SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The entire big box economy is a big honking subsidy to people with cars living in the suburbs by the poor, the singles, the seniors, the urban, the cyclists.
It only works because of the highways and the parking lots and the infrastructure paid for by everyone (road taxes do not cover the cost of the roads) and enjoyed by the drivers. The companies charge twice as much for small packages as big ones because they can; the purchasers without cars and access to the big boxes, the ability to drive between the Walmart and the Costco and the Price Club, don't have a choice.
Read on for Treehugger's reasons. Is bulk buying bad after all?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Does Buying in Bulk Save Money, or is it a False Economy?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 111 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:17AM (17 children)
Warning: This is a bit of a <RANT>
Here's why we buy in bulk, or relative bulk:
We buy things on sale, and as in-bulk as reasonably possible. Items are much less expensive sometimes; that's when we buy those things. We buy plenty. We save plenty. A lot of money. This applies to items ranging from toilet paper to steak. We vacuum pack and freeze steaks; we just stack toilet paper. We actually have a proper inventory of what's in the house, and we shop to maintain the inventory, not to get an item we need one particular day.
Sales are designed to bring you in and get you to impulse purchase other things. We don't do that. We buy the stuff that's on sale, stuff we specifically need, and we leave. Most of the time, we only buy sale items.
We have a very large home (bought very inexpensively, btw - and low taxes - it's an old church I built an interior into), and storage is not a problem at all. Nor is power; the freezers and refrigerators are almost always running on solar power. We also have enough liquidity at this relatively late time in our lives to be able to buy whatever we want, when we want.
These two things give us significant financial leverage that is not afforded to most people. We spend less; we get more; we shop less; our level of convenience remains high. There are environmental benefits. Less packaging. Less use of fuel. There are convenience benefits: "Do we have any X?" "Yes, we do." We have emergency supplies. We don't suddenly run out of critical things requiring trips for one or two items. We spend less time shopping and more time doing fun things. As far as food goes (and all this certainly doesn't just apply to food) we have a very wide choice of menu at any one point in time. There are a few (very few) exceptions to buying in bulk, notably fresh vegetables and fruit, neither of which are all that important as compared to canned or frozen supplies of nominally non-fresh items in various degrees of stasis. But almost everything non-fresh can be stored long term one way or another, and the exceptions can be picked up in a single trip every week or two, depending on the season. Refrigeration is great for extending storage lifetimes, and many things simply don't have a shelf-life issue that is of any significance. Some fresh things that don't store long term well - baked goods, for instance - can be made from items in long term storage, while buying them premade tends to be a poor choice, economically speaking. And of course, fresh baked good warm from the oven, as compared to the stuff you get at the store in a plastic bag... it's a total win. There are all kinds of fabulous specialized devices to make bread, pizza, etc., and there are even more fabulous devices to make prep of food in general faster, easier, more convenient, more enjoyable on every level (I'm talking about sous vide cookers, smart pressure cookers, crockpots, etc.) A sous vide steak makes all other methods of preparing steak look like something done clumsily in a cave, just as one for instance.
This kind of prep, buying and storage leverage is just one more factor in the various advantages afforded to those who are more liquid, as opposed to those who aren't. There are many others. For instance, the financial and taxation systems are incredibly friendly to leveraging with money - accountants, loopholes, investments, etc. When I buy something - car, home, land - I just buy it. I don't pay interest to anyone, so I pay (often considerably) less than someone who takes out a loan, and I get even further ahead. I can take advantage of opportunities for financial gain just because I want to. I don't pay interest to credit card companies. Etc. My mother most emphatically told me to be the lender, not the borrower, and that was truly excellent advice, if quite difficult to take advantage of early on. I can (and do) engage in charity for those causes I feel are worthy, and that's specifically more enabled as opposed to less because we throw less money out the window, right down to buying toilet paper at retail.
