<RJ> wrote:
> On a recent visit with relatives,
> five of us went to a local steakhouse for dinner.
>
> When all was done, dinner, drinks, tax and tips,
> the tab was close to a hundred bucks !!
>
> ( and that was with picking from the cheaper page of the menu )
>
> Now, I'm reminded why I limit my outings to
> Mickey-Dee's or Pizza Hut....

I can't imagine having a decent steak dinner for $20 each. And that
included tips? Amazingly inexpensive.

Jean B. wrote:

> Oh, I absolutely agree, Nancy. To the degree that we can prudently
> spend some money at local businesses, we should. I also think all of
> the negative nattering by the media isn't helping at all....
>
Well, between the negative nattering by the media, and the fear
mongering we've heard for months from politicians... no wonder people
are scared!
I subscribe to the "Dolly Levy" school of economics. Spending money
(responsibly) helps the little guy....

Dimitri wrote:

> Well with the economy as it is and with unemployment increasing daily, I
> believe conspicuous consumption may be out of order. Food Banks are
> running out of food, our wonderful State of California is closing down a
> tent city that has popped up - I think they should pitch their tents on
> the lawn that leads to the State capitol building, Where Arnie smokes
> his cigars (probably 10 bucks a piece).
>
> http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=56175
>
> Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
> crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than
> electricity so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>
> Are you conserving?
> Buying less extravagant foods?
> Donating to the local food bank?
> Watching the sale prices more closely?

I'm trying really hard to minimize waste. And currently between my son
and my daughter's boyfriend leftovers rarely get pitched. We're not
using less but what gets bought and prepared is more completely utilized.

In point of fact, with a little extra planning and effort, I'm feeding
five for less than the cost of four.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:53:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>
> Didja see that tv spot where the guy tried to live on food stamps for
> a month? I wanted to grab him thru the tv screen when he tossed boxed
> mashed potatoes in his cart along with some other convenience type
> boxed and canned junk.
>
> No wonder he couldn't stretch a dollar.
>
> Stepping off soapbox now.

about a year and a half ago, a number of democratic congressmen and others
in the media and elsewhere took a challenge to live for a week on
twenty-one dollars (the amount alloted then for food stamps). they didn't
find it all that easy:

<http://foodstampchallenge.typepad.com/>

your pal,
blake

Giusi wrote:

> That's true, but you can't blame people who are afraid of losing a job for
> being very conservative. My first instinct was to get out of any debt in
> case I had to hunker down. What seemed a casual bit of cc debt before
> suddenly looked like a guilty going-along with the credit crazed world.

I've always been cautious about credit card debt since buying houses
starting at age 22 and going through all those qualifying applications.
We've always planned our budget/spending to cover any possibility of
change circumstances. Keeping those ideas in the back of our minds has
allowed us to be comfortable during these trying times.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> I enjoy your blog I do have a question for you. At what point does
> it become more expensive to cook food than to just buy the convenience
> item. Example: When I make lasagne from scratch it is extremely
> expensive. However, the ingredients I use to make it are all fresh and
> bought from specialty shops in the Italian neighborhood here called "The
> Hill". I could make it with less expensive ingredients but would
> sacrifice taste. It would still be more expensive than buying the 72oz.
> frozen Stouffers or Marie Callendars. Both of which I usually keep on
> hand and make when my time is limited. Both are convenience foods but
> less expensive for me to make than making the dish from scratch.
>
> Michael
>
I think that you're possibly comparing apples to oranges. I couldn't
compare the two. There should be something more remarkable to
differentiate the two, such as taste or quality. If your expensive
homemade tastes no better than the frozen convenience versions, you're
wasting your time and money making it.

"Nancy Young" wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> Are you conserving?
>> Buying less extravagant foods?
>> Donating to the local food bank?
>> Watching the sale prices more closely?
>
> Being retired, I'm not afraid of losing my job. Don't worry, been
> there, done that. I don't miss that uncertainty and I get people's
> anxiety. So, my finances are rather stable. Weird.

You didn't achieve financial stability without a lot of hard work and much
doing without over a lifetime of years Your income is stable/fixed, your
expenses are not, inflation is running rampant. You've been cutting back
even if you don't realize it... fortunately from yur life experience you
know how. I think you've always lived well within your means and have
always had all contingencies covered, even illness.

> I am ashamed to say I haven't donated to the food bank lately,
> except for a bunch of clothing. I'll take care of that today.

No one donates unless it's something they won't use. I donate clothing too,
my used clothing goes to a group home for adult learning disabled. But I
don't donate food except to a local animal shelter. The government sponsors
more than enough food programs for people but nothing for animals. No one
in America need go hungry unless they choose to, but millions of perfectly
healthy helpless animals starve and are euthanized... I think they have it
all backwards.

> Frankly, I think the best thing to do is not withdrawing from the
> economy, when people start spending again is when we'll start
> to get our mojo back.

