Moving to the 40s

[Fading Fast]

Trying real, real hard to stay away from politics, but still engaging in the conversation, I overall agree with sheep lady, Lizzie Maine and Canadian. My girlfriend and I live, by almost any standard, "well below our means" because we don't want to have a lot of "stuff," don't care if others think we are too frugal (get that all the time), enjoy having things that last (we actually pay more than most for the few things we buy as we want them to last - my TV referenced above that I bought five years ago replaced our 1986 TV) and save aggressively for retirement (as we think it is very selfish to expect someone else to help us in retirement - but we are glad to pay taxes to help others who are truly struggling).

That said, what prompted my above post is that I'm not sure today's "cheap" goods are a bad thing (even though my instinct, default setting is against them) as they make some necessities for modern living (refrigerator) and some former luxuries (air conditioning) affordable to a much larger segment of the population. While I wish it wasn't a problem, the fact that obesity is a problem in poor populations in this country says something about food costs vis-a-vis not that long ago when being poor tautologically meant not having enough food.

Where I'm going is that the things we seem to be saying are a problem - a consumer driven society, a material-possession-driven self-worth standard, etc. - are to me societal problems, cultural problems, philosophical problems, spiritual problems. The fact that goods are more affordable should be a good thing (and again, I know there are resource issues and, as sheep lady points out, foreign labor issues that I am purposely acknowledging but staying away from) in that it can improve peoples lives. Hence, it is not the goods themselves, or even the companies that push them obnoxiously, it is the spiritual, philosophical, cultural and societal values that are the issue.

How, why and what to do about them is where this turns into a political subject that I am staying away from. I just wanted to make the distinction that it is those values and whatever engenders and supports them that are the issue - the fact that goods cost less (and maybe that even cheap disposal goods make sense if - like the TV - it is truly more affordable per constant dollar) is not a bad thing, but, overall, a good thing. That it has allowed us to become a consumer-focused society is not the fault of the cheap goods, just like the drugs don't make a drug addict.

As referenced above and like many of you, my girlfriend and I haven't bought into the consumer-driven society, but that is because of our values, outlook and philosophy on life - the goods are there and we see the commercials and advertisements all the time - we just have a different set of values than those who want to buy all that stuff.

 

[LizzieMaine]

People are fat today in modern consumer society because the cheapest food tends to be the unhealthiest. Only the Boys From Marketing would come up with the idea of stuffing people with cheap poison to make them sick, and then charge them a premium, "upscale" price for "healthy natural foods" to make them better.

It *is* absolutely a question of values, and it's pretty clear whose values dominate modern society. The old line about God and Mammon is as true now as it was two thousand years ago.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

And now not only what was once cheap is now expensive but also vice versa because it seems that way back when what would be considered junk food today was an expensive luxury. I know this to be the case because for my Dad who grew up poor during the Depression Coca-Cola was considered a rare treat.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When Coke introduced a "Family Size" bottle in the mid-fifties it held -- twenty-six ounces. That's just a little bit more than the typical "single serving" today.

Everywhere you go, people want more more more more more because the Boys tell them to want it. No wonder they're fat.

 

[Fading Fast]

When Coke introduced a "Family Size" bottle in the mid-fifties it held -- twenty-six ounces. That's just a little bit more than the typical "single serving" today.

Everywhere you go, people want more more more more more because the Boys tell them to want it. No wonder they're fat.

Somebody should tell "people" to think for themselves and not listen to "the Boys." I get the irony in that statement: the point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions - it's not Madison Avenue's fault that someone spend, eats, indulgences too much in something.

 

[LizzieMaine]

What it's a matter of is rejecting the entire concept of a consumer-driven society, and everything that entails. And no matter how "responsible" people like to think they are, you'll find very few of them willing to actually do that, when they've been conditioned all their lives to serve as fuel for the machine.

 

[jamespowers]

And no matter how "responsible" people like to think they are, you'll find very few of them willing to actually do that, when they've been conditioned all their lives to serve as fuel for the machine.