I am 100% down with the idea that it's unfair as all hell. In my younger years (I'm 60+) these advantages were not available to me, and there was a significant financial and convenience impact as compared to now, one that I was well aware was holding me back. I regret that these advantages I have today are not available to those who are not (as) liquid; but that doesn't mean I'm not going to take advantage of them now that I can. I vote with an eye towards leveling the playing field when the opportunity arises, which is not that often, because...
The system is specifically tailored to favor people with money. The citizens continuously elect people with more money, as opposed to less (the average net worth of a US congresscritter is somewhere north of a million dollars.) Why anyone would then expect regulation and/or laws to favor those at lower income levels, I literally have no idea, and my speculation on why people allow themselves to be tricked into voting this way when there is a choice of an even slightly more "regular person" candidate is anything but complementary. The election that resulted in Gianforte here in Montana recently is a prime example of this. The people picked a (very) rich person who has a long history of screwing them, and hard, over someone who was pretty much a regular guy and might very well have actually had their practical interests in mind. It's mind-boggling to me. Ready, fire, aim - "oh hey, was that my (other) foot?"
</RANT>
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:37AM (9 children)
What's more, the guy's from New Jersey. Who better to understand the frontier culture, the farmers, the ranchers, the loggers, the miners of Montana than a Jersey Shore Italian who thinks jug handle turns are normal? It's insane. It's almost literally an episode of South Park.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:51PM (8 children)
I recall looking this up [wikipedia.org] before the last time this assertion was made. He's actually from San Diego (born 1961), moved to Pennsylvania ("at a young age"), then New Jersey (~1979), then Montana (1994 to present). He's lived longer in Montana than he has in any other state, including New Jersey.
He's got some strong negatives (such as the temper that led to him punching a reporter), but funny how people obsess over New Jersey and wealth.
His opponent [wikipedia.org] in the special election, a Rob Quist, while native Montanan, had the usual Democrat baggage: single payer health care, protecting Obamacare, reverse Citizen United, and bought in to climate change mitigation. If I were voting in that election, I certainly would have gone with the Libertarian candidate.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday September 28 2017, @01:02AM (7 children)
"single payer health care, protecting Obamacare, reverse Citizen United and bought in to climate change mitigation."
Ah, so supporting policies that are good for the populous are "baggage."
Got it.
(for the record, I don't support the right of center Democratic party either. But since our choice is currently right of center or right of right, well, lesser evils and all that...)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @05:09AM (6 children)
They're also bad for the populace. It's impossible to think about such stuff, if you never consider the costs.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday October 07 2017, @04:31AM (5 children)
"It's impossible to think about such stuff, if you never consider the costs."
Actually it's quite easy if you consider the costs.
The costs are far higher in the long run without them.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 07 2017, @05:31AM (4 children)
Keep in mind that you're speaking of "single payer health care, protecting Obamacare, reverse Citizen United and bought in to climate change mitigation". The first is a slow moving train wreck. It only looks good worldwide because the US approach looks so bad. But throughout the developed world, health care costs are increasing faster than the economies are, including the single payer systems. That can't continue forever.
Obamacare doesn't even have the virtue of being able to hide behind a worse health care system. The price for the ability of some people to pay for what they need, is now everyone pays even more for insurance than they did before.
Citizen United is simply a protection of First Amendment rights and equal protection under law. You do like the freedom to say what you think, right? So do representatives of corporations.
And climate change mitigation has a terrible record. To date, attempts to reduce greenhouse gases emissions have been negligible in impact (even under theoretical, ideal circumstances), costly, often widely violated (usually coupled with a disinterest in enforcing the mitigation policy), and frequently with ulterior motives. For example, US corn ethanol subsidies (which were just a cynical gift to US agribusiness), Energiewende in Germany (and the corresponding policies in Denmark) which doubled their cost of electricity and forced dependence on foreign energy sources, and the dysfunctional carbon emission credit markets in Europe (which have repeatedly had violations and fraud occur in the markets with a sluggish response by regulators which seems more driven by public embarrassment than any concern for the integrity of these markets).
