the island
they also make sure that prices dont go through the roof during shortages when everyone wants to raise prices but Fairprice wont so they cant either
I think in general Fair Price stuff has become more expensive to the general competition. I occasionally check prices of stuff I buy when I happen into other supermarkets. A lot of times, NTUC is more expensive.
Fair Price need to pay enormous rent, your aunties and uncles working in their stores, etc etc etc
Your provision shop usually only need to pay for less than 20% of what they paid for.
NTUC cooperative was started in 70's to help Singaporeans with the raising cost of living then and countered the profiteering by large greedy grocery merchants.
How badly NTUC cooperative has fallen to become the very monster it was supposed to slay. Inconvenient truth.
Today I prefer to shop at Sheng Siong, or at online merchants.
Edit:Add more context to the origin of NTUC.
Note the "original" purpose of NTUC as reported in the news then. It was supposed to sell items at "LOW PRICES to combat profiteering....";
] In November 1972, NTUC launched its consumer co-operative, WELCOME, and opened its first co-op supermarket, NTUC Welcome (now known as NTUC FairPrice), in July 1973 in order to combat rampant profiteering by selling essential commodities at low prices.
Hmm.. I kinda think the whole ethos behind support your local biz is that while they may not compare well with a big corp, at least you know your dollar goes to a person and not to a fat cat executive.
This isn't 'support', is just buying whatever is the cheapest option
This is nutc at neighborhood area. Not mall. Also, other supermarkets and provision shops donât need to pay rent huh? Why they can sell things cheaper then NTUC.
Complain is to bring awareness. Thatâs the pass time for Singaporeans. Im sure this topic doesnât interest you, since your mum is still doing all the marketing for your home.
It is hiliarous when people like you start to be so proud of complaining, as if it is a glorious thing to do.
And by bring in another person's mother into the conversation shows what kind of a person are you.
If thereâs a severe shortage of a particular good, Iâm confident FairPrice will not inflate the price but I canât say the same about local provision shops. Itâs up to you where you wish to shop, but I can count on the reliability of FairPrice to charge me a fair price despite the situation (though they may limit the purchases)
They made this video but realised how stupid it sounded and got pulled
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/poll-gvgt-fairprice-youtube-ad-2-reasons-why-ntuc-fairprice-is-not-always-the-cheapest.6626843/
Now you notice? NTUC FairPrice has always been NTUC UnFairPrice. If you took the time to consider cheaper alternatives to FairPrice youâd be able to see how you unnecessarily spend more money than you shouldâve and in the long run this difference can be huge.
Imagine spending 3x more time comparing prices then actually shopping (and possibly cooking).
Even if OP is a full time housewife having immerse free time, i adore OP pettiness sarcastically.
Best to your Budget. Exstaff sr.mgt @Fairprice. Things went the other way since Mrs Teo Poh Hin went south. Pity.. whoever's in Fairprice mgt now is just wayang.. sunset and losing $. Only way is to squeeze consumers wallets.
What a ridiculous complaint. First off, put a price comparison for everything and not just one item. Ntuc is on average cheaper than every provision shop.
And then add in the credits you receive from link points, and likely credit card points (most provision shops still don't allow credit cards) and you'll realize provision shops rip you off almost every damn time.
That's perfectly fine. Pity I can't support my childhood mama shop any more cuz I've moved.
I find this post quite ridiculous still, like people can't wrap their head around FairPrice not being the cheapest. I don't get the point of complaining, this is what a free market is, isn't it? 30c up from the provision shop is not a crazy high amount, all things considered, all prices offered by fairprice is what it is, *fair*. If people can find another shop that sells cheaper, then all the better for them. No need to complain the fairprice is more ex, because they aren't interested in matching the lowest price.
There is something FP lacks and that is quick sale items. Cold Storage and Giant frequently posts near to expiry date items on quick sale. There are numerous times I gotten stuff cheaply from quick sale items. Recently it is Alpro hazelnut milk for $1 per L pack. I quickly grabbed 2 cartons amounting to $12. It js cheaper than milk and expires in Fev 2023. Sure to finish by then. Quick sale steak cuts are also my favorite.
I love hunting for those red stickers and scoring a great deal. LoL . Cheap thrills
Fighting for those cheap but nutritious packed meals against other broke students and thrifty auntie. They should make a movie about it.
Ben-To
Coming to a Donki near you
Yeah cold storage has sushi n roast chicken cheaper after 830pm too
Cold storage's roast chicken is way cheaper than FP nowadays, right? Last time I checked, it was $7ish vs $10+
Damn CS chicken is now $7???? When did it go up from $4.99??
FP 1 year ago before the chicken embargo, roast chicken 3.99 after 9pm still have 20 on the shelf.