So you are saying that people are mostly stupid and easily misled.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Easily misled, yes. Stupid, not really -- there are plenty of very intelligent people in the world who nevertheless measure their own worth, and the worth of others, by what they own and consume. The most committed believer in anything is an intelligent person who's been duped and is afraid to admit it.

 

[sheeplady]

People are fat today in modern consumer society because the cheapest food tends to be the unhealthiest. Only the Boys From Marketing would come up with the idea of stuffing people with cheap poison to make them sick, and then charge them a premium, "upscale" price for "healthy natural foods" to make them better.

The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where less processed brown rice is more expensive than highly processed white rice (on average). And refined processed white bread is cheaper than less processed whole wheat.

Something that takes more energy, time, and money to make is cheaper to purchase than the healthier version.

 

[jamespowers]

Easily misled, yes. Stupid, not really -- there are plenty of very intelligent people in the world who nevertheless measure their own worth, and the worth of others, by what they own and consume. The most committed believer in anything is an intelligent person who's been duped and is afraid to admit it.

Ah, so you mean intelligent people are gullible. I suppose if you figue that they buy into the whole I want it and I want I now thing then maybe. I am not so sure that rich people are so easily misled. There are plenty of them that are as tight as drums---then again--that is how they got that way.

 

[jamespowers]

The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where less processed brown rice is more expensive than highly processed white rice (on average). And refined processed white bread is cheaper than less processed whole wheat.

Something that takes more energy, time, and money to make is cheaper to purchase than the healthier version.

I m not so sure:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/blog/blo...l_buy_at_the_drivethru_and_at_the_supermarket

and:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...tudy-dept-agriculture-study-article-1.1079412

 

[sheeplady]

I m not so sure:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/blog/blo...l_buy_at_the_drivethru_and_at_the_supermarket

and:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...tudy-dept-agriculture-study-article-1.1079412

None of those are comparing basic self-preparing foods that are unhealthy to healthy ones. You can't compare buying brown rice to buying fast food or frozen dinners- that is not what the relevant comparison is.

A better comparison is to compare staples that are healthier to less healthy staples: brown rice to white rice; whole wheat bread to white bread; frozen veggies to canned; lean chicken breasts to fatter thighs and wings; etc. The point being that even if you are strategically comparing self-prepared meals that are healthier, you can save money by choosing the less-healthy option- which is often the more highly processed one.

Also, that first blog's pricing is way off base- I have to wonder if these people shop themselves. A dollar per pound of chicken breasts? I'm not sure I've ever seen prices here that low. Right now you can buy chicken breasts for $2 a pound on sale, but you have to buy 10 pounds of chicken to get that price- so right there is your $20.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I m not so sure:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/blog/blo...l_buy_at_the_drivethru_and_at_the_supermarket

and:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...tudy-dept-agriculture-study-article-1.1079412

Two pounds of chicken breasts for $2? I haven't seen that since the Ford Administration.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Educated people are gullible. Not necessarily stupid, but easily led and convinced they know it all.

You can tell an educated person that the country is doing great and prove it with all kinds of bogus and meaningless statistics. A peasant will look around at all the unemployment, poverty, and crumbling cities and see through the bullshit.

Today even the uneducated are educated by television and movies. An old fashioned hard headed peasant would never be taken in.

 

[sheeplady]

Two pounds of chicken breasts for $2? I haven't seen that since the Ford Administration.

I wonder if it is really "chicken."

Also, I've got to laugh that Tyson chicken is listed as $1 a pound.... that kind of name-brand stuff is four times that here. The store brand stuff you can get 10 pounds for $20, but you have to buy the whole flat and it is not trimmed of fat like the expensive ones.

Other things are also kind of wrong at least from my region- the meatless patties are $3.50 for 8 oz. here (not $2.98 for the 16 oz package). And it's $3.50 for four ears of corn, too, not $1 for four. I *may* have paid $0.25 an ear for corn from a farm stand this summer *out in the middle of nowhere.* But not from the grocery store. Also, the store brand brown rice here is $1.39 not $0.72.

