4 ms·

> It's become cheaper to feed yourself off of junk food Has it really though, or are people just drawn to the convenience?

• smallnamespace 10y ago
  If by convenience, you include cooking time, then junk food is pretty cheap. A lot of working poor juggle multiple part-time jobs or the like (in families, sometimes both adults), so there's no stable schedule and no guarantee you'll have the time or energy to cook on any given day.
  • yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Most poor are not working poor. Many of those that are working don't work that much. Here are the facts: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi... The less money you have, the more leisure time you have. That leisure time is just spent in front of the TV rather than working out in a park. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm
    • disordinary 10y ago
      There are the people that don't fall within those statistics because they aren't technically working poor, but are still not earning a living wage. They aren't below the poverty line but still can't keep up with debt payments. They often work full time and moonlight with a part time job.
  • Nition 10y ago
    Agreed, I was meaning only in terms of direct purchase cost but the value of time spent is a worthwhile factor to consider.
• nether 10y ago
  Yes. A package of Oreos is much cheaper than fresh produce on a dollars per calorie basis.
  • skookum 10y ago
    I'll see your cherry picking and I'll raise you one: Assuming Oreos are $2.50 a box, they work out to 840 or so calories per dollar. Russet potatoes at 50 cents a pound work out to 880 or so calories per dollar. And that's using a fairly high price for the russets - in larger bags they can be found for 20 or even 10 cents a pound. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which of the two will leave one feeling more satiated after eating O(2000) calories thereof.
    • smallnamespace 10y ago
      Oreos can be eaten straight out of the bag, while Russet potatoes require some level of cooking and preparation (especially if you want them to be as palatable).
• speeder 10y ago
  I lived for a while in a city where soda was cheaper than water... even if this sounds absurd. Also, junk food was generally much cheaper, usually for the reasons it is junk in first place (example: "chicken" junk food is usually made with ground leftovers of chicken, after the more expensive parts are sold separetely).
• disordinary 10y ago
  Cooking for yourself is only cheaper than eating out if you buy in bulk and buy whatever is in season. Often the capital outlay of this makes it daunting, not to mention the fact that people who are worried often don't have a car to drive to the supermarket and therefore have to carry all those groceries by hand or on the bus. It's very hard to compete with the local burger chain which is within walking distance and where you can get a burger, chips, a drink, and desert for only a few dollars.
  • charlieflowers 10y ago
    No, that's not true. Cooking for yourself is _easily_ cheaper than eating out. You pay heavily for the luxury of having someone else prep your food. You can go to the grocery store once a week, cook a few meals to last through the week, and eat for $3 a meal without trying hard. Frugal people can eat for $1 a meal easily.
    • taeric 10y ago
      This can easily depend on what you eat. Both when eating out, and eating in. As such, strawmen and assertions without data will be tough to argue against. Specifically, I'm sure there are folks that spend more than I do. In either category. Numbers would be interesting to see, and I'm sure someone has them.
      • disordinary 10y ago
        It will very wildly city to city, state to state, country to country, and also season to season. Whereas fast food tends to be reasonably standard.
      • redial 10y ago
        If you compare the same meal and don't account for the time you spend cooking it, it will be cheaper to do it yourself every time. If you go to fancy restaurants it's not even close. You just have to compare the price of a soda, ~$3 and up (usually $5), to its price at the supermarket and you'll have your answer. Wine is also an easy one, with at least 300% markup even on cheap bottles. Everything is marked up like that (maybe calling it 'markup' is not really fair as they provide other things and not just a meal, but you get what I mean.) I've been cooking for years and not even trying to save money meals are less expensive.
• randomdata 10y ago
  If you include all of the costs of preparing your own meals, I don't think there is any contest. Time is expensive, the opportunity cost of a kitchen is substantial. In many cases, the cost of just those two things alone is enough to pay for all of your meals out at a reasonably priced restaurant. And we have only started to scratch the surface of all of the costs involved. If you only look at the cost of the raw ingredients, then cooking yourself is tough to compete with. Then again, if you only look at the price of lumber, building your own furniture is pretty tough to compete with too. Is that a good way to look at it? I'm not sure. Either way, for myself, I would quickly grow frustrated by a diet of junk food and/or eating at restraints frequently. I'll gladly take the time and pay a premium to have my own kitchen.