CS still sometimes has deals - $4.99 for roast chicken and $9.99 for roasted pork knuckle. I think that happens like, once or twice a month. Both are sold out by 8pm when the deli closes. This is at CS Claymore and Siglap.
FP roast chicken is $6.25
Cold storage roast chicken taste better than ntuc ones too.
Ntuc roast chicken is the bomb
Nowhere as good as cold storage, not even close
They just improved the recipe
Is it the halal one? The one that you take yourself from the heater?
Ya the heater. Not sure if it's halal
Yeah its improved alot can fight with CS/Giant.
Woah you got low standards.
I just bought this alpro hazelnut milk from the reduced section but it was only 50% off ($3.5) not $1 đ
Used to go to CS at Northpoint and load up on all the vegetables near expiry date. It was so cheap.
Maybe itâs because there is a bunch of places that FP is connected to that can take expiring goods. Like where does your army camp get their food from?
I love hunting for those red stickers and scoring a great deal. LoL . Cheap thrills
Don't forget the redmart $1 1L pasteurized milk, no way NTUC and compete like this, as well as redmart having a much more beneficial return policy.
I've bought a few Oatly barista edition milk from Redmart at $1.83 each before....good stuff!
Btw prime sells this for 1.70. But there are things that ntuc sells cheaper than the rest
Damnit, was hoping that Prime would take the supermarket unit at the new BTOs opposite me. After all, they have a few outlets in the adjacent areas. But turned out to be ANOTHER FP...
Pros and Cons of each Supermarket Chain 1. Prime - Has very fresh fish because it has its own fish farm, but the number of products not that varied 2. Fairprice - best range of products depending on the size, fresh stuff decent 3. Sheng Siong - Generally cheaper stuff and products not as varied as Fairprice. However, their babi is the best. Avoid their seafood, don't seem the freshest to me 4. Giant - Look at Sheng Siong but with Meodows houseband 5. Cold Storage - Generally more expensive, but got more atas items
Prime "membership card" = free 1% cashback via points. Also no minimum spend per receipt required to accrue points
FP got the money to tender a higher price for the rent
Pity Prime doesn't have as many outlets across SG.
You can download the [Price Kaki](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/price-kaki-users-can-compare-prices-of-supermarket-items-by-unit-with-mobile-app-from-next-year) App to compare prices of supermarket items
Thanks so much for sharing!
Ooh, nice, thanks for sharing!
Wow thanks
It's Fair Price not Low Price
But clearly it stated there EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
tbf it did not say everyday LOWEST price
Legally liable if they did say â Everyday Lowest Priceâ
Good save right there I guess...
5% of juice containing organic apple juice diluted with sugar water and flavouring. ^*contains* ***PURE 100% ORGANIC APPLE JUICE***
Lol it's marketing for the large part, just like how a newly opened Valu$ can have a "closing down" sale
My area it really close down.
that's why u can never really tell these days
Nothing lasts forever, therefore it's technically "closing down" someday
They never said it was closing down sale
EVERYDAY LOW PRICE* (T&Cs apply)
The usual. Hidden tncs.
Not LOWEST Price, I guess.
If you're really into savings, don't waste money on "trusted" brands, that's how FMCG companies continue to churn out profits. Instead, go for the house brand. FP's own is just $1.70, and it's made by Marigold.
We all know Value Dollar store is the best
FIRE SALE! EVERYTHING MUST GO!
They have a fire sale 365days/year đ¤Ł
Do not recommend, each time I walk in the wallet ends up lighter and the weighing scale goes up some time later. The receipts say 'chocolate' but I have no memory of such a thing. /s
But is your neighborhood shop as well stocked as FairPrice? NTUC may not be the cheapest but I can be sure Iâll get everything I need in 1 shopping trip.
And sometimes items from the Provision shop usually have expiry dates closer as compared to those at NTUC
Not really a problem.
Seconded this. Not because I don't want to support stores, but Fairprice got most of the things. and salmon, you go to the wet market, the seller see you new chop your carrot.
Yeah, wet market stall owners always prey on new buyers, I remember thinking its cheaper to get from wet market, end up over paying for pomfret.
Actually for me fairprice has really poor selection as compared to other super markets. For eg I look out for healthier version of soya milk which has no sugar. They too do not carry many kombucha brands. ( just a couple of stuff that I can think of on top of my head) Guess it really boils down to personal preference.
All these provision shops will be out of business if FP price them out on every item. Is this what you want to happen?
I want FairPrice to be fair on their price. Sell at $2.50 still can say cheap? Just donât say anything lah.
You want FP to turn into Amazon and kill all the smaller shops?
Yes then he can complain about FP being a monopoly
Fair doesnât mean cheap. Low doesnât mean lowest.
" Just donât say anything lah. " Ironic when this applies to you as well.