Spending is how the economy got into the state it's in, people spending
money they don't have. Personal lines of credit on plastic are much too
high. Laws need to be enacted that limit credit to 10% of net income after
expenses, with only one card per person, and no balance carried more than 90
days or the card is canceled but the money still owed... and no card
reissued until one year after the balance is paid... not paying within 2
years forfiets credit cards foever. Then let them go to a loan shark, and
if they don't pay, naturally they'll be euthanized.

I don't need much, but I'm trying to buy
> stuff here and there, visiting my favorite restaurants in the hopes
> they'll still be there when this all shakes out. It's only small amounts
> of money, a drop in the bucket.

The restaurants that give value for money will still be there, those that
dont we don't want those to still be there.

> Maybe this will sound really weird to people, or maybe people
> will take it the wrong way and be ****ed off with me. Like I'm > running
> around buying Bentleys and furs or something.

Things would be wonderful if folks bought automobiles, but they don't, they
haven't for decades, they lease instead... they accumulate no equity.
Better than 90% of late model cars on the road today are leased, a
monumental drain on ones personal economy. Most people lease cars that
would cost 2-3 times more than they could afford to buy. They lease those
luxury cars for the same reason folks buy more house than they can afford,
over inflated egos.

All I'm
> saying is I don't think it's helpful to the economy to have more
> and more people out of work because all the businesses are
> going under from lack of customers.
> nancy

The only businesses that are folding are those that are not producing
competitively quality product, not giving competitive quality service, and
those that are redundant (how many sporting goods, electronics, houseware,
etc. emporiums all selling the same stuff do we need). After decades of a
conspicuous consumption life style the economy is finally beginning to
correct it itself, just beginning. Artificial bolstering that creates a
false line of credit so that folks can continue to spend themselves ever
deeper into dept is exactly what not to do... the grubermint is a bunch of
immature pinheads who only want to posture and preen so they look good for
the short term but are incapable of mature economic restraint for the long
haul, and for two reasons, they truly haven't the experience and they are
more concerned with being popular in the short term.

The decades of living high on the hog/beyond ones means is over. There's
nothing complicated about economics (any six year old is capable of knowing
all there is to know). Anyone who insists on continuing to build debt they
are unable to repay in a timely manner will fall by the wayside, and
deservedly so... even a six year old who spends his entire allowance on
candy on Monday won't have movie money for Saturday, unless their pinhead
parents bail them out... not wise! Obama has more water dammed up behind
his Dumbo ears than rushes over Niagra Falls... he's made to look all grown
up on TV, in real life he's truly a boy.

And a great many are out of work simply because they choose to be... many
were in positions where they were grossly over paid... and now refuse jobs
that pay what they are actually worth. It's near impossible to convince
those who were way over paid for years that they truly have no marketable
skills commisserate to what they were paid.

And as to folks whose home is in foreclosure, the majority could easily save
their home by renting it while they move into an inexpensive apartment until
they ride out the storm and hopefully control their impulsiveness while
getting their personal finances under control... this will give them time to
sell near a break even point what they obviously were never able to afford.
And a foreclosure is worse than a bankruptcy, a bankruptcy eventually fades
away but a foreclosure haunts your financial position like a festering open
wound for the rest of your life. In most instances there is really no
reason for foreclosure, except for that over inflated ego. Permit me a sage
piece of advice, any couple (especially a young couple) buying a home needs
to purchase mortgage insurance that pays off the debt for death and
catastrophic illness. All are asked but most dismiss the opportunity,
don't.

"brooklyn1" > wrote
>
> No one donates unless it's something they won't use.

No true, Sheldon!

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
...
> Well with the economy as it is and with unemployment increasing daily, I
> believe conspicuous consumption may be out of order. Food Banks are
> running out of food, our wonderful State of California is closing down a
> tent city that has popped up - I think they should pitch their tents on
> the lawn that leads to the State capitol building, Where Arnie smokes his
> cigars (probably 10 bucks a piece).
>
> http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=56175

Tent city is a stone's throw from my home. Do not expect the citizens of
Sacramento to let the City do this without a battle.

> Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
> crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than
> electricity so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>
> Are you conserving?
> Buying less extravagant foods?
> Donating to the local food bank?
> Watching the sale prices more closely?

Like most others in this thread, I am always careful with my pennies. I
routinely donate to the food bank and to Loaves and Fishes, Salvation Army,
etc. There but for the grace of Alex....

Also, saw a bit on the news this a.m. about the local animal shelters with
an influx of abandoned pets - they surmise this rise in dumped dogs/cats is
due to folks not being able to afford to care for them any longer.
Heartbreaking.

TammyM

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:03:24 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:23:24 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>One of things that is "interesting" about the current economic crisis is
>>that many are just *now* realizing where money "comes from"...
>
> Many still think it comes from government. At least those who pay
> little or no taxes.
>
> Lou

dear god, here we go again. about nine percent of the u.s. budget goes to
public assistance.

