If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   Although you might think that the members of the Millennial Generation are soft and weak, you should know that due to the recession they've adapted to only eating out once a week   (azcentral.com) divider line 144
    More: Sad, cultural change, diners, recession  
•       •       •

6000 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2012 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-08 11:20:43 AM

FizixJunkee: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

One of our homeless friends, an out-of-work architect who has been living in his car for the last 3 years, got re-hired by his old company about 3 months ago. He has been busy socking away his salary for, as he said, just in case Obama got re-elected. Sure enough, he got two week notice yesterday. Several projects that the employer was expecting were canceled.

Be that as it may, I voted for the incumbent asshole rather than the magic underwear asshole because incumbent asshole is more likely to renew federal extensions on unemployment insurance. If they get renewed to the normal 99 weeks, I will still have another 54 weeks at $412 per week on the current claim. By then, I'm betting that businesses will be used to the new "normal" and start hiring again.

Well, maybe not here in California. The moron voters passed prop 30 and didn't pass prop 32, so the union bosses are high-fiving with the corrupt assholes in Sacramento and the cost of food (being homeless, we have to eat out, which is taxable) is going up.

There's a freeper among us.


Homelss, lauding more unemployment checks AND voted fo the one??
diannaeanderson.net
 
2012-11-08 11:23:41 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Resident Muslim: Somewhat poor people can only afford to eat out once a week.

REALLY poor people can only afford to eat out seven times a week.

/somewhat serious
//McNutrition

More like 21 times per week.


I tried an experiment of trying to make 10 total servings for $10 (I did this two weeks in a row). It was doable, but consisted on one protein(pork or chicken), one starch (usually rice), maybe some beans, and a variety of lower end vegetables (like onions or celery or such). The food was decent, but not great. If I was spending what a McD's meal costs per meal (call it $4 per serving), I could have made some pretty decent food with better fresh vegetables. There are very few situations where McD's is the only option.
 
2012-11-08 11:24:46 AM
Tommy Moo
2012-11-08 09:35:51 AM

"Millennials will eat out 202 times annually this year vs. 252 times a year for their age group back in 2007."

What? Is this serious? Are they counting swinging by Dunkin Donuts for a coffee on the way to work? I seriously sit down in a restaurant and order something to eat maybe twice a month. Who eats a full, sit-down meal almost every day? I don't even know rich people who do that.


Yeah im pretty sure this counts fast food and breakfast and lunch as well.
 
2012-11-08 11:27:19 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Propain_az: President Obama will get this economy going, and then they will be able to afford to eat out whenever and where ever they like.

Sarcasm? Too early, not enough Starbucks, not sure.

Whatever. I won't hold my breath waiting for miracles from Glorious Leader. Not when there's news like this. Link

One of our homeless friends, an out-of-work architect who has been living in his car for the last 3 years, got re-hired by his old company about 3 months ago. He has been busy socking away his salary for, as he said, just in case Obama got re-elected. Sure enough, he got two week notice yesterday. Several projects that the employer was expecting were canceled.

Be that as it may, I voted for the incumbent asshole rather than the magic underwear asshole because incumbent asshole is more likely to renew federal extensions on unemployment insurance. If they get renewed to the normal 99 weeks, I will still have another 54 weeks at $412 per week on the current claim. By then, I'm betting that businesses will be used to the new "normal" and start hiring again.

Well, maybe not here in California. The moron voters passed prop 30 and didn't pass prop 32, so the union bosses are high-fiving with the corrupt assholes in Sacramento and the cost of food (being homeless, we have to eat out, which is taxable) is going up.


I am confused by the notion of how continuing unemployment benefits will enable businesses to be able to start hiring again.

If someone has been on unemployment for 99+ weeks, they are pretty much unemployable (if for no other reason than the huge work gap). Rather than renewing unemployment benefits, maybe the government should be creating programs that can make candidates more attractive, or create jobs to close work gaps.

If companies start hiring again, it won't be hiring the guy who has 198 weeks of unemployment.
 