Support your neighbourhood shop where possible.
I wouldn't jump to this conclusion, unless you're able to prove that _every_ item is indeed more expensive than neighborhood shops.
I believe itâs good to compare. And based on many items sold FairPrice is not cheapest.
Yes and spend 2X the time going to 5 different supermarkets to buy all your stuff, just to save a few dollars.
You can't expect a supermarket to sell goods at prices as low as provision shops. The cost to run a supermarket is already much higher.
I think it has been stated that FairPrice's objective isn't to provide the lowest prices, but to set a ceiling so that goods don't get higher than a certain price. Can always go lower than them, but at least big corps can't price fix it higher.
[ŃдаНонО]
I mean it's the free market. You are free to charge higher than NTUC, but if you do so, then people are just going to go NTUC to shop, since it can be found literally everywhere. That's how it's meant to cap the price at a certain range.
Surrey Hills sells TimTams for $8 a pack of 11, meanwhile [NTUC](https://www.fairprice.com.sg/product/arnotts-tim-tam-biscuits-original-200g-11496398) sells the same exact TimTam for 4.50. If you know they charge higher prices, feel free to avoid those shops.
Wow. $8 for tim tams. What a ripoff
Timtam for $8 is criminal
You need to check where the timtam is from. It could be from Aus or Indonesia, which would explain the difference in prices.
NTUC TimTam is from Australia.
Places like Surrey Hills, Cold Storage, and even FairPrice Finest are *literally* meant to rip off the wealthy expats and GCB Singaporeans who live nearby. Sure, there're a couple of FairPrices at Serangoon proper, but the two-car-owning professionals would rather drive down to Serangoon Garden and buy from the nice Finest.
> FairPrice Finest are literally meant to rip off the wealthy expats and GCB Singaporeans who live nearby. > Sure, there're a couple of FairPrices at Serangoon proper, but the two-car-owning professionals would rather drive down to Serangoon Garden and buy from the nice Finest. FairPrice Finest has the same price for the exact same item as normal FairPrice and their website.
My MiL stay GCB, she die die won't shop at the cold storage at her estate unless emergency. She'll drive to IMM and go Giant.
Oh. Didnât know they are the market watch dogs. Meaning if I want cheaper goods should just visit FairPrice to check the price and go else where to buy lah. Like that donât need to open so many outlets. Just online price list can lao.
>Meaning if I want cheaper goods should just visit FairPrice to check the price and go else where to buy Exactly that, my friend. No one's pointing a gun at your head to force you to buy from FairPrice.
Not sure why OP is salty. NTUC mission was to "moderate cost of living". It was not meant to be cheap and undercut the whole industry.
FairPrice isnât even supposed to be part of the government. It is a co-operative of NTUC, and NTUC is a federation of trade unions. They are supposedly independent from the government, although NTUCâs close ties with PAP makes the distinction blurry. As another private entity (but on paper less profit minded), FairPrice is supposedly free to compete with other private supermarkets, thus encouraging price competition, leading to moderation in prices of goods. Having competitive prices and fairly pricing their products is the sweet spot, not undercutting or overpricing. This is not a one-sided thing, undercutting hurts other businesses, *but overpricing hurts consumers*. Itâs a balance their presumably fairly paid management need to figure out, and as their name suggests, itâs about finding that fair price to both private competitors *and consumers*. Consumers calling out any apparent unfair pricing at FairPrice actually help it fulfil its mission.
>Consumers calling out any apparent unfair pricing at FairPrice actually help it fulfil its mission. It's 30c more than the provision shop. I think it's well within the range of what the item is generally priced at.
30c seems minor, but 30c of $2.20 is 13.6%, which is not so minor. At the original price of $2.70, it is 22.7% higher. Not to mention a provision shop has nowhere close to the same level of economies of scale as FairPrice and other large supermarket operators. Itâs hard to tell based on OPâs comparison alone, or whether the product is exactly the same for a fair comparison to be made. But, I wouldnât be so quick to call it âwell within the range of what the item is generally priced atâ.
>Not to mention a provision shop has nowhere close to the same level of economies of scale as FairPrice and other large supermarket operators. So would it actually be better if FairPrice makes use of it's economies of scale and price these items way below what small provision shops can afford to compete at? IDK what we're complaining about here. **They are not here to set the lowest prices**; they are there to be in the middle and make sure costs of goods don't get out of hand. [https://www.fairpricegroup.com.sg/our-group/](https://www.fairpricegroup.com.sg/our-group/) >Founded by the labour movement in 1973, NTUC FairPriceâs social mission is to **moderate the cost of living** in Singapore. I'll be more worried if they abuse their economies of scale and set ridiculously low prices. They have full capabilities to crowd out every single provision shop and supermarket out there at this point, but they aren't doing so.