But sure, assert without evidence that these things are somehow better in the long run.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday October 07 2017, @10:41AM (3 children)
"But sure, assert without evidence that these things are somehow better in the long run."
Don't be an ass.
It's not like you were an overflowing font of evidence. This was merely a discussion of opinion. I unfortunately have neither the time nor the inclination to provide links that you will just ignore anyway.
I respectfully disagree with you, especially about climate change and citizens united, and hell, lets throw the unpatriotic patriot act in there as well.
I don't completely disagree with you on healthcare, it is a huge mess, it would of worked a hell of a lot better before the R's added 150 plus amendments to be certain it couldn't be fully financed. And prices were rising even faster before the ACA. And deliberately sabotaging it since the Creamsicle Charleton got in just makes me nauseous. That is not what the government should be doing. I do feel it should be a right, not an option.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and they all stink.
I bid you a good day.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:15AM (2 children)
So will you claim that the Patriot Act is net beneficial for the public as well? I don't agree since it is an encroachment on human freedom for some marginal and often purely theoretical security gain.
First, Obamacare was supposed to save bunches of money and not require extensive financing. That's a bit of goalpost moving after the fact.
Also keep in mind who had the supermajority at the time the law was passed. It wasn't the Republicans. They didn't have the power to put those amendments in. Amusing how the Republicans can no longer muster that unity now that it's their turn at the feeding trough and are facing similar difficulties for their own attempts at health care reform.
Very graceful concession there. I don't agree, of course. Platitudes like this ignore that some people have thought a lot more about their opinions than others. We have ways to evaluate the strength of arguments rather than merely saying that all are equal because.
Well, what was wrong with the evidence that I provided? We have, for example, plenty of history of global warming treaties which advocating harsh cutbacks of greenhouse gases emissions for minuscule improvement. We have significant experience with the failures of Obamacare now.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:32PM (1 child)
You know, it's unfortunate that I don't have the time to debate this in depth. But I at this time I only have a few hours a week free as I'm covering about half of my bosses shifts right now while he recovers from knee surgery.
This discussion will undoubtedly come about in another article when I actually have time.
"Very graceful concession there."
Dude, develop a sense of humor. And your opinion has no more, or less, merit than mine. After all, I see you as being just as misinformed as you see me, but echo chambers are boring, and I thank you for taking the time to reply without the rhetoric and name calling that generally occurs here and elsewhere.
Also, I never said your opinion was bad, only that I disagree and haven't the time to go in-depth. However you seemed to insinuate I should link to my evidence while for the most part you simply stated yours.
But lighten up man. The pendulum swings to and fro....because the middle is where we need to be, we simply differ in how we interpret the information we receive. I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm a realist, I know that is unlikely. I just enjoy a good debate. Thank you.
See ya in the funny papers.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 09 2017, @04:49AM
We also see from the graph that Obamacare did nothing to reverse the increase of spending in the US and let us keep in mind that the recession also would have slowed health care spending in the US even in the event of no change to health care policy. That's not a lot to show for allegedly reforming health care and 2000 pages of bad law.
As to the Citizens United case, read the court ruling. You'll get the actual arguments they use. I think it's outrageous that so many justices (though fortunately a minority) could choose to ignore the Constitution in order to get the "right" outcome.
And climate change mitigation has a record. Look it up. Also, look up what proponents think victory is. You'll see stuff like bragging about making changes in peoples' behavior or raising awareness of the problem while acknowledging that their mitigation policy didn't actually do anything. Lot of cognitive dissonance there. My previous post on the matter has a few subjects to start with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:35PM (6 children)
The system is specifically tailored to favor people who believe they have a future. Who don't live hand to mouth. Who don't depend on others constantly. Who are willing to work for a savings. Who spend little or no time complaining, and a maximum of time adding value.
--
Also 60+, dirt poor yet also in a large cheaper-than-average home with all kinds of bulk (and freely found) stuff everywhere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:19PM (5 children)
No. Absolutely not. You're confusing success with effort. You're also ignoring inherited and gifted connections, position, wealth and power. And luck.