2012-11-08 11:29:35 AM
*Only* eating out once a week? Those poor people...
 
2012-11-08 11:30:35 AM
Once a week? Spoiled.
 
2012-11-08 11:36:04 AM

Tommy Moo: "Millennials will eat out 202 times annually this year vs. 252 times a year for their age group back in 2007."

What? Is this serious? Are they counting swinging by Dunkin Donuts for a coffee on the way to work? I seriously sit down in a restaurant and order something to eat maybe twice a month. Who eats a full, sit-down meal almost every day? I don't even know rich people who do that.


I was grabbing Arby's, Burger King, or Wendy's and doing pretty bad, hundreds of dollars. Work had a cafeteria and I was buying a bagel with ham and egg and cheese for breakfast plus a bottle of orange juice or Sobe, and getting an entree and a soda for lunch, and wound up spending $600/mo on food for just myself (I'm single, always have been). I weigh 150lb.

Even sticking to frozen foods gets you under $200.
 
2012-11-08 11:48:50 AM
My wife would be upset if that's all I was willing to do.
 
2012-11-08 11:50:13 AM

FizixJunkee: So you're saying you've got a 50-50 shot of getting good ethnic food in your 'hood? Sounds better than the 0% probability of getting good food at Chili's, Applebees, et al.


Which was my original point. Not sure I agree that all non-corporate restaurants are better than the corporate ones. Much the same as in music, independent /=good. But I know I am going to get a crappy meal at Chili's, so why not try something new instead.
 
2012-11-08 11:53:00 AM
Maybe we should bring Home-Ec back to schools and call it "Life Management" or something feel good like that (Or hell, just call it Home Ec)

Teach children how to cook cost effective nutritious basic meals (with things like rice, chicken, beans), since most of their parents don't know how to do this themselves. You could also teach them proper food storage and how to re-use leftovers, stretching their dollar even farther.

Before the norm became a "two income household", children would learn these skills from the parent that wasn't working (granted, that was the mom 99% of the time, but it could be either one in this day and age). That has fallen by the wayside, causing an increase in people eating out, usually with cheap, fast, unhealthy options.

If you want a healthier nation, then make this mandatory in schools. Hell, you can also add how to balance a budget, how credit cards work, general home maintenance, and other things that appear in everyday life that nobody knows how to do anymore. It would help the financial stability of this country as well as keeping us healthy.

/education, it works
 
2012-11-08 11:59:22 AM

Egoy3k: MycroftHolmes: Egoy3k: MycroftHolmes: If you stay on the beaten path, $20 a plate for a plate of pre-made food is not surprising. But it is so not necessary.

A lot of people live in areas where the only choice is 'the beaten path'.

Considering that hole in the wall restaurants are usually cheaper to open than a Chili's or an Appleby's, I will call BS on that. I have been to the smallest of towns, and it is without exception that they have local diners or restaurants that are better than most chains. You have to look a little, and be wiling to be a little adventurous.

I will put this challenge out there (though we will never be able to test it). Within 5 miles of any Cili's, Appleby's, TGI Friday's, Outback, or Hooters's, there will be at least one local or ethnic restaurent that serves good, cheaper food.

You know how I know you have never spent time in a small rural town? People by me don't trust ethnic food and any ethnic (except for 'Chinese' food) restaurant that opens quickly goes bankrupt. Seriously people near me think pizza is exotic.


I agree. I've travelled a lot of the US. Ethnic restaurants in places with less than 400K people are difficult to find, even harder to find good ones. (by ethnic, I mean not chinese, that shiat's everywhere)
 
2012-11-08 11:59:26 AM
No subby, they're not "only eating out once a week". They're eating out once a week less than they used to.
In 2007, the 18-34 age group ate out 4.8 times a week. This year they're only going out 3.8 days.

Does "eating out" include any meal or just dinner? I don't really consider lunch with coworkers the same as a dinner date.
3.8 meals out of 7 is a lot of eating out, but 4.8 out of 21 doesn't sound that bad.
 
