8 ms·
U.S. Consumers Spent More on Food in 2022 Than Ever Before (Inflation Adjusted)
- soperj 3y agoI think this has a lot to do with the under counting of inflation. If you go back to 80s methodology inflation has been much larger that what they've let on.
- cheriot 3y agoWasn't the methodology change on housing costs? If this is under counting inflation then spending at restaurants is up even more. I guess people have money to spend and are enjoying the restaurant scene.
- azmodeus 3y agoWhat's the 80s methodology inflation?
- NickC25 3y agoI am not familiar with the methodology of reporting inflation used in the 80s - did they take a wider basket of goods, or were there other consumer purchases in question that would affect the reporting number? If we were to use the 80s methodology - what would inflation numbers look like?
- torial 3y agoShadow Stats has a chart showing the differences between both 80s and 90s methodologies and current: https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
- cheriot 3y agoShadow Stats is tin foil hat style economics. Price level measurement is complex and there are worthwhile debates, but this is not that.
- itsoktocry 3y ago>Shadow Stats Look at that first chart. He literally just adds a constant to the CPI data.
- swatcoder 3y agoYup. I think there's also an ongoing century long shift in "modern" culture that makes classical economics food "baskets" unrepresentative. Excepting wellness geeks, nobody who participates in "modern" culture lives on classical staples of grains, produce, dairy, and affordable cuts of meat. As a hardline economist in academia, you can say that those are what matter to poverty or starvation because people will eventually become desperate enough to reject their lived culture and return to an alien world of basic foods, but policy makers need to be realistic and acknowledge that most people have no idea how to eat without branded processed foods, fast food convenience, etc. The cultural traditions that made simple foods practical have been lost from many families and those never-learned recipes and habits don't just restore themselves to people overnight when times get tough. That inconvenient reality of what people actually eat needs to get folded into these economic models for them to actually report on what they intend to. Otherwise, the measures just speaking to a lost time and the smattering of rustic immigrants who still know how to live satisfyingly on traditional staples.
- soperj 3y ago> The cultural traditions that made simple foods practical have been lost from many families and those never-learned recipes and habits don't just restore themselves to people overnight when times get tough. That strikes a chord. How do you fix this piece though?
- tayo42 3y agoIt's easier then ever to learn to cook. Go on YouTube
- soperj 3y agoWhat are you having for dinner tonight?
- HappMacDonald 3y agoYoutube
- strikelaserclaw 3y agoThey should use the dollar menu at mc donalds to track food price inflation.
- lastofthemojito 3y agoThere is already a Big Mac Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- babyshake 3y agoI no longer do a double take at a sandwich costing $25 at takeout restaurants in the area where I live. 10 years ago, I would have been surprised to see a sandwich cost $15 at anywhere but an upscale restaurant.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoI assume if a meal does not cost $15, then shortcuts are being taken that will make me not want to eat it.
- itsoktocry 3y ago>If you go back to 80s methodology inflation has been much larger that what they've let on. Is the 80s methodology more accurate or realistic? That's all that matters.
- Dig1t 3y agoEveryone knows they are spending way more on food. The CPI inflation numbers feel like a lie.
- jeffbee 3y agoBut that's not what's happening in this article. The Food Away From Home share has hit an all-time high, and FAFH costs more (because it contains more internalized labor than groceries). Americans eat out a lot because they are unbelievably rich.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoYes Americans are rich and are also very busy. Life seems to push so fast that I know a lot of people buy food away from home due to a sense that they don’t have time to cook. There must be rich individuals in other cultures who still eat at home because they have more freedom to take the time to do so. Americans on a global scale are rich but I expect that living expenses are so high too that many people who often eat out are still struggling to get by.
- SoftTalker 3y agoEating at home takes less time than eating out. Maybe about the same if you include washing up and putting everything away. Getting prepared food via DoorDash, I guess might be quicker, but you're still sitting there for 30-60 minutes in most cases waiting for it to show up. You can roast a chicken and vegetables in the oven in that time.