Safety net programs: About 9 percent of the federal budget in 2007, or
$254 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health
insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing
hardship. This includes: the refundable portion of the earned-income and
child tax credits, which assist low and moderate-income working families
through the tax code;[1] programs that provide cash payments to eligible
individuals or households, including the Supplemental Security Income
program for poor people who are elderly or have serious disabilities and
the unemployment insurance program; various forms of in-kind assistance for
low-income families and individuals, including food assistance through the
food stamp and school meals programs, low-income housing assistance,
child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and
various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected
children.


<http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-08tax.htm>

and since income taxes aren't the entire source for the budget (sorry,
couldn't easily find what that percentage is), you're not even paying that.
think you can spare it?

if you really want to **** and moan, you might look at the pie chart. how
about the 22% for defense and security, a dollar amount almost as much as
the rest of the world put together (48% of the total).

<http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestofth eWorld>

your pal,
blake

"<RJ>" > wrote in message
...
>
> On a recent visit with relatives,
> five of us went to a local steakhouse for dinner.
>
> When all was done, dinner, drinks, tax and tips,
> the tab was close to a hundred bucks !!
>
> ( and that was with picking from the cheaper page of the menu )
>
> Now, I'm reminded why I limit my outings to
> Mickey-Dee's or Pizza Hut....


$20.00 per person is not bad with drinks. In fact it's damn good!

I would have expected at least double that.

Dimitri

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:02:40 -0700, "Dimitri" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
>> >crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than
>> >electricity
>> >so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>>
>> I have no idea how to calculate it but I would think a crock pot would
>> cost less than heating up a whole oven even with the difference
>> between gas and electric. At lest here in Chicago.
>
> I don't know either, but I just have to wonder if the oven uses more
> electricity than the crockpot. Here's a random stove:
>
> http://products.geappliances.com/App...QUEST=SPECPAGE
> &SKU=JGBP28MEMBS&SITEID=GEA&TABID=2
>
> It's rated at 5 amps vs maybe one or two for a crockpot. I think that
> covers the oven light, and the three igniters for the top, broiler and
> oven. I think the broiler and oven igniters probably use the most. Of
> course, if you have an old stove with a pilot light, then electrical use
> would be nominal.
>
>
Puleeze... one can braise on the stove top... with a gas cook top energy
cost is less expensive than a crock pot or the oven. If one owns a gas
stove and a decent pot then there really is no point to crock pots or oven
braising. Oven braising only makes sense when cooking more than one dish at
a time (and it's still more advantageous to cook several dishes on the stove
top). The crock pot is a totally useless appliance... makes far more sense
to cook the dish on the stove top when one is home, and refrigerate or
freeze, then reheat as needed... stews taste better reheated anyway. The
only dish where I found a crock pot is useful is for cooking steel cut oats.

blake murphy wrote:

> about a year and a half ago, a number of democratic congressmen and others
> in the media and elsewhere took a challenge to live for a week on
> twenty-one dollars (the amount alloted then for food stamps). they didn't
> find it all that easy:
>
> <http://foodstampchallenge.typepad.com/>
>
> your pal,
> blake

Is that $21 intended as the persons entire food budget, or is it
intended as assistance to be combined with their own limited resources
towards their total food budget? Does that make sense?

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:11:59 -0400, "cshenk" > wrote:

>"Lou Decruss" wrote
>> "Dimitri" wrote:
>
>>>Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
>>>crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than
>>>electricity
>>>so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>>
>> I have no idea how to calculate it but I would think a crock pot would
>> cost less than heating up a whole oven even with the difference
>> between gas and electric. At lest here in Chicago.
>
>You are right Lou but there are 2 aspects here that can change it.
>
>1) If Gas is *significantly cheaper* than electricity in a particular area
>(Not that likely in the USA but may be true elsewhere), the stove top (gas)
>or oven (gas) may be the same or cheaper by a smidgeon.
>
>2) If still in heating season, especially with a gas oven and electric heat
>when gas is cheaper, you might make out as the heat will leach to the living
>area augmenting the electric heat value.
>
> Here's an experiment if you are bold enough to try and have steady bills.
>Get 2 pork shoulders. Make one in a crockpot one month, then next month use
>the oven for slow pulled pork. Second month you will literally see it
>increase your gas bill but you'll not see anything on the electric used for
>the crockpot (too minimal a rise). If you do the oven one in summer, you
>will see your cooling bill go up too ;-)
>
>Crockpots are *not* fast nor are they suitable for all things, but they are
>very inexpensive to run. Pennies a day.

Yes, there are many variables. Figuring the crockpot cost would be
fairly simple. You'd need a good quality amp probe to see exactly
what it draws and calculate the cost for "lets say" 8 hours.

