'New Frugality' - or not...
Article in today's newspaper, 'New Frugality' is becoming all consuming. What I found interesting is how one persons economy is anything BUT economical to me... Not that it's right or wrong, just different perspectives on "economy". But then, I'm a real frugalite, and have been one all my life.
One person previously didn't think twice about dropping $30 on a bottle of Chianti to go with dinner. NOW they pick up grocery store wine at $10. I've never perchased wine. What a savings! It just doesn't fit in my $50/week food budget and menus.
Emphasis on FOOD, as in whole foods, not junk food, pre-packaged food, processed food.... For just under $20 I can purchase 45-pounds of wheat - which equals approx. 158 cups of freshly-milled flour (which is the most I've ever paid for wheat). So a bottle of wine, or a year's supply of grain...it's a no-brainer to me.
Wal-Mart still has one brand of tea bags - 100 bags/$1.00 and I get several cups out of one bag. I'll have to reconsider the splurge on tea bags if the price goes up, or how often I purchase them and how often I use them. I've got boxes of them vacuum-sealed in storage hedging inflation prices.
Another point I found an economical flaw - for those of us who shop with a calculator and our trusty Price Book. The sales of SPAM are up, according to the article. I guess those who think it's "cheap eats" haven't figured the unit price, because there are a lot of less-expensive meats out there than SPAM when you figure unit price or price per serving.
The same goes for a can of tuna. Figure the price per ounce, then multiply it by 16 for the price per pound, and you may find it's more expensive than other types of meat. As an example: if a can of tuna costs $1.29/6-oz. = $3.44 a pound. .97 = $2.58/pound. .59 = $1.57/pound. Remember, 3 oz. of meat/tuna is still a serving. It's great you can stretch tuna in a casserole, but you still need to figure a serving. Lots of noodles or rice does not make up for the protein.