2012-11-08 12:01:23 PM

Girion47: I agree. I've travelled a lot of the US. Ethnic restaurants in places with less than 400K people are difficult to find, even harder to find good ones. (by ethnic, I mean not chinese, that shiat's everywhere)


every place I've lived has had pretty decent mexican restaurants too. But yeah, the less popular cuisines are, surprisingly, less popular.
 
2012-11-08 12:02:25 PM

serial_crusher: Girion47: I agree. I've travelled a lot of the US. Ethnic restaurants in places with less than 400K people are difficult to find, even harder to find good ones. (by ethnic, I mean not chinese, that shiat's everywhere)

every place I've lived has had pretty decent mexican restaurants too. But yeah, the less popular cuisines are, surprisingly, less popular.


shiat, I need to correct that. The mexican restaurants are usually "decent" in terms of business success, not in quality of food. I'm looking at you, El Rodeo of Blacksburg Virginia...
 
2012-11-08 12:02:26 PM

radicalicious: Once a week? Spoiled.


Yeah damn after spending $100,000 on college why would they have five bucks to spare for lunch?
 
2012-11-08 12:02:45 PM

serial_crusher: Girion47: I agree. I've travelled a lot of the US. Ethnic restaurants in places with less than 400K people are difficult to find, even harder to find good ones. (by ethnic, I mean not chinese, that shiat's everywhere)

every place I've lived has had pretty decent mexican restaurants too. But yeah, the less popular cuisines are, surprisingly, less popular.


mexican or tex mex? huge difference.
 
2012-11-08 12:05:50 PM

Asphyxium: *Only* eating out once a week? Those poor people...


Nope. Subby was wrong plus the article also mentions older generations eat out even more.
 
2012-11-08 12:25:57 PM

Egoy3k: MycroftHolmes: Egoy3k: MycroftHolmes: If you stay on the beaten path, $20 a plate for a plate of pre-made food is not surprising. But it is so not necessary.

A lot of people live in areas where the only choice is 'the beaten path'.

Considering that hole in the wall restaurants are usually cheaper to open than a Chili's or an Appleby's, I will call BS on that. I have been to the smallest of towns, and it is without exception that they have local diners or restaurants that are better than most chains. You have to look a little, and be wiling to be a little adventurous.

I will put this challenge out there (though we will never be able to test it). Within 5 miles of any Cili's, Appleby's, TGI Friday's, Outback, or Hooters's, there will be at least one local or ethnic restaurent that serves good, cheaper food.

You know how I know you have never spent time in a small rural town? People by me don't trust ethnic food and any ethnic (except for 'Chinese' food) restaurant that opens quickly goes bankrupt. Seriously people near me think pizza is exotic.


You know how I know you have never spent time in a small rural town? Actual small rural towns don't have Chilis, Applebees, TGI Fridays, Outbacks, or Hooters.
 
2012-11-08 12:29:40 PM

redmid17: And you apparently know the whole story to be able to judge him like that. If I arbitrarily took 30% of your income, how would that affect your lifestyle?


That's a silly question. The effect on your lifestyle depends on the absolute salary amount, not the percentage drop. A 30% cut in a 30K salary can ruin you. A 30% cut in a $200K salary means that your disposable/investable income decreases.

If you cut my salary by 30%, I'd have to put off stuff like renovating the attic or buying a new kitchen or new living room furniture. Probably fewer trips to Portugal. I'd still have all the money we need to pay the mortgage, bills, daycare, food, and maintain our existing standard of living. And I'm not making anywhere near this guy's tragically low salary.
 
2012-11-08 12:34:39 PM
How cool would it be if they made food stamps edible
 
2012-11-08 12:37:14 PM

strathmeyer: radicalicious: Once a week? Spoiled.

Yeah damn after spending $100,000 on college why would they have five bucks to spare for lunch?


Hm... I was referring to the fact that I'm in that generation and I don't think I go out to eat once a week. I think that's an overestimation. It's more like once every 2 weeks to a month. That's probably true for a lot of people in that age group.
 