For the oven it would be more difficult, at least for someone like me
without a probe with the means to record the draw over a time period.
You'd need to probe the igniter draw and sit there and keep track of
how many times it cycled and how long the igniter runs. Mine has a
glow plug thingie and it runs pretty long before it lights the gas.
You'd have to guess how many times you might open the door and add the
light bulb cost into the electric part.

For the gas you'd have to turn off all other gas items and any pilot
lights and take readings before and after the 8 hour period. You
could do an hour X8 but I doubt the meter would be accurate for such a
short time. Another factor would be room temperature.

I have no interest in doing all this but if I did I'd be shocked if
the oven wasn't considerably more to run.

Lou

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:02:40 -0700, "Dimitri" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
>>> crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than
>>> electricity so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>>
>> I have no idea how to calculate it but I would think a crock pot would
>> cost less than heating up a whole oven even with the difference
>> between gas and electric. At lest here in Chicago. Lou
>
>
> It depends whether summer or winter. Consumer ovens are not vented, so
> all the waste heat helps warm the kitchen, and eventually the whole house.
> So baking in the winter helps save on your heating bill. In the summer,
> using the oven increases your air conditioning costs.
>
> Bob

Not true... all cooking ovens, electric or gas, residential and commercial
are vented to the indoors. Naturally it makes more sense to use the oven
more during cold weather, but not because they not vented. In many
instances an exhaust hood is added but the oven is still vented indoors.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Becca" > wrote in message
>> Well, I dropped my health insurance a few years ago when the rates became
>> incredibly high - they were raising the rates quarterly, it was that bad.
>> Now, I self insure. That money is taken out of my checking account
>> monthly and it goes into savings.

> I've been thinking about doing this for the same reason.

That is OK if you are young and healthy but as you get older, having at
least insurance for the big ones is a good thing. Not uncommon to have
$50,000 to $500,000 in hospital bills for heart or cancer problems. Every
year for the past 7 years our medical costs have exceeded our premiums by a
factor of at least 3. My wife's medication alone cost about 50% of the
premiums.

Dimitri wrote:
> Well with the economy as it is and with unemployment increasing daily, I
> believe conspicuous consumption may be out of order. Food Banks are
> running out of food, our wonderful State of California is closing down a
> tent city that has popped up - I think they should pitch their tents on
> the lawn that leads to the State capitol building, Where Arnie smokes
> his cigars (probably 10 bucks a piece).
>
> http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=56175
>
> Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
> crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than
> electricity so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>
> Are you conserving?
> Buying less extravagant foods?
> Donating to the local food bank?
> Watching the sale prices more closely?
>
> Dimitri

All of the above.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:02:40 -0700, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>Well with the economy as it is and with unemployment increasing daily, I
>believe conspicuous consumption may be out of order. Food Banks are running
>out of food, our wonderful State of California is closing down a tent city
>that has popped up - I think they should pitch their tents on the lawn that
>leads to the State capitol building, Where Arnie smokes his cigars (probably
>10 bucks a piece).
>
>http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=56175
>
>Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
>crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than electricity
>so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>
>Are you conserving?
>Buying less extravagant foods?
>Donating to the local food bank?
>Watching the sale prices more closely?
>
I'd say yes we are conserving, but not extremely. I'm planning to
meet friends at the bar this evening as usual, and D's in California
for a conference and to visit a friend. So we're still spending money
we don't have to spend. But today's lunch is mini grilled cheese
sandwiches on homemade bread. I'll cost me pennies.

One thing our town is doing is starting a community garden with help
from local govenment and businesses. We were going to make 36 raised
beds tomorrow, but it's been raining all week and the site is way too
muddy to work.
--

modom

"Goomba" > wrote in message
>
> Is that $21 intended as the persons entire food budget, or is it intended
> as assistance to be combined with their own limited resources towards
> their total food budget? Does that make sense?

Certainly does. Living on food stamps may not be possible, nor were they
intended to be the sole source of food. Supplementing low income helps.
Anyone that tries to live on just the stamp amount is doing so for the
publicity.

On Mar 13, 9:43*am, Becca > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Didja see that tv spot where the guy tried to live on food stamps for
> > a month? *I wanted to grab him thru the tv screen when he tossed boxed
> > mashed potatoes in his cart along with some other convenience type
> > boxed and canned junk.
>
> > No wonder he couldn't stretch a dollar.
>
> > Stepping off soapbox now.
>
> Yep, I saw that. *He bought boxed mac & cheese, when home made would
> have been cheaper and it would have tasted better.

