3 ms·

People's revealed preference is that they value watching TV more than they do saving money on food by trading the time it requires to do so. In other words, the

by shpxnvz 15y ago

People's revealed preference is that they value watching TV more than they do saving money on food by trading the time it requires to do so. In other words, the 'cost ceiling' (I just made up that term :) ) of watching TV is higher than that of the potential savings of cooking at home. Yes. The point I was trying to make was exactly that - actual monetary cost is not why people choose to eat fast food. I'm not claiming that's a bad thing, either. All I'm saying is that it's irrational to argue that the monetary cost of cooking is higher. Additionally, I think your argument is flawed in that you don't account for other costs of cooking at home. For one, you need a kitchen, utensils, some basic skills and access to transportation to get goods from the shop to your home. All of which are not readily available to many low-income families. Real data doesn't support that claim. Based on U.S. Department of Energy data (1), 99.6% of poor households in America have a refrigerator and 97.7% have a stove and oven. The necessary utensils and cookware can be had for the cost of a couple of fast food meals at Walmart. I'm not sure what sort of transportation you are envisioning that can take someone to McDonald's but not the grocery store, but assuming that is a problem every county I've lived in has transportation programs for the poor. 1. http://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-E/j3qe-tebj http://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Ene...

roel_v 15y ago
Re: point 1, from what I understand it's quite possible in the US to eat fast food for 2 to 3 dollars; about equal to the cost of a home-prepared meal if you don't spend real attention to eating cheap. I think that it's possible to eat cheaper but you need to make a conscious effort. Maybe I misunderstood your original comment. Re: point 2, that surprised me, but maybe it shouldn't have; rental houses would come with a functioning kitchen. I guess on second thought those additional costs are marginal and don't make up a significant portion of cost of cooking at home, and that my argument is insignificant.
- shpxnvz 15y ago
  Well, to be honest I don't think I was particularly clear in my comment. You're right that you can eat fast food for $2-$3 dollars per meal, and maybe people do elsewhere - I'm just going by my personal experience which is that people here tend to order meals that cost upward of $6, and those are the ones that are heavily advertised. And although my family prepares meals for under $2 per person, we eat very little meat (a factor I hadn't considered before) so perhaps more carnivorous families would come in higher in cost.

by shpxnvz 15y ago

roel_v 15y ago

Re: point 1, from what I understand it's quite possible in the US to eat fast food for 2 to 3 dollars; about equal to the cost of a home-prepared meal if you don't spend real attention to eating cheap. I think that it's possible to eat cheaper but you need to make a conscious effort. Maybe I misunderstood your original comment. Re: point 2, that surprised me, but maybe it shouldn't have; rental houses would come with a functioning kitchen. I guess on second thought those additional costs are marginal and don't make up a significant portion of cost of cooking at home, and that my argument is insignificant.

shpxnvz 15y ago
Well, to be honest I don't think I was particularly clear in my comment. You're right that you can eat fast food for $2-$3 dollars per meal, and maybe people do elsewhere - I'm just going by my personal experience which is that people here tend to order meals that cost upward of $6, and those are the ones that are heavily advertised. And although my family prepares meals for under $2 per person, we eat very little meat (a factor I hadn't considered before) so perhaps more carnivorous families would come in higher in cost.