2012-11-08 12:48:59 PM
I eat out about once a week, but it's not just about the eating. SO and I go to our favorite restaurant on Saturday or Sunday afternoon, sit on the patio (we've had very nice weather lately), have a couple of drinks before we order and hang out for a couple of hours.

We've stopped eating fast food (that was usually once or twice a week) in the last several months and feel much better for it. (And are less fat too.)
 
2012-11-08 01:28:31 PM
Chinese on New Year's Eve.

Local Fish & chips on my birthday.

Same on the wife's birthday.

Nice sit-down restaurant on our Anniversary.

Take-out pizza 6 times per year.

So, about ten times.

/low budget
 
2012-11-08 01:36:07 PM

lucksi: Quick, up the tip minimum to 25% then. That'll fix it


Oh thank goodness, a tipping thread and a kids these days thread combined, just what I always wanted.
 
2012-11-08 01:49:54 PM

Burr: lilplatinum: /well if you don't live in flyover country.

I'm sure in NYC you can find a place that offers real Amish cooking...

Best breakfast I ever had was at an Amish house where they converted their basement into a restaurant.

/I live where the food is


Mmmmmmmmm hamballs and meadow tea.....
 
2012-11-08 01:57:54 PM

Egoy3k: Oh yeah and another thing. The 'adventurous' members of this backwards region see advertisements for American chain restaurants like those that you mentioned and really want to go to them. I recently went to North Carolina for business and a local was with me. He actually asked if we could go to an olive garden if we saw it. He had seen the commercials and thought that it would be good. They actually think that those places are 'fine dining'.

Trust me I have literally heard the words "Oh I hope we can go to an Applebees on our vacation to New York!" spoken aloud without a single trace of irony.



umad: You know how I know you have never spent time in a small rural town? Actual small rural towns don't have Chilis, Applebees, TGI Fridays, Outbacks, or Hooters.


Yeah I know. Hence the post almost an hour and a half before yours.
 
2012-11-08 02:16:23 PM
I stopped eating at restaurants after I married a Portuguese woman.

/Fat and happy and fat
 
2012-11-08 02:52:33 PM

Xcott: redmid17: And you apparently know the whole story to be able to judge him like that. If I arbitrarily took 30% of your income, how would that affect your lifestyle?

That's a silly question. The effect on your lifestyle depends on the absolute salary amount, not the percentage drop. A 30% cut in a 30K salary can ruin you. A 30% cut in a $200K salary means that your disposable/investable income decreases.

If you cut my salary by 30%, I'd have to put off stuff like renovating the attic or buying a new kitchen or new living room furniture. Probably fewer trips to Portugal. I'd still have all the money we need to pay the mortgage, bills, daycare, food, and maintain our existing standard of living. And I'm not making anywhere near this guy's tragically low salary.


Expenses can mount exponentially as you get older as well. Kids, divorce, college, 401K, whatever you want. Call it first world problems or white person problems or whatever. I was just saying he only knew two things about the guy. For all he knew the guy could have a ridiculous alimony to an ex-wife, a mortgage to a house he doesn't live in, full custody of the kids and has to send them to college. There are ways around everything, but don't pretend like losing 30% of your earnings isn't a shock to your budgeting unless you're old enough to have literally banked away several years of salary ( hundreds of thousands of dollars in this case).

The aforementioned guy would be sending 50-60K (20%) a year to his ex-wife. I'm probably low balling the mortgage payment since the dude would probably have a nice house, but call it around 20K per year with insurance, taxes, and principal payment. Now he's down to 200K minus whatever expenses he incurs from buying/renting a new place and raising multiple kids. If you cut 80K out of his salary, he still has all of those expenses unless he can get the family court to update the alimony amount and maybe exclude the old mortgage, which he'd have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get. The remaining 120K is easily enough to raise a family on well, but I'm saying that it would require a major life adjustment and would really affect future life planning. Admittedly that would be somewhat of an extreme case, but between family friends who've been in similar situations and the bitter, divorced dad threads on Fark, it wouldn't surprise if something like this had played out multiple times.
 