Yes, but many folks here on the NG, who ostensibly know how to cook
use that Kraft boxed crap. They turn it into their own unique semi-
homemade masterpieces, and then tell us all about it.
>
> Becca

--Bryan

Since the beginning of 2009 I am trying to make sure I don't
overspend on food (among other things). I apply the following
algorithm: the average American spends $6.50/day on food.
I figure I need a 2000 calorie per day diet. Therefore if
some food item in the store has fewer than 300 calories per
dollar, I think twice about buying it. This does not mean I
will absolutely not buy it, but it must have some food purpose
beyond its caloric value, such as it provides vitamins, fiber,
or an exceptional amount of flavor. Some things I like to buy
do not pass this test (e.g. 8 ounces of hummus for $2.49 does
not add up). I now put somewhat fewer vegetables into things like
chili or salads. Instead of buying the "lite" coconut
milk and using an entire can in a curry I'll buy the regular
and use a half-can. I am trying to get out of the mindset
of buying light or lower-calorie versions of items, since
that simply costs you money. (There are some exceptions,
like the low-fat "Celtic Cheddar" cheese from TJ's.)

I do not think I'm on the verge of a nutritional deficiency
so as long as I get 2000 calories/day I will not be hungry.

Steve

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:43:46 -0500, Becca > wrote:

wrote:
>> Didja see that tv spot where the guy tried to live on food stamps for
>> a month? I wanted to grab him thru the tv screen when he tossed boxed
>> mashed potatoes in his cart along with some other convenience type
>> boxed and canned junk.
>>
>> No wonder he couldn't stretch a dollar.
>>
>> Stepping off soapbox now.
>>
>
>Yep, I saw that. He bought boxed mac & cheese, when home made would
>have been cheaper and it would have tasted better.

But would it really have been cheaper? Making your own requires pasta
(cheap) milk (fairly cheap) and cheese (expensive). Buying a boxed mix
only needs a little milk or even water. You can't get enough
ingredients to make a pan of macaroni cheese for two bucks. It may be
a false economy in terms of nutrition and long-term savings, but in
the short term you've got food in your stomach.

cshenk wrote:
> "Nancy Young" wrote
>
>> Maybe this will sound really weird to people, or maybe people
>> will take it the wrong way and be ****ed off with me. Like I'm running
>> around buying Bentleys and furs or something. All I'm saying is I don't
>> think it's helpful to the economy to have more
>> and more people out of work because all the businesses are
>> going under from lack of customers.
>
> No, you arent weird at all Nancy. I'm trying to shop more in the smaller
> places where I at least *think* much of the money stays here, even if it's
> just the employee wages made to run the store.
>
> I also use the real checkout stands. I've noticed since the 'self serve'
> came in, that jobs are drifting away yet some dishonest folks are not
> scanning everything so prices are going up in some of those stores. One
> local one, had a person just standing there, paid to watch to make sure
> everything was scanned!
>
>
Yes to that last part too!!!! Most people don't seem to
realize--or care, if they do realize this. This is not done to
benefit the consumer. And, in the long run, most of the cashier
and bagging jobs will be gone.

--
Jean B.

Goomba wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Oh, I absolutely agree, Nancy. To the degree that we can prudently
>> spend some money at local businesses, we should. I also think all of
>> the negative nattering by the media isn't helping at all....
>>
> Well, between the negative nattering by the media, and the fear
> mongering we've heard for months from politicians... no wonder people
> are scared!
> I subscribe to the "Dolly Levy" school of economics. Spending money
> (responsibly) helps the little guy....

Oh yes, while I was out and about, I heard some mention of
Summers' speech. A search yielded this from the AP, which is related:

"President Barack Obama's top economic adviser says the crisis in
the financial sector has led to an 'excess of fear' that must be
broken to reverse the economic downturn.

"Lawrence Summers, the president's director of the National
Economic Council, told a think tank gathering Friday that 'fear
begets fear' and that 'is the paradox at the heart of the
financial crisis.' "

Well, gee. What do they expect when that is about all one hears
on the radio (and presumably on news programs on TV etc. too)?

Actually there was something else about fear that was on the
radio--even more striking.

--
Jean B.

"Kajikit" > wrote
>>
>>Yep, I saw that. He bought boxed mac & cheese, when home made would
>>have been cheaper and it would have tasted better.
>
> But would it really have been cheaper? Making your own requires pasta
> (cheap) milk (fairly cheap) and cheese (expensive).

The cheese alone prices it above the boxed stuff.

Buying a boxed mix
> only needs a little milk or even water.

This is true of pancakes, too. I buy Krusteaz whole wheat, you just add
water, they're delicious, and about one third the price of homemade done
with eggs, milk, and flour.

You can't get enough
> ingredients to make a pan of macaroni cheese for two bucks. It may be
> a false economy in terms of nutrition and long-term savings, but in
> the short term you've got food in your stomach.

This is why so many poor people are malnourished. Obesity is another form of
malnutrition. And high blood pressure is another side effect of this kind of
eating due to the salt content in the foods. But for kids, it's not so bad,
as they at least have systems efficient enough to deal with the fat and salt
levels.

Dimitri > wrote:
> Well with the economy as it is and with unemployment increasing daily, I
> believe conspicuous consumption may be out of order. Food Banks are running
> out of food, our wonderful State of California is closing down a tent city

We've just had a food drive here specifically for peanut butter. Seems
the local food banks were running out and it's a fairly good food for
familys with kids.