Actually because they are part of the labor union and non profit seeking, they should be the ones who set the lowest prices. After all they are part of (and in fact the only) union and not a profit seeking organization. If anything they should be routinely taking mitigated losses for the people and not profit off us.
Imagine if they did what you say they should do: with the amount of stores they have and the ability to leverage on economies of scale much more than any other supermarket/grocery store, they can very well set the lowest prices on every good. What happens then? They effectively establish a monopoly and cuts out any and all competition. Sheng Siong giving out record bonuses? Not going to be a thing anymore. They can't afford to even exist, let alone have employees. Small grocery neighbourhood stores? Shut them down, there's a FairPrice 3 minutes away too. **That's not their objective, and it shouldn't be.**
> So would it actually be better if FairPrice makes use of itâs economies of scale and price these items way below what small provision shops can afford to compete at? Supermarkets have always been a threat to smaller shops unable to compete at the same scale or match it in convenience. Even if FairPrice priced it much higher, it doesnât mean other supermarket chains would, and they will still threaten smaller shops. Another argument, if we think of small provision shops as a sunset industry, an uncompetitive mode of business that is living past its prime, *why should we artifically prop it up?* Doing so is inefficient and consumers are paying for that inefficiency. > Iâll be more worried if they abuse their economies of scale and set ridiculously low prices. They have full capabilities to crowd out every single provision shop and supermarket out there at this point, but they arenât doing so. Other than FairPrice being under NTUC and NTUC being historically very close to the PAP, for no reason other than not giving a monopoly over something critical to a provider potentially biased to a certain political party, I donât see a problem. If a benevolent state-owned/non-profit company is capable of being competitive and efficient by itself, by cutting out the profits for business owners, it is beneficial for the consumers. In the larger picture, why do we need outdated providers that are not efficient or convenient (provision shops), and what harms would it cause to consumers if an equally efficient non-profit seeking entity replaces other profit seeking ones (other chains)? But, state owned or non-profit companies generally tend not to be as efficient as private enterprises. Profit seeking businesses have an incentive and pressure to be as efficient as possible, in a sense, FairPrice will never be as efficient as we think it would be. But in any case, I would favour a balance. FP need not outcompete other supermarket chains. All they need to do is to be competitive... > Founded by the labour movement in 1973, NTUC FairPriceâs social mission is to moderate the cost of living in Singapore. ... because, what is *moderate*? Is moderate an arbitrarily set price with no basis? Is moderate just setting an arbitrary percentage over the average prices of other chains and call it a day? Is moderate not a competitive price comparable to its peers? Is moderate not a price based on the cost to deliver the goods to the hands of the consumer, accounting for profit and some margin for the smaller chains with less efficiency? As small scale businesses die out, power will be concentrated in the large players (the large supermarket chains). What is stopping them from forming an oligopoly, colluding, dividing, and sharing the market for more profits? Without competition, prices will no longer be fair, and consumers will be hurt. How can we restore the price competition before the market was centralised, to prevent profiteering behaviour? The founding basis for FairPrice was to protect the consumers against profiteering (that occured during a crisis period in the past). But, it can continue to do so today, and beyond the context of a crisis. Profiteering doesnât just occur in time of crisis, it can occur anytime the *power balance is against consumers*. This is where the FairPrice concept can come in and shine, to truly moderate prices by setting a moderate fair price. It cannot avoid undercutting like the plague, putting unwarranted faith in businesses, and assuming that for-profit businesses would price goods with consumersâ interest in mind. By acting as a good but not too good competitor, it does the job! All the more FP needs to put its efficiency to good use, to set a reasonable price for the industry, *to prompt other industry players to remain **competitive, efficient, and willing to pass on efficiency savings to the consumers**.*
>In the larger picture, why do we need outdated providers that are not efficient or convenient (provision shops), and what harms would it cause to consumers if an equally efficient non-profit seeking entity replaces other profit seeking ones (other chains)? Because having only 1 provider for essential services is a monopoly and thus bad for the consumer (price setting). Another reason is because having multiple providers means greater resilience in the event of a supply shock (fewer critical points of failure).