2012-11-08 03:08:43 PM

redmid17: The aforementioned guy would be sending 50-60K (20%) a year to his ex-wife. I'm probably low balling the mortgage payment since the dude would probably have a nice house, but call it around 20K per year with insurance, taxes, and principal payment. Now he's down to 200K minus whatever expenses he incurs from buying/renting a new place and raising multiple kids. If you cut 80K out of his salary, he still has all of those expenses unless he can get the family court to update the alimony amount and maybe exclude the old mortgage, which he'd have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get. The remaining 120K is easily enough to raise a family on well, but I'm saying that it would require a major life adjustment and would really affect future life planning.


 
media.comicvine.com 

Most of us never see $120K a year total, much less after tax and mortgage. If you need a "major life adjustment" to live on such a meager amount, maybe you should take some remedial classes in home economics.
 
2012-11-08 03:17:03 PM

Xcott: redmid17: The aforementioned guy would be sending 50-60K (20%) a year to his ex-wife. I'm probably low balling the mortgage payment since the dude would probably have a nice house, but call it around 20K per year with insurance, taxes, and principal payment. Now he's down to 200K minus whatever expenses he incurs from buying/renting a new place and raising multiple kids. If you cut 80K out of his salary, he still has all of those expenses unless he can get the family court to update the alimony amount and maybe exclude the old mortgage, which he'd have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get. The remaining 120K is easily enough to raise a family on well, but I'm saying that it would require a major life adjustment and would really affect future life planning.

 
[media.comicvine.com image 479x356] 

Most of us never see $120K a year total, much less after tax and mortgage. If you need a "major life adjustment" to live on such a meager amount, maybe you should take some remedial classes in home economics.


I don't make near that. I'm just saying it's a major adjustment. Also I wasn't even accounting for taxes in that, so feel free to knock off another 20-30% of his total income. Once again, I'm not saying it's hard to live off that income. In fact it should be quite easy. I'm just saying it's a major adjustment.
 
2012-11-08 03:31:01 PM
FTFA The news is a punch in the gut for $632 billion restaurant industry, which is already struggling. Its most important generation of eaters appears to be drifting away

Quick get the bailout checkbook ready. YUM must flourish!
 
2012-11-08 04:10:47 PM

FizixJunkee: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

One of our homeless friends, an out-of-work architect who has been living in his car for the last 3 years, got re-hired by his old company about 3 months ago. He has been busy socking away his salary for, as he said, just in case Obama got re-elected. Sure enough, he got two week notice yesterday. Several projects that the employer was expecting were canceled.

Be that as it may, I voted for the incumbent asshole rather than the magic underwear asshole because incumbent asshole is more likely to renew federal extensions on unemployment insurance. If they get renewed to the normal 99 weeks, I will still have another 54 weeks at $412 per week on the current claim. By then, I'm betting that businesses will be used to the new "normal" and start hiring again.

Well, maybe not here in California. The moron voters passed prop 30 and didn't pass prop 32, so the union bosses are high-fiving with the corrupt assholes in Sacramento and the cost of food (being homeless, we have to eat out, which is taxable) is going up.

There's a freeper among us.


Non sequitur much?
 
2012-11-08 04:13:12 PM

MycroftHolmes: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Resident Muslim: Somewhat poor people can only afford to eat out once a week.

REALLY poor people can only afford to eat out seven times a week.

/somewhat serious
//McNutrition

More like 21 times per week.

I tried an experiment of trying to make 10 total servings for $10 (I did this two weeks in a row). It was doable, but consisted on one protein(pork or chicken), one starch (usually rice), maybe some beans, and a variety of lower end vegetables (like onions or celery or such). The food was decent, but not great. If I was spending what a McD's meal costs per meal (call it $4 per serving), I could have made some pretty decent food with better fresh vegetables. There are very few situations where McD's is the only option.


A homeless person really has no option EXCEPT McDs or other fast food.
 
2012-11-08 04:17:40 PM

MycroftHolmes: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Propain_az: President Obama will get this economy going, and then they will be able to afford to eat out whenever and where ever they like.