> Are you conserving?

Well, I've never been a big spendthrift, so cutting back is not
really going to be easy.

> Buying less extravagant foods?

Interestingly, I just bought a Cornish hen yesterday for the
first time in probably 30 years. It was the first thing I ever
made my wife for dinner when we were first dating. I decided
I could smoke it on the grill this weekend. Should be ehough
for the 2 of us and the price per pound was about as good as
the "enhanced" chicken breasts which I had been looking at.
I always considered Cornish hens an "extravagent" food, though
not really costly.

> Donating to the local food bank?

See above.

> Watching the sale prices more closely?

Always did watch the sale prices, so not really watching more closely.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Dimitri wrote:

> Are you conserving?

I R !

("I are not" for the texting impaired)

-sw

On Fri 13 Mar 2009 10:25:21a, Jean B. told us...

> cshenk wrote:
>> "Nancy Young" wrote
>>
>>> Maybe this will sound really weird to people, or maybe people
>>> will take it the wrong way and be ****ed off with me. Like I'm
>>> running around buying Bentleys and furs or something. All I'm saying
>>> is I don't think it's helpful to the economy to have more
>>> and more people out of work because all the businesses are going under
>>> from lack of customers.
>>
>> No, you arent weird at all Nancy. I'm trying to shop more in the
>> smaller places where I at least *think* much of the money stays here,
>> even if it's just the employee wages made to run the store.
>>
>> I also use the real checkout stands. I've noticed since the 'self
>> serve' came in, that jobs are drifting away yet some dishonest folks
>> are not scanning everything so prices are going up in some of those
>> stores. One local one, had a person just standing there, paid to watch
>> to make sure everything was scanned!
>>
>>
> Yes to that last part too!!!! Most people don't seem to
> realize--or care, if they do realize this. This is not done to
> benefit the consumer. And, in the long run, most of the cashier
> and bagging jobs will be gone.
>

It depends... The store I frequent most often has, I believe, ten
unlimited item checkout lines, two 12 items or less checkout lines, six
unlimited item self-checkout lines, and four 5 items or less self-checkout
lines. At the time of day I usually shop, the checkout lines with cashiers
and baggers have long lines of people waiting and the cashiers and baggers
are fully occupied. None are closed down. If there are short lines
waiting I go there. If not, I use self-checkout. It doesn't appear that
any employees are without work in that store, nor are they being laid off.
The self-check lines have very sensitive scales on the bagging platforms,
so I doubt that many items get through without being scanned or charged.
This is probably not the typical scenario, but it works for me and I don't
feel bad about using the self-checkout lines then.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Christine Dabney >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> <snip for space>
>
>> I have loosely been following along with this challenge myself, and
>> today was the first time I went shopping in a few weeks. My trip was
>> mainly to get cottage cheese and some cream for my tea, plus some
>> household goods I needed. I did get some whole wheat pitas at Trader
>> Joes in a weak moment, but I have lately seen some recipes on several
>> blogs for making them myself..so I might try to do that when these run
>> out.
>
> I enjoy your blog I do have a question for you. At what point does
> it become more expensive to cook food than to just buy the convenience
> item. Example: When I make lasagne from scratch it is extremely
> expensive. However, the ingredients I use to make it are all fresh and
> bought from specialty shops in the Italian neighborhood here called "The
> Hill". I could make it with less expensive ingredients but would
> sacrifice taste. It would still be more expensive than buying the 72oz.
> frozen Stouffers or Marie Callendars. Both of which I usually keep on
> hand and make when my time is limited. Both are convenience foods but
> less expensive for me to make than making the dish from scratch.
>
> Michael
>

Michael,
If you can't make lasagna, even using generic ingredients, that
taste better than Stouffers or Marie Callendars, you should just give up
cooking... Man those are nasty tasting...

Dimitri wrote:
>
> Well with the economy as it is and with unemployment increasing daily, I
> believe conspicuous consumption may be out of order. Food Banks are running
> out of food, our wonderful State of California is closing down a tent city
> that has popped up - I think they should pitch their tents on the lawn that
> leads to the State capitol building, Where Arnie smokes his cigars (probably
> 10 bucks a piece).
>
> http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=56175
>
> Today I was thinking I was going to braise some chunks of pork in the
> crock-pot when it occurred to me gas is much less expensive than electricity
> so the oven went to 200 and in went the Dutch Oven.
>
> Are you conserving?
> Buying less extravagant foods?
> Donating to the local food bank?
> Watching the sale prices more closely?
>
> Dimitri


We've been doing all of the above for years Must admit to buying a
(small) pack of proscuitto for the Maternal Unit. She loves it and her
birthday is soon, so a treat is in order.