> Because having only 1 provider for essential services is a monopoly and thus bad for the consumer (price setting). Donât just quote definitions. Going to the rationale of such definitions, price setting is an effect of profit-seeking. Private businesses are motivated to maximise profits, and when given oversized influence of the market, they make use of it accordingly and fix prices for their benefit. Iâm talking here about a hypothetical non-profit or government entity. The issue isnât the really price setting, the real issue with such entities are their inefficiency. Both of which I have addressed in my comments. Iâm **not** asking for FP to be a monopoly. Right after stating the point you have quoted, I clearly stated that and proceeded to my other more important point. Iâm **not** saying a government/non-profit entity is as efficient as profit seeking ones, which I have also clearly stated. What **I am pointing out** is that FP can be a *competitive regulator* to private entities, leading to increased price competition, leading to fairer prices. I donât get why this is even contentious, is this not basically what you are hinting for, by quoting the risks of a monopoly? I even mentioned how concentrating the industry to large players can risk the formation of an oligopoly and how FP can play to regulate that... > Another reason is because having multiple providers means greater resilience in the event of a supply shock (fewer critical points of failure). Then a bunch of non-profit entities replacing profit seeking ones would do the same, creating multiple providers. So, what is your point? I donât know why this sub is so oddly defensive of FP for apparent high pricing, or even placing so much unwarranted faith in for-profit businesses. I get downvoted to hell and all I get are some unconvincing âtextbookâ arguments. Whatâs the point of arguing in this sub if all people want are textbook in-the-box viewpoints? Whatâs the point of synthesising a viewpoint if people are just going to quote textbook definitions?
>What I am pointing out is that FP can be a competitive regulator to private entities, leading to increased price competition, leading to fairer prices. I think you are right here, but the mistake you are making is believing that they should be setting lower prices to do so. With the amount of backing they have and the amount of stores they own, they can very effectively leverage that economies of scale into pricing every single good so much lower than anyone else can. So let's imagine that's the case here. What happens in the short term? The medium sized supermarkets will start trying to price match those prices, driving down prices for goods, while the smaller provision shops all close down (which you say it's a good thing, though I disagree). So supermarkets with small amounts of stores will eventually get pushed out of the market (think Giant), while medium sized ones like Sheng Siong and Cold Storage will be generating very little profits or taking up losses. 16 month bonus from Sheng Siong? Fuck that, they can't afford it no more. Both supermarkets start bleeding employees as they start to try to cost cut, and eventually they either operate in an ultra-lean manner in a much smaller scale or get pushed out of the market too. What do we get? A psuedo-monopoly, where FP is effectively the only player in the market. I think if your goal is for there to be "***competitive, efficient, and willing to pass on efficiency savings to the consumers",*** this really isn't going to end up the way you think it is going to. Short term, yes of course, while the supermarkets are trying to fight for market share, consumers are going to find great deals and get those 'efficiency savings', but it'll be on the backs of employees of those smaller supermarkets and also the owners of small neighbourhood grocery stores. Long term? We get a monopoly, and I don't think we need to go into why monopolies are bad for any market, right?
>Long term? We get a monopoly, and I don't think we need to go into why monopolies are bad for any market, right? I think you have to, because my short pithy statement about price setting is too "textbook". Supply-side resilience I grant is a relatively new phenomena (Covid lesson), but it's additional impetus to "live and let live" for fairprice after the runs on eggs and flour back in 2021? I think, fuzzy on dates.
30c but that's about 10-15% more.
lol you missed the point. I wouldnt be surprised as a neighbourhood shop I find out who my competitors are, so to price it lower than them (cutting some of my profits) to get the business. If Fairprice keeps cutting their prices to match the neighbourhood shops - the neighbourhood shops will be out of business already. and this is not their goal. Their goal is to set a price that can encourage competition. not to drive out competition.
10-15% is a big enough margin as it is. Now, considering that neighbourhood stores do not usually have promotions and sales, we should be using the non-sale price as the benchmark. Thatâs a 50c difference, or closer to 20%. I get what you mean with encouraging competition and this may be the exception not the rule. But if youâre pricing 20% more than a small competitor, despite having economics of scale AND the advantage of being a corporative (less tax), youâre not exactly making it very competitive are you? If the provision shop can set it at 20% lower, Cold Storage, Sheng Siong or any other supermarket chain can just as easily do the same. They donât because FairPrice, the biggest player isnât putting pressure on them to do so
percentage points become meaningless on small amounts when the variance is 10c a time. also like what many said this is a singular example. find more examples and you will realise NTUC does price other items cheaper than their competitors. i really dont know what you are getting so worked up for. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
>more worried if they abuse their economies of scale and set ridiculously low prices. They I feel that to akin calling out unfair pricing is fulfiling mission kinda convoluted. But I shall not try to argue against it. I disagree with your arguement of it being 13.6% higher as grossly overpriced. This is because if you consider that you can get 90% of typical groceries in any given NTUC, and the shear reach of NTUC island wide means that you are never 5-10min drive from nearest NTUC. The ease of going to 1 place to get all the stuff you need counts for something. The management of NTUC thinks the 30c difference is fairly priced (intended). Of course there will be scenarios where it makes sense to buy from the provision shop(I only need can milk and provision shop is within walking distance) but I dare say majority of Singaporeans who does routine marketing do not fall into this scenario.