- jeffbee 3y agoThis is entirely situational. Where I am sitting in a central urban neighborhood I can click to reorder my standing order at the Indian restaurant on the corner—this is shockingly straightforward on Google Maps, just search the name of the restaurant and click one button—and it's 1 minute away. I often cook of course, but I don't think of cooking at home as a time-saving device. I think of it as a hobby.
- rpastuszak 3y agoReminds me of: https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@badlogic/111071396799790275 https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@badlogic/111071396799790275 Does a US-centric version of a tool like this one exist?
- MrRolleyes 3y agoInteresting timing—Target claims consumers' discretionary spending is down, "both in dollars and units". I wonder if this points towards food prices climbing faster than inflation.
- carabiner 3y agoShhh, don't look at that. Just focus on "U.S. GDP grew at a 4.9% annual pace in the third quarter, better than expected (cnbc.com)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38025177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38025177 and celebrate. Sure, 90% of Americans under 50 will never be able to buy a house. They are one injury away from bankruptcy. But the GDP!
- claytonjy 3y agoAren't age-adjusted homeownership rates roughly the same for millennials as it was for baby boomers? I won't argue that it's harder and more expensive, it sure is, but millennials seem to prioritize it enough to do whatever it takes to own a home, so home prices keep going up.
- laidoffamazon 3y agoThis is absolutely correct, the economy is doing well for all cohorts not just people over 50.
- waythenewsgoes 3y agoNot to flame but this is a very mis-informed opinion. Multiple sources[1][2] show that millennial homeownership rates when adjusted for age are lower across the board. Some highlights from these sources: [1] Today the millennial homeownership rate is 43 percent, well below the rates of generation X (67 percent) and the baby boomer and silent generations (77 percent). An important feature of millennial homeownership that often gets muddled in the media conversation is that it is increasing, and with few minor exceptions, it has always been increasing. The oldest millennials turned 18 in 1999, and every year since then there has been a net increase in the number of millennial-owned homes. Since the Great Recession, the millennial homeownership rate has grown faster than any other, particularly in the last five years while the economy has expanded quickly. Today, millennials are the least likely to own a home, but they are the most likely to purchase one. Millennial homeownership is rising, but it is rising slower than it did for previous generations. The chart below (see link) compares homeownership rates for each generation as they age [2] If we isolate the effects of delayed household formation proxied by changes in marital composition (i.e., we assume the marriage rate was the same as in 1990), we find the hypothetical real homeownership rate would have been 39.1 percent, 9.8 percentage points higher than current levels. As of 2021, there are 44 million young adults ages 25 to 34, meaning there would be 4.3 million additional homeowners. [1]: https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/homeownership-by-generation https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/homeownership-by-gene... [2]: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/real-homeownership-gap-between-todays-young-adults-and-past-generations-much-larger-you https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/real-homeownership-gap-betw...
- m3kw9 3y agoBecause restaurants are doing literal highway robbery plus they need 20% tip on top
- bugglebeetle 3y agoMonopolization in the food industry (at just about every level) has set the stage for unchecked corporate profiteering. The real shortages during the pandemic created a pretext for ongoing gouging. Federal authorities used to intervene with various forms of price controls and limits on this kind of stuff, but now they simply wash their hands of the whole thing. This is of course all in the context of the US engaging in massive agricultural subsidies, the bulk of which go to said monopolies.
- cheriot 3y agoBefore the doomers run away with this thread, real spending on food prepared at home is down. This is more than off set by increased spending at restaurants. This returns to the pre-covid trends.
- laidoffamazon 3y agoI'd love to see a better understanding of why American HN commenters, a cohort that likely makes 2-3x the typical compensation of an ordinary American, wants to catatastrophize a pretty decent to great American economy. The comments are literally data being "refuted" with anecdotes.
- cheriot 3y agoAgreed. There's a lot of smart people on HN, but the economics commentary is consistently not great.
- laidoffamazon 3y agoMight be the political characteristics of the tech worker crowd. Big split between the libertarians who have claimed high inflation even when America had objectively low inflation (usually as a justification for crypto), the conspiratorial far-right that thinks that the administration is falsifying economic data because they want to end democracy, and the far-left aligned folks that have to say the economy is bad for in-group signaling even though none of them are acting like the economy is all too bad. Consumers spending more on food because they're eating out more because they can afford it isn't a sign of a bad economy in any way.