Christine Dabney wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:52:21 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Always have. I was dumbfounded two weeks ago to get 28-ounce cans of
> >Hunt's tomato products for a buck each. That was less than half the
> >regular price. There are sales all over the place and if you've got
> >the money it's a good time to stock up.
>
> I do that. I buy milk when it is under $2/gal and put it in the
> freezer. I got a whole bunch of canned tomatoes like you saw on sale,
> when they were on sale here...
>
> Now I am trying to use everything up, before I get ready to move back
> to California.... Trying to use up my chicken I got on sale: I have
> several packets of chicken parts, and BSCB in the freezer. Still
> have a few fryers of which I am trying to use one a week. Last one
> provided several sandwiches, then the rest went to make a casserole of
> chicken tetrazzini.
>
> Christine
>

You can donate frozen foods to Storehouse; they serve meals (not certain
where) as well as provide food boxes to take home to cook.

"Jean B." wrote
> cshenk wrote:

>> I also use the real checkout stands. I've noticed since the 'self serve'
>> came in, that jobs are drifting away yet some dishonest folks are not
>> scanning everything so prices are going up in some of those stores. One
>> local one, had a person just standing there, paid to watch to make sure
>> everything was scanned!

> Yes to that last part too!!!! Most people don't seem to realize--or care,
> if they do realize this. This is not done to benefit the consumer. And,
> in the long run, most of the cashier and bagging jobs will be gone.

I see another replied to this part too. Using the self checkouts is like
the 'pump your own gas' but then, it cane with a money off bit. These, do
not.

"Wayne Boatwright" wrote

>>> I also use the real checkout stands. I've noticed since the 'self
>>> serve' came in, that jobs are drifting away yet some dishonest folks

> It depends... The store I frequent most often has, I believe, ten
> unlimited item checkout lines, two 12 items or less checkout lines, six

(snip)

> waiting I go there. If not, I use self-checkout. It doesn't appear that
> any employees are without work in that store, nor are they being laid off.
> The self-check lines have very sensitive scales on the bagging platforms,
> so I doubt that many items get through without being scanned or charged.
> This is probably not the typical scenario, but it works for me and I don't
> feel bad about using the self-checkout lines then.

Wayne, unless they removed store area to preserve the origional checkouts
and all are still running when they added the self checkouts, then you see
the slow conversion of existing lines to self lines with the loss of a job
for each one.

Thats just how it works. It's real obvious here.

On Fri 13 Mar 2009 11:28:47a, cshenk told us...

> "Wayne Boatwright" wrote
>
>>>> I also use the real checkout stands. I've noticed since the 'self
>>>> serve' came in, that jobs are drifting away yet some dishonest folks
>
>> It depends... The store I frequent most often has, I believe, ten
>> unlimited item checkout lines, two 12 items or less checkout lines, six
>
> (snip)
>
>> waiting I go there. If not, I use self-checkout. It doesn't appear
>> that any employees are without work in that store, nor are they being
>> laid off. The self-check lines have very sensitive scales on the
>> bagging platforms, so I doubt that many items get through without being
>> scanned or charged. This is probably not the typical scenario, but it
>> works for me and I don't feel bad about using the self-checkout lines
>> then.
>
> Wayne, unless they removed store area to preserve the origional
> checkouts and all are still running when they added the self checkouts,
> then you see the slow conversion of existing lines to self lines with
> the loss of a job for each one.
>
> Thats just how it works. It's real obvious here.

In this particular case the area now occupied by self checkouts had been
part of special product displays, not regular checkouts. I confess,
though, that I have seen a few other stores where regular checkouts have
been displaced by self checkouts.

In the Phoenix area with it's large population, few stores have actually
reduced regular checkouts. Most stores are very busy 90% of the time as
far as I've been able to observe.

I realize this probably isn't true in many other areas.

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

"Lou Decruss" wrote

>>Crockpots are *not* fast nor are they suitable for all things, but they
>>are
>>very inexpensive to run. Pennies a day.
>
> Yes, there are many variables. Figuring the crockpot cost would be
> fairly simple. You'd need a good quality amp probe to see exactly
> what it draws and calculate the cost for "lets say" 8 hours.

It's been done several times. Brands vary but I am told 1.5 amps would be
the average of on high?

> For the oven it would be more difficult, at least for someone like me
> without a probe with the means to record the draw over a time period.

Same here. But as a rare oven user, I can see the difference when I do use
it for anything more than a 30 min job.

> I have no interest in doing all this but if I did I'd be shocked if
> the oven wasn't considerably more to run.

Grin, it is. Your mind aint fooling you. Still, crockpots arent useful for
everything. I just happen to know better than most how to use them to best
effect for us so they work here.

Here's a cost shift a friend just ran into. Mind you, she doesnt *like* to
cook so was looking for excuses.

She started getting foods that have to be cooked instead of microwave ready
to heat crap. She was happy enough til the electric bill came and it was
50$ more so got a load of microwave crap. Hubby went ballistic. No wonder.
Real food came with a 150$ a week savings, for 600$ a month and she wanted
to dump that over a 50$ electric bill to cook it! LOL!