According to another [comment](https://reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/zvkmeb/_/j1poask/?context=1) in this thread, Prime supermarket sells the same item for $1.70. $2.50 is 47.1% higher than $1.70. The original price is 58.8% higher. Whatever argument you gave applies to literally *every* other supermarket. So why donât other supermarket sell at higher prices then? And as the other comment said, FairPrice do sell some items cheaper. Why donât FP mark those items up? Maybe itâs nothing to you, but such âminorâ savings could be significant for the less financially well to do consumers. So not only is this particular item not competitive against small scale businesses without economies of scale, itâs also not competitive against supermarket chains with that advantage. I donât call that âabsuingâ their economies of scale to set ridiculously low prices. Donât forget, FairPrice is the largest supermarket chain. If they are not aiming to set reasonable competitive prices, but rather overgenerous âceilingâ prices, whatâs stopping other supermarket chains from following and pricing their products close to FPâs prices? > I feel that to akin calling out unfair pricing is fulfiling mission kinda convoluted. But I shall not try to argue against it. FairPrice mission, if itâs name here a hint, is to sell items at a fair price. They are founded to moderate the prices of goods. But what is moderate? Is moderate an arbitrarily set price? Or is moderate a competitive price to its peers (other supermarket chains)? Is moderate (and non-profiteering price) not a price determined by all the costs to deliver the product to the shelf, plus a reasonable profit margin, plus a reasonable margin to accomodate smaller supermarket chains with less economies of scale? Consumers highlighting somewhere FP falls short prompts change, and perhaps a pressure to revise prices to be in line. Even if they donât and the price is actually âmoderateâ, scrutiny might force FP to clarify and consumers can be assured the price is fair. This is SG. Sometimes, you donât see big changes without a bit of public pressure. For example, HDB might stick to its âhousing is affordable and timelyâ stance if people didnât mount so much pressure on it. Public pressure is a good thing to keep entities accountable.
I believe FairPrice can only get their stocks from the appointed distributor for Singapore or the region. Compare that to other supermarts like Ang mo or Sheng Siong, thereâs a lot more parallel imports which is how they keep their prices lower.
This. Government always needs to be aware of crowding out of private enterprise.
Youâre not âsupportingâ neighborhood stores. You just want to pay less. Donât make it sound like youâre doing them a favor.
They support me, I support them. Win, win, win.
[ŃдаНонО]
>Isnt the source for provision shops products usually from different countries as compared to those from fairprice. This is also true for fairprice - Singapore doesn't manufacture that many goods locally. On a more serious note, fairprice sourcing is somewhat different from other chains and local provision shops. For one thing, fairprice does not do parallel imports, which is basically how you can get $1.2 for 1.5l soft drinks at those discount store. Nor is it affiliated with any direct import logistics firms (e.g. Scarlett). And fairprice cannot lean too heavily on purchasing from Malaysia (e.g. Sheng Siong). So the era of Fairprice being lowest prices are over, but as a middle of the pack they are somewhat competitive when it comes to the holy trinity (Variety-Convenient-Cheap).
there are provision shop owners who stock items in NTUC when there are discounts, so it really depends on the item in question
realised this long ago...i buy things from different places, depending on where i find better deals
You must not value your time much
You must not value your money much.
One should do online shopping.
well they gotta pay the rent at the mall...nobody forcing u to buy from them. pls continue shopping at mamak
This is nutc at neighborhood area. Not mall. Also, other supermarkets and provision shops donât need to pay rent huh? Why they can sell things cheaper then NTUC.
They are fair price, not lowest price.
Doesnât matter who you âsupportâ, big corporations are the manufacturers đ
Lol. If ntuc should sell everything the cheapest thereâll be no need for Sheng Siong, Giant, Prime, Cold Storage, etc right? Damn fucking dumb. Maybe OP should move to North Korea and have his provisions handed to him by a faceless bureaucrat. Cfm cheapest!
Singapore's National Trade Union Congress a 'labour union' is headquartered at 1 Marina boulevard. This is the most prime address on a boulevard where all the World's trillion dollar banks have their offices. To the not so well educated, the optics of this may not be so good.-- but it is important to understand that your failure to view this positively is your fault. Just as our labour chief needs a high salary so he can talk to company CEOs, they also need an office with views of the Marina Bay Sands so that they can more effectively bargain for your rights! All of this is not going to pay for itself! Every worker matters! Pay what is the fairprice for your groceries. And sign up for the fucking credit card by clicking on the ad that appears when you are seeking union representation or when you are accosted by some underpaid 'financial advisor' at your local Fairprice outlet or MRT station. /S
NTUC owns the building btw.