Sarcasm? Too early, not enough Starbucks, not sure.

Whatever. I won't hold my breath waiting for miracles from Glorious Leader. Not when there's news like this. Link

One of our homeless friends, an out-of-work architect who has been living in his car for the last 3 years, got re-hired by his old company about 3 months ago. He has been busy socking away his salary for, as he said, just in case Obama got re-elected. Sure enough, he got two week notice yesterday. Several projects that the employer was expecting were canceled.

Be that as it may, I voted for the incumbent asshole rather than the magic underwear asshole because incumbent asshole is more likely to renew federal extensions on unemployment insurance. If they get renewed to the normal 99 weeks, I will still have another 54 weeks at $412 per week on the current claim. By then, I'm betting that businesses will be used to the new "normal" and start hiring again.

Well, maybe not here in California. The moron voters passed prop 30 and didn't pass prop 32, so the union bosses are high-fiving with the corrupt assholes in Sacramento and the cost of food (being homeless, we have to eat out, which is taxable) is going up.

I am confused by the notion of how continuing unemployment benefits will enable businesses to be able to start hiring again.

If someone has been on unemployment for 99+ weeks, they are pretty much unemployable (if for no other reason than the huge work gap). Rather than renewing unemployment benefits, maybe the government should be creating programs that can make candidates more attractive, or create jobs to close work gaps.

If companies start hiring again, it won't be hiring the guy who has 198 weeks of unemployment.


Last point first, as I've said before, that long period of unemployment is interspersed with short periods of temp jobs. I've been lucky in that those temp jobs occur at the right times to "renew" my UI Claim, and what I make at them is sufficient to make the weekly amount enough to get by on. Because of the temp work, my resume does not show a huge blank period. Also, the glowing letters of recommendation from the temp job supervisors helps. But, yeah, the spotty record is a hurdle.

I'd love it if the government would create jobs. But Glorious Leader in his infinite wisdom thinks it better to give "stimulus" money to fat cat Dem contributors.
 
2012-11-08 05:14:36 PM

Xcott: I stopped eating at restaurants after I married a Portuguese woman.

/Fat and happy and fat


You sound fat. And probably happy. But definitely fat.
 
2012-11-08 06:00:39 PM
Now if only I could get pooping down to once a week.
 
2012-11-08 06:46:51 PM

Resident Muslim: Somewhat poor people can only afford to eat out once a week.

REALLY poor people can only afford to eat out seven times a week.

/somewhat serious
//McNutrition


When I only had $2 a day to eat (and yes, I was employed- at Fry's Electronics as a tech no less) every meal was at McDonalds. I lost 50 lbs and was half dead by the time my friends abducted me from that job and just had me move in with them. The best value was a sausage biscuit for breakfast and a mcDouble for lunch. No dinner, unless I was able to get some pocket change for a ramen packet.
 
2012-11-08 07:12:02 PM

redmid17: Xcott: Most of us never see $120K a year total, much less after tax and mortgage. If you need a "major life adjustment" to live on such a meager amount, maybe you should take some remedial classes in home economics.

I don't make near that. I'm just saying it's a major adjustment. Also I wasn't even accounting for taxes in that, so feel free to knock off another 20-30% of his total income. Once again, I'm not saying it's hard to live off that income. In fact it should be quite easy. I'm just saying it's a major adjustment.


A major adjustment from what?

I'm saying it's not a major adjustment. Once you earn above a certain level, your extra income is essentially disposable. You will either invest it, or spend it on things you never really needed and won't really notice living without. If a bunch of that money vanishes from a pay cut, you're still living in the same house with the same standard of living---there is no real adjustment.

As I said before, if I had a 30% pay cut I'd just have less money to spend on purely elective things like trips or remodeling the basement---I'd still have more than enough to cover the mortgage, bills, daycare, and our present standard of living. Less would go into savings, less into the retirement, but at least in the present day there would be no "adjustment."

On the other hand, if I earned 30K/year, a 30% pay cut would require a Hell of an adjustment.
 