BTW, she's jobless and they have no kids so she has time to cook.

"Kajikit" wrote

>Yep, I saw that. He bought boxed mac & cheese, when home made would
>>have been cheaper and it would have tasted better.
>
> But would it really have been cheaper? Making your own requires pasta
> (cheap) milk (fairly cheap) and cheese (expensive). Buying a boxed mix
> only needs a little milk or even water. You can't get enough
> ingredients to make a pan of macaroni cheese for two bucks. It may be
> a false economy in terms of nutrition and long-term savings, but in
> the short term you've got food in your stomach.

It's hard to beat the 4/1$ box set on price even if it does need a lot of
TLC to add extra stuff to make it good enough for lunches ;-)

Yeah, we have a box or so around for a fast fix. I add things to it.

On Mar 13, 12:30*pm, blake murphy > wrote:

> if you really want to **** and moan, you might look at the pie chart. *how
> about the 22% for defense and security, a dollar amount almost as much as
> the rest of the world put together (48% of the total).

Yabbut, some of that defense spending puts food on my table. At
least, some
of the DOD's spending on R&D.

Thanks, everyone, for that "welfare for engineers".

Cindy Hamilton

Jean B. wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>> Jean B. wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I absolutely agree, Nancy. To the degree that we can prudently
>>> spend some money at local businesses, we should. I also think all of
>>> the negative nattering by the media isn't helping at all....
>>>
>> Well, between the negative nattering by the media, and the fear
>> mongering we've heard for months from politicians... no wonder people
>> are scared!
>> I subscribe to the "Dolly Levy" school of economics. Spending money
>> (responsibly) helps the little guy....
>
> Oh yes, while I was out and about, I heard some mention of Summers'
> speech. A search yielded this from the AP, which is related:
>
> "President Barack Obama's top economic adviser says the crisis in the
> financial sector has led to an 'excess of fear' that must be broken to
> reverse the economic downturn.
>
> "Lawrence Summers, the president's director of the National Economic
> Council, told a think tank gathering Friday that 'fear begets fear' and
> that 'is the paradox at the heart of the financial crisis.' "
>
> Well, gee. What do they expect when that is about all one hears on the
> radio (and presumably on news programs on TV etc. too)?
>
> Actually there was something else about fear that was on the radio--even
> more striking.
>

Yes, yes, blame it all on us scardy cats...

I suppose no mention was made of the:
lack of regulatory controls and lack of over site on the part of
government agencies and politicians

Greed and stupidity on the part of financial institutions...

Greed and stupidity on the part of borrowers...

Just, fear not, go on out and spend...

God, but we are so screwed if this is all our leadership can come up with...

"Wayne Boatwright" wrote
> cshenk told us...

>>>>> I also use the real checkout stands. I've noticed since the 'self
>>>>> serve' came in, that jobs are drifting away yet some dishonest folks

>> Wayne, unless they removed store area to preserve the origional
>> checkouts and all are still running when they added the self checkouts,

> In this particular case the area now occupied by self checkouts had been
> part of special product displays, not regular checkouts. I confess,
> though, that I have seen a few other stores where regular checkouts have
> been displaced by self checkouts.

Ok, I can see that one. It may not be obvious everywhere and must not be in
that particular store. It's not at Harris Teeter here either (yuppie-mart)

Kroger though? 1 live person, 3 empty live person checkouts, and 5 self
serve lines. Used to be 8 lines there (not all in use at non-peak hours).
At the hour I last went, 5pm (Mommie just off work, getting food) is a
somewhat peak hour and used to be at least 4 cashiers, might be 5, and 2-3
baggage fellows. There was 1 cashier and one bagger who was also a stock
fellow doing other things. 6-7 jobs seen gone in last 8 months there.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Since the beginning of 2009 I am trying to make sure I don't
> overspend on food (among other things). I apply the following
> algorithm: the average American spends $6.50/day on food.
> I figure I need a 2000 calorie per day diet. Therefore if
> some food item in the store has fewer than 300 calories per
> dollar, I think twice about buying it. This does not mean I
> will absolutely not buy it, but it must have some food purpose
> beyond its caloric value, such as it provides vitamins, fiber,
> or an exceptional amount of flavor. Some things I like to buy
> do not pass this test (e.g. 8 ounces of hummus for $2.49 does
> not add up). I now put somewhat fewer vegetables into things like
> chili or salads. Instead of buying the "lite" coconut
> milk and using an entire can in a curry I'll buy the regular
> and use a half-can. I am trying to get out of the mindset
> of buying light or lower-calorie versions of items, since
> that simply costs you money. (There are some exceptions,
> like the low-fat "Celtic Cheddar" cheese from TJ's.)
>
> I do not think I'm on the verge of a nutritional deficiency
> so as long as I get 2000 calories/day I will not be hungry.
>
> Steve

That's silly... caloric value is no recommendation of a nutritious diet.