There are many, many people who try very hard, are absolutely standup members of society, but do not succeed due to factors well beyond their control. These people are no less worthy than someone just like them, but who becomes wealthy.
Sure, it'd be great if we could ensure that the worthy were the ones that "rose to the top" and only the unworthy failed to do so. We'd then have a metric like the one you propose where reward was sanely in proportion to success. But we can't even come close to doing that, and because we cannot do so, it is amoral – at the very least – to disadvantage those who do not do so. Likewise, it is un-sane to encourage legislators and rule makers to arrange the system to operate to formally disadvantage the less fortunate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @05:19AM (4 children)
If one actually looks at people who do succeed, they're usually in this category, they just choose to try again. Failure is not permanent.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday September 28 2017, @06:34PM (3 children)
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, the number of tries notwithstanding.
Success does not indicate worthy any more than failure indicates unworthy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 28 2017, @11:41PM (2 children)
How much is "sometimes"? I think this is a pretty mealy mouthed reply. And the number of tries does matter.
Nobody said otherwise. The people who tend to succeed on a regular basis also tend to fail on a regular basis. So IMHO if there is any sense of worthiness from risk taking, it would be in higher numbers of both successes and failures. I'm also not clear on why anyone in this thread thinks that buying in bulk is remotely relevant to risk taking. It's rather a straightforward case of planning and budgeting at the individual and small family level in order to take advantage of economies of scale.
For example, as was noted, bugs in dry goods like flour as described in the story indicates poor preservation technique (when I had that problem it was because I was just rolling up bags rather than properly sealing them in air-tight containers or ziplocks, switching to the later completely eliminated the problem) not some sort of success versus failure thing. There are certain things even an individual can buy in bulk as long as they take proper precautions. I wouldn't buy vegetables in bulk, but dry goods, frozen meat, cans, etc can keep for a long time.
My view is that it is pointless to complain that the system favors those with money or a little foresight. Instead, we should be asking, "How can I take advantage of this situation?" A lot of these services supposedly oriented towards rich people also work just fine for people who figure out how to use them and piggyback off the rich people (such as buying in bulk or trading on the stock market, to give another example).
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday September 29 2017, @05:57AM (1 child)
It varies with the case, obviously. Expecting specifics on this when speaking generally about the circumstance is absurd.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 29 2017, @01:19PM
For example, there's been some real ugly problems due to the subsidizing of US student loans (so that more people would have a college degree which is generally considered a good thing) such as education inflation over the past half century at several times the natural inflation rate and special non-dischargeable debt rules for student loans because of the unintended consequence of students declaring bankrupt after getting through college.
What we know is that high debt loads for young adults is bad (because that can stick around and even grow over the course of a life time), yet US society has deliberately created such a situation in order to help young adults. That creates a lot of problems for the person trying to succeed.
This is typical of government policy in the US and elsewhere. It creates a public good because some people are having hard luck, which in turn creates various incentives to cheat or exploit the system for gain. Then several heavy-handed regulations are created to deal with the cheating/exploitation which in turn adapts to the changing regulatory environment, and so on. You end up with a complex public good or service that requires considerable work to access for the people the program is supposed to help, a number of authoritarian impositions on personal freedom and promiscuous data collection, and a complex ecosystem of cheaters and exploiters working the system (often allowed to continue unimpeded as long as they don't rock the boat).
So even if a genuine case of someone trying and always failing is found, doesn't mean that this someone or we are better off by attempting to do something about it.
To summarize my attitude about success and failure, sure not everyone starts at the same level, but there is still more than enough opportunity to try for even the poorest. And the economy itself has a variety of ways to equalize wealth after the fact. Just because you started life rich, doesn't mean you'll stay rich. I also don't buy that people repeatedly trying and failing is a big enough problem that we have to do anything about it. You can always find anecdotal stories in an imperfect world. Even if we do want to fix something about that situation, we need to keep in mind that our intervention can and often does make things worse rather than better.