- cheriot 3y agoI think that's a lot of it. Even the way econ/finance interpretations of surveys has changed because responses are now driven by politics. People will say their own finances are great, but the economy is horrible.
- karaterobot 3y ago
- kajumix 3y agoI eat a lot of eggs and meat, and their prices are at least 50% higher than last year, not 6%. Inflation measures are such a joke.
- Yhippa 3y agoYeah, but you can get $7,500 off an electric vehicle!
- iamjake648 3y agoNot sure what you're getting at with this. Are you eluding that these clean vehicle rebates are directly contributing to food price inflation? Are you saying policy is focusing on the wrong things to subsidize or what?
- bluedino 3y agoEggs (at least in my area) have gone back to normal in the last couple months ($2 for an 18 pack instead of $6) Beef on the other hand...
- ceejayoz 3y ago> I eat a lot of eggs and meat, and their prices are at least 50% higher than last year, not 6%. But the average person doesn't eat only eggs and meat, which is what the 6% reflects.
- laidoffamazon 3y agoI don't eat any eggs or meat, and I don't own a car so I didn't pay for gas during the price spike last year. I was only impacted by inflation when my 5.50 latte went up to 6.42. Don't love it, but not enough to make me want to vote against democracy existing.
- lukas099 3y agoWe use a basket of goods to measure inflation. There is endless debate about whether the basket is representative, but it is almost certainly more representative than just "eggs and meat".
- hinkley 3y ago"Ever before"? Those charts only go back to 1997, which is probably about when food was (inflation adjusted) at an all-time low price. The United States is almost 250 years old. "Ever" and you only looked at 30 years is some first-rate hand-wringing bullshit. What this article really says is that we are spending more money on food not prepared at home, and food not prepared at home is more expensive, duh.
- laidoffamazon 3y agoIf you look at real personal expenditures on food overall it's lower than a year ago, slightly higher than 2019 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFXARX1M020SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFXARX1M020SBEA
- xxpor 3y agoyeah, I was thinking there is absolutely 0 chance, as a percentage of household income, that people werent spending more more money on food in 1820 than now.
- paxys 3y ago> Real total food spending increased 11.4 percent in 2021 and 3.4 percent in 2022, driven by higher FAFH spending (up 19 percent in 2021 and 8 percent in 2022). Real FAH spending increased by 4 percent in 2021 but decreased by 2 percent in 2022. FAH = food at home FAFH = food away from home So, eating out is killing our wallets. Not really a surprise considering "dollar menu" items at McDonalds now cost $6 and a halfway decent lunch is upwards of $17-20. It's too hard to change habits in the short term, but I fully expect that over time people are going to start cooking more and cutting back on restaurant visits and the industry is going to take a huge hit because of it. Prices are simply out of control. Even more so considering the default tip expectation has crept up from 10% to now 20-25%.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> It's too hard to change habits in the short term I don’t see how. Written and video recipes available for free online. Instant pot and a couple other items cost $100? Time and effort are the remaining ingredients.
- danShumway 3y agoTime, food variety, and cleanup. Most people don't want the majority of their food to come from an instant pot and they don't want to think about things like grocery shopping. There's a level of skill and management involved in making your own food even if you are talking about extremely simple recipes, and it becomes invisible once you get used to it, but I suspect some people don't have those skills or habits built up. I might be overestimating the difficulty because of ADHD, but I do think it's something that can be difficult even for neurotypical people if they're not used to it. And of course, habits are also just... habitual. If it's a habit to get to 9PM at night and think, "crud I need food, let me just order something quickly", that habit will still be difficult to break even if everything else is easy. It's of course doable -- I basically never eat out or order food, I cook everything. But I understand why people don't. Cooking is something I have to plan around. It's annoying to want to make something and then look in the fridge and realize I forgot to buy an ingredient. And I only cook for myself, I don't have to manage a full family and kids. But it is of course way cheaper and (depending on how you approach it) can be much healthier.