Basically take the food they list in the "you could buy this" and say you could buy this for $40- or take half the products away.

Also, the prices of their fast foods are really high in some cases. You can get a pizza for $5 around here- who spends $16 on a single fast food pizza?

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are definitely bargains that can be had in good food -- if you buy in bulk. If you buy ten pounds of chicken, for example, at a shot, you might get it at an excellent per-pound price. But what are you going to do with it? "Freeze it!" comes the chorus. Well, that's certainly something you can do if you have a nice big freezer, but there's that comfortable middle-class presumption that everybody *has* a nice big freezer, can afford to *buy* a nice big freezer, or even has *a place to put* a nice big freezer. The average apartment dweller might find this problematic.

Take-out pizza here runs about $10-$15, but you can get a good-sized frozen or take-n-bake pizza that'll feed a whole family for less than $5. That's pretty cheap and temptingly easy, especially when you're working long hours and don't have the energy at the end of the day to come home and cook a meal from scratch. And it's also grease-laden and fattening and unhealthy, but there you go.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I wonder if it is really "chicken."

Also, I've got to laugh that Tyson chicken is listed as $1 a pound.... that kind of name-brand stuff is four times that here. The store brand stuff you can get 10 pounds for $20, but you have to buy the whole flat and it is not trimmed of fat like the expensive ones.

To say nothing of being genetically-modified or shot full of hormones to plump it up before slaughter.

 

[sheeplady]

Here's a comparison I did on my own:

Brown Rice (10 oz): $1.39
White Rice (10 oz): $0.99

Whole Wheat Bread (24 oz.): $2.99
White Bread (22 oz): $0.99

Chicken Breasts: $3.89 per pound
Chicken Thighs: $0.99 per pound

Fresh Beans (16 oz): $1.99
Frozen Beans (16 oz.): $0.99
Canned Beans (14 oz): $0.59

In every single one of those examples, the cheapest product is the most processed and most unhealthy. The only exception to that is the chicken breasts, which are still cheaper for the less-healthy (but in this case, less processed) version.

(All prices are from Wegman's Online Shopper, Syracuse prices. All are Wegman's store brand.)

ETA: If I bought the cheapest, most unhealthy options, I would spend $3.56. If I bought the healthy options I would spend $10.26 (or $9.26 if I bought the frozen beans). So how is the healthy food cheaper, if it costs $5.70 more for the approximate same amount of food???

 

[jamespowers]

Hmmmmm....
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle...ot-necessarily-more-expensive--152079845.html
http://foodworldorder.blogspot.com/2012/05/junk-food-not-cheaper-than-healthy-food.html

The USDA also found it is cheaper to eat healthy in most areas of consumption:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib96.aspx

 

[jamespowers]

Here's a comparison I did on my own:

Brown Rice (10 oz): $1.39
White Rice (10 oz): $0.99

Whole Wheat Bread (24 oz.): $2.99
White Bread (22 oz): $0.99

Chicken Breasts: $3.89 per pound
Chicken Thighs: $0.99 per pound

Fresh Beans (16 oz): $1.99
Frozen Beans (16 oz.): $0.99
Canned Beans (14 oz): $0.59

In every single one of those examples, the cheapest product is the most processed and most unhealthy. The only exception to that is the chicken breasts, which are still cheaper for the less-healthy (but in this case, less processed) version.

(All prices are from Wegman's Online Shopper, Syracuse prices. All are Wegman's store brand.)

ETA: If I bought the cheapest, most unhealthy options, I would spend $3.56. If I bought the healthy options I would spend $10.26 (or $9.26 if I bought the frozen beans). So how is the healthy food cheaper, if it costs $5.70 more for the approximate same amount of food???

Try Walmart it is much cheaper---at least out here it is. There are regional differences.