2012-11-08 07:19:07 PM

Xcott: redmid17: Xcott: Most of us never see $120K a year total, much less after tax and mortgage. If you need a "major life adjustment" to live on such a meager amount, maybe you should take some remedial classes in home economics.

I don't make near that. I'm just saying it's a major adjustment. Also I wasn't even accounting for taxes in that, so feel free to knock off another 20-30% of his total income. Once again, I'm not saying it's hard to live off that income. In fact it should be quite easy. I'm just saying it's a major adjustment.

A major adjustment from what?

I'm saying it's not a major adjustment. Once you earn above a certain level, your extra income is essentially disposable. You will either invest it, or spend it on things you never really needed and won't really notice living without. If a bunch of that money vanishes from a pay cut, you're still living in the same house with the same standard of living---there is no real adjustment.

As I said before, if I had a 30% pay cut I'd just have less money to spend on purely elective things like trips or remodeling the basement---I'd still have more than enough to cover the mortgage, bills, daycare, and our present standard of living. Less would go into savings, less into the retirement, but at least in the present day there would be no "adjustment."

On the other hand, if I earned 30K/year, a 30% pay cut would require a Hell of an adjustment.


That right there. I kind of noted that in the post. Obviously the scale slides to a higher grade with less income.
 
2012-11-08 07:29:38 PM

Leeds: Eatin' ain't cheatin'


and suckin' ain't farkin'....dang I wish that still rhymed...
 
2012-11-08 11:54:51 PM

MycroftHolmes: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Resident Muslim: Somewhat poor people can only afford to eat out once a week.

REALLY poor people can only afford to eat out seven times a week.

/somewhat serious
//McNutrition

More like 21 times per week.

I tried an experiment of trying to make 10 total servings for $10 (I did this two weeks in a row). It was doable, but consisted on one protein(pork or chicken), one starch (usually rice), maybe some beans, and a variety of lower end vegetables (like onions or celery or such). The food was decent, but not great. If I was spending what a McD's meal costs per meal (call it $4 per serving), I could have made some pretty decent food with better fresh vegetables. There are very few situations where McD's is the only option.


True, though I think you are missing what I was too...and that's some people might not even have a functional kitchen/gas/fridge to store said food.
The initial cost of that can be prohibitive to really poor people.

/knows a guy who actually did what you recommend. Guy lived off tuna casserole when he had had enough and decided to do what it takes to pay off his credit card bills.
 
2012-11-09 12:20:02 AM
They eat out over 200 times per year?????? Holy crap. No wonder they are all fat asses. I also just lost a lot of sympathy for their claims of not being able to find jobs/earn enough money. When I was in my 20s I think I ate out once every other week. It simply cost too damn much for me. There are better things to do with money.
 
2012-11-09 12:41:25 AM

Burr: Maybe we should bring Home-Ec back to schools and call it "Life Management" or something feel good like that (Or hell, just call it Home Ec)


It's still there. It's called "Family and Consumer Science" now. Unfortunately, it's not required as there's no test for it associated with NCLB. Plus, fractions are hard.

Before the norm became a "two income household", children would learn these skills from the parent that wasn't working (granted, that was the mom 99% of the time, but it could be either one in this day and age). That has fallen by the wayside, causing an increase in people eating out, usually with cheap, fast, unhealthy options.

My grandparents were poor immigrants and "two income households" were the norm for poor people. Women's liberation was really only for the middle class. My mom learned to cook by going to cooking classes.
 
2012-11-09 07:17:18 AM

Carth: If you know how to cook eating out gets really boring unless you're going to very high end restaurants. Too many places just reheat food or try and charge $20 for a plate of pasta and shrimp.


Indeed, even in the UK we are not immune to this. It used to be you could go to the pub and have a pint and a nice home cooked meal (depending on the pub obviously). Steak & chips or a homemade pork pie of some description and so on.

Now it seems that irrespective of what pub you go to (out in the country, inner-city chain) it's the exact same food on offer... and it tastes almost exactly the same. It's passable but... yeah... if I'd of wanted McDonalds I'd of bloody gone to the clown.
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report