- bluedino 3y agoPizza night is $40 now (two pizzas and a breadstick-side), compared to $20 The bucket of chicken meal at KFC is $36 McDonald's combo meals are $11 instead of $6 Lattes seem to be $2 more Still spending almost double a week on groceries than I was 2 years ago
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago>Pizza night is $40 now (two pizzas and a breadstick-side), compared to $20 Honestly domino's is pretty good and is still $8 for a large carry out. Honestly if you're okay with spending $40 for whatever pizza you like, it becomes redicously worth it to just cook it. Pizza is one of the cheapest foods to make. For comparison I spend 10-20% more over the same time period in Virginia for groceries. It is certainly not double, not even close. But eating out has gotten rediculous.
- NickC25 3y agoPizza is a blast to make. I have cealiac's, so gluten free pizza is not cheap. So, I make GF pizza myself. I spend roughly $40 in total, and make 2 great full sized meat lover's pizzas - with everything on it - bacon, pepperoni, prosciutto, salame, cheese, pineapple, onions, peppers, chicken, etc. All in costs are about $20-22 a pie, probably 21-25 if you include large ingredients that are also used for other cooking (olive oil, eggs etc...) which is not cheap but not terribly expensive considering I make it for a group of 4-5 people, so the cost averages out to 10-11 dollars a person.
- deathanatos 3y agoI want per-capita numbers, otherwise these graphs are with "population goes up, food spending goes up". A real mystery. The only real statement we get is, > From 2019 to 2020, every State and Washington, DC, saw decreases in inflation-adjusted, per capita total food spending. But the overall graph featured near the top of the article's slope is steep enough, I think, that the per-capita number hidden somewhere in there is also increasing across the duration. If I've done the napkin math right, roughly $2k/person/yr to $2.7k/person/yr. But the big graph as presented confounds the problem we want to see the data on (stuff is getting more expensive) with population growth.
- vikingerik 3y ago"From 2019 to 2020" was going directly into the bottom of the pandemic shutdowns. Ignore that, that's a cherrypicked outlier. Compare the annualized differential from 2019 to 2023 if you want to see real numbers. (Even the first half of 2022 still had significant pandemic drag.)
- infamouscow 3y agoThe effects of money printing on display.
- conjecTech 3y agoI have been fascinated by the price of oats recently. The 8lb box of oats I have been buying from Amazon for several years suddenly went from $15 to $32 in July. Paying $4/lb for grain feels excessive given that meat is cheaper than that in most of the country. I went looking for an explanation expecting there to been some huge crop loss, but found oat future prices have been relatively stable at around $0.15/lb. I looked at other prices, and whole foods even charges $3.6/lb for their store brand and something like $2.5/lb for bulk goods. I distinctly remember buying the same bulk oats for $0.59/lb in 2017, right around the time Amazon bought whole foods. And oat futures prices are only up about 30% since then. I think retailers would like us to believe these increases are just them passing through rising commodity prices from inflation, but I am increasingly convinced it is collusion, either implicit or explicit, to increase margins. The most compelling evidence this is happening seems to be Costco, which generally sets its prices at near-fixed 15% markup hasn't experienced nearly the same increases and is selling similar products at less than half of that price. I think the entire thing is indicative of a growing disconnect between the cost of commodities and what consumers are paying due to increased consolidation and collusion among retailers.
- dcchambers 3y agoIt also doesn't really make any sense to buy a cheap pantry staple or cereal grain like oats online and have it shipped to you. The base product is so cheap but it's heavy so traditional consumer shipping is expensive (and wasteful/bad for the environment). There's a very good chance much of that price increase is due to increase cost of shipping. Even if Amazon gives you "free" shipping - they're building that price into the price of the product... They're not eating the shipping cost on a low margin item like a cereal grain. I can buy organic locally grown oats at my expensive local health food co-op for less than $2/lb...unchanged from years ago.
- conjecTech 3y agoDeliveries of any reasonable size reduce vehicle miles travelled for goods. If a delivery driver can do 50 deliveries in a 10 mile route, that is much, much better than each one of those people driving to the store and back. I live in Brooklyn and Amazon has a grocery logistics hub less 5 miles from me. My carbon footprint is just fine.