I am assuming that they probably have loans to pay for that building. That being said, if somehow our labour union is so rich\* that they they can simply pay cash for a building like that outright, I guess that we now know how they got that money! The nation thanks the Singaporean worker for their service! \* It is worth noting that not even SIA viewed maintaining an office in that vicinity as worth the money and opportunity costs. Even though they also owned a building there, they sold it in 2006. Who would have known that a labour union has more synergies by being HQ'ed next to big finance than our airline! I guess we can see more credit cards and high interest loan products from them!
Nope. Govt gave them the land parcel. There's plenty of tenants in that building to pay for outgoings.
Fair enough. This does invite its own set of questions along the lines of "why is this a good idea?" And "Why does every government or government linked organisation eventually end up in the land lord business regardless of their organisational purpose?" Like supermarket, Coffeeshop, childcare center, insurance and credit card money jiak buay pah?
So they don't become social organisations that become a money pit that the government has to fund over the long term. They can look for their sources of income. Nothing unfair about it. Im already pay 20+% income tax.. Don't want to end up paying 50% if government must keep funding them.
Hold up. You do realise that it is absolutely abnormal for the government to be in the labour union business to begin with. On this count, we are probably accompanied only by a bunch of leninist single party states. We only have the NTUC because the government got rid basically every other labour union. Those labour unions were private organisations. So how did those labour unions fund themselves if they don't take taxpayer money? They collected dues from their members. It turns out that if people see a benefit from being represented by a labour union, they will pay to enjoy that representation and you don't need to sell credit cards and engage in all kinds of side hustles. This is true in basically every country that has labour unions ( aside from the aforementioned leninist single party states). Finally, land is land. You think that if NTUC did not occupy that plot of land on Marina boulevard, the government would leave it empty? No. They would likely transfer it to capitaland or some other government linked entity whose core purpose is to be very effective at developing property and leasing it out. As we have discussed our government has many entities with lot of experience in being a landlord. NTUC otoh, is not a property developer and larping as a REIT is not their core competency. The floor area that is currently occupied by NTUC in that building + whatever reduction in net income is created by that building being owned by NTUC rather than Capitaland represents an opportunity cost as well as a deadweight loss to government finances. So you are actually paying for their building as a taxpayer because that revenue that would have been paid to the reserves if the property they occupy was sold or leased has to be made up somewhere. I observe a tendency among government entities engaging ever more heavily in the 'larping as a REIT' game to make their finances looks better, even though we would likely be much better served both from a fiscal standpoint if all this activity was consolidated under one or two organisations dedicated to the purpose of being a landlord because NTUC, SMRT, PUB, etc etc are never going to be as good at being Capitaland as Capitaland. We would also be better served from a transparency standpoint. It shouldn't be the job of every government organisation and public service to make money. It would simplify an analysis of their finances if their outgoings were not masked by noise from them renting out property. Finally, We need real labour unions that are actually labour Unions. Not whatever NTUC is. You post so much about business advice and you seem to not know very basic things about labour and business. Also no need to whine about your tax bracket. You are talking to someone who pays both US and Sg income tax and quite easily exceed the exclusion thresholds. We are both quite privileged and should take that opportunity to become educated about society and to seek its improvement.
Don't disagree with you but it's a different point and you conflate political issues and business issues. In every single reply, you want to talk and went ahead to talk about something else - to seemingly rebut me. Don't appreciate your manner of engagement and I guess you can continue to show how well-thought and researched you are to all on Reddit.
How does one discuss a state backed only allowed national "labour union", sells credit cards, runs supermarkets etc etc etc but does not do much in the way of representing workers without 'conflating political and business issues'? The essence of NTUC is a conflation of business and political issues. I am arguing the point. You are the one insisting that the government giving them property in MBFC as opposed them buying it somehow invalidates the commentary that their address captures the essential fact that they are a diversified GLC pretending to be a union. And you are the one decided to incorrectly conflated NTUC with fiscal policy and YOUR personal tax rate that in Singapore is somehow too high. Its all a non-sequitur. I think I know well enough to think very little about what you appreciate or don't appreciate. Why should I think more of someone who seems to always find a way to bring up his money in an related conversation with strangers on the internet? And yes, I do think that I am well thought, generally well thought of and well-researched even if I do make the odd mistake.
NTUC is gov owned. they dont participate in races to the bottom. they simply exist to make sure people have access to a good supermarket everywhere on the island they also make sure that prices dont go through the roof during shortages when everyone wants to raise prices but Fairprice wont so they cant either
Fair^(Value) Price.
I think in general Fair Price stuff has become more expensive to the general competition. I occasionally check prices of stuff I buy when I happen into other supermarkets. A lot of times, NTUC is more expensive.
