This is the new frugality?
One of the primary functions of modern journalism is to belabor the obvious, and newspapers are particularly skilled at telling readers what they already know. Case in point: This weekend’s article in the News & Observer explaining that in tough economic times, people shop carefully for bargains at the grocery store.
Whoa. Really?
I don’t have any moral superiority in this matter. God knows that in my time I wrote plenty of stories stating the obvious. At various moments over the years, I reported that it was extraordinarily hot outside, that a massive amount of snow had fallen, that Interstate speed limits are widely ignored, and — you might want to sit down for this one — that white supremacists don’t have much regard for black people. (That last one was my crowning achievement in this category, by the way. If there was a Pulitzer prize for news articles with no actual news value, my five-part series explaining that the Klan has a pathological disdain for minorities and foreigners would have been a sure winner.)
But the one thing any such story should never do is undermine its own patently obvious premise. That’s why, as I read the N&O article about the current squeeze on consumers, I was left with cognitive dissonance by the photo of an older woman comparing the prices of bottled-water brands at a Harris Teeter store.
Excuse me, but anyone who buys bottled water — the biggest waste of money imaginable — at a high-end grocery store isn’t the person to use in an article about cost-consciousness.
It gets better. As the article explains, the shopper
said her monthly grocery bill can easily be $750, even though she’s paying more attention to sales, using more coupons and planning her meals a week or even two weeks in advance.
A 67-year-old retiree from the state Department of Health and Human Services, [the shopper] said grocery costs eat up the majority of her $1,000 monthly Social Security income.
She and her husband, Jim, survive on their two retirement checks and the remainder of the Social Security money.
“I used to be able to buy for us for $100 to $150 a week,” she said. “If I spent $150 a week, that was just enormous. Now if we spend $150 a week, that’s average.”
Two retired people have pared back their grocery bill to an average of $25 a day and I’m supposed to take this as evidence of a new austerity? Hey, my roomie and I don’t come close to that amount even when we factor in our Two-Buck Chuck. And it’s not as if we live on beans and hot dogs. Last night we had salmon.
There’s your image of the new Hard Times: A retiree forced to contemplate trading down from Fiji water.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
And now we have today’s article pointing out that people aren’t buying for themselves, but apparently haven’t much cut back on the toys for the kiddies. When I was growing up and the family hit hard times you saw it under the tree, not to mention the endless pots of beans for dinner and the dreaded ‘prison camp stew’ as we called it.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Er . . . about that water. For some people, it isn’t a luxury. People with houses located near certain points along the city pipe streams get more than an ordinary dose of chlorine at regular intervals. Quite unpleasant. Drinking tap water from one of those sources is like having your throat scraped. Others whose pipes are not all they should be are getting low but constant doses of lead — perhaps not enough to alarm health officials, but who likes “just a little poison” in his/her water all the time? If you’re unfortunate enough to live near areas of ongoing construction or repair, where water is turned on and off again — and again, you would certainly prefer the bottled water to the crud coming out of your tap.
Personally, I don’t care for the taste of bottled water that comes in plastic, but I sure do understand why a lot of people feel they need to purchase it.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
My two cents
1) I’m no journalist, but there ARE lots of people who wouldn’t consider this stuff or otherwise learn about it. Seriously. The bad news? They’re often the ones who don’t pick up a paper and/or visit a news site. So there you have exhibit 1,268,004 of “Preaching to the Choir.”
2) And yeah, I couldn’t get over the examples either. But the news team couldn’t be bothered to somewhere other than Harris Teeter in CAMERON VILLAGE?! Duh.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
G.D. — I had many of the same thoughts when reading that article. That woman spends more for two than I do for four, and I regularly buy fresh fruits and vegetables because I have young children and I make baby food. And my family loves to eat so we buy a lot of food!
I also had the snarky thought that if you shop in Cameron Village, then you’re doing OK with money. Even if it’s just a grocery store in Cameron Village (as compared to the specialty shops), I find Harris Teeter atrociously expensive and the crowds turn me off (though there are some things I have to get there because they don’t carry them at Kroger).
I guess I have trouble feeling sorry for those who are retired since they’re mostly set for money. Their fixed income takes a hit when costs rise, for sure, but at least they don’t have to worry about finding a job. They’re getting steady checks.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Brunette: Point taken. Some people have to drink bottled water. But if that’s the case in this specific example, the reporter had two choices: (1) Explain that bottled water is a necessary expense for the retiree; or (2) Not use her as an example in the article, considering that it undermines the theme of frugality. To do neither only assures readers will have, shall we say, a WTF? reaction.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Dan, true dat. I wasn’t trying to defend the reporter’s choice so much as noting that these instant judgments we’re so fond of leaping to are not always justified. In fact, I find the instant or even not-so-instant judging (such as the assumption that retirees having it easy and the suggestion that shopping at Cameron Village means a person is affluent) to be a far greater turn off than the concept that someone is buying something *I* don’t think they should buy or shopping somewhere *I* don’t think a person in difficult straits should shop. I mean GEEZ!
December 16th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I didn’t say retirees have it easy, but they’re guaranteed a check. As compared to many people now who are floundering, looking for work and paying for groceries with credit cards.
And Cameron Village isn’t the kind of place you frequent if money is tight. I can see the argument of grocery store vs. clothing boutique, but both have higher costs than other stores selling similar products.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
How the HELL do you know, Barb? For all you know that old lady goes to Cameron Village because she WALKS there. For all you know she goes to Cameron Village because she isn’t a terrific drive and this location means she doesn’t have to drive far. For all you know she goes to Cameron Village because it’s not as CREEPY as the Food Lion where thugs are hanging out on the sidewalk — and she’s old and feels vulnerable. For all you know she goes to Cameron Village because she’s a lonely person and feels she knows the people there and it’s a chance for her to commune with people she thinks of as friends. You don’t know. For all you know she goes to Cameron Village because it’s all she knows.
To judge a person to be well off because she shops at freakin’ Cameron Village is just to be plain old judgmental because you freakin’ enjoy being that way, not because you’ve been able