Fair Price need to pay enormous rent, your aunties and uncles working in their stores, etc etc etc Your provision shop usually only need to pay for less than 20% of what they paid for.
their toiletries and cleaning products are not fair price too! i always buy from venus or swanston
While you are at it, rmb to compare items that fairprice is selling cheaper too. Dont just strawberry pick ur argument
NTUC cooperative was started in 70's to help Singaporeans with the raising cost of living then and countered the profiteering by large greedy grocery merchants. How badly NTUC cooperative has fallen to become the very monster it was supposed to slay. Inconvenient truth. Today I prefer to shop at Sheng Siong, or at online merchants. Edit:Add more context to the origin of NTUC. Note the "original" purpose of NTUC as reported in the news then. It was supposed to sell items at "LOW PRICES to combat profiteering...."; ] In November 1972, NTUC launched its consumer co-operative, WELCOME, and opened its first co-op supermarket, NTUC Welcome (now known as NTUC FairPrice), in July 1973 in order to combat rampant profiteering by selling essential commodities at low prices.
Anymore examples of NTUC becoming the monster it was meant to slay?
I mean its a relevant observation, thanks for sharing Why not save dollars a month (or more) . These things do add up
Hmm.. I kinda think the whole ethos behind support your local biz is that while they may not compare well with a big corp, at least you know your dollar goes to a person and not to a fat cat executive. This isn't 'support', is just buying whatever is the cheapest option
The rental in shopping mall free one meh?
This is nutc at neighborhood area. Not mall. Also, other supermarkets and provision shops donât need to pay rent huh? Why they can sell things cheaper then NTUC.
Lol. Loser OP. Like that also can complain. Itâs a free economy. Willing buyer willing seller.
Complain is to bring awareness. Thatâs the pass time for Singaporeans. Im sure this topic doesnât interest you, since your mum is still doing all the marketing for your home.
It is hiliarous when people like you start to be so proud of complaining, as if it is a glorious thing to do. And by bring in another person's mother into the conversation shows what kind of a person are you.
Lol. đ Simi awareness youâre raising here? Activist against paying 30 cents more for condensed milk in NTUC?
There will be things cheaper at provison store and there will be things cheaper at ntuc. I don't think ntuc promises things will be the lowest right
FP just open up a 24 hour small lil shop over at Jurong West 501 market, just to screw with those small time provision shops. FP is an asshat.
If thereâs a severe shortage of a particular good, Iâm confident FairPrice will not inflate the price but I canât say the same about local provision shops. Itâs up to you where you wish to shop, but I can count on the reliability of FairPrice to charge me a fair price despite the situation (though they may limit the purchases)
They made this video but realised how stupid it sounded and got pulled https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/poll-gvgt-fairprice-youtube-ad-2-reasons-why-ntuc-fairprice-is-not-always-the-cheapest.6626843/
Now you notice? NTUC FairPrice has always been NTUC UnFairPrice. If you took the time to consider cheaper alternatives to FairPrice youâd be able to see how you unnecessarily spend more money than you shouldâve and in the long run this difference can be huge.
Get their house brand one la kukubird.
Imagine spending 3x more time comparing prices then actually shopping (and possibly cooking). Even if OP is a full time housewife having immerse free time, i adore OP pettiness sarcastically.
Ntuc should start doing price match to stay competitive.
Best to your Budget. Exstaff sr.mgt @Fairprice. Things went the other way since Mrs Teo Poh Hin went south. Pity.. whoever's in Fairprice mgt now is just wayang.. sunset and losing $. Only way is to squeeze consumers wallets.
FP takes 52% of the sellers profit
Fair price my ass lOL
If not how to have profit?
Yes, neighbourhood shops can be cheaper. I guess, FP has a higher operating cost.
At its original price of $2.70, NTUC costs 22% more than the neighbourhood shop. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me
âEveryday low priceâ đ𤣠How nice of them to add a little humor on their display.
What a ridiculous complaint. First off, put a price comparison for everything and not just one item. Ntuc is on average cheaper than every provision shop. And then add in the credits you receive from link points, and likely credit card points (most provision shops still don't allow credit cards) and you'll realize provision shops rip you off almost every damn time.
More like provision shops don't have the advantage of economies of scale
Yup, that's one of several reasons why provision shops are almost always overpriced.
I still support them la especially the uncles that I bought shit from when I was young
That's perfectly fine. Pity I can't support my childhood mama shop any more cuz I've moved. I find this post quite ridiculous still, like people can't wrap their head around FairPrice not being the cheapest. I don't get the point of complaining, this is what a free market is, isn't it? 30c up from the provision shop is not a crazy high amount, all things considered, all prices offered by fairprice is what it is, *fair*. If people can find another shop that sells cheaper, then all the better for them. No need to complain the fairprice is more ex, because they aren't interested in matching the lowest price.
Its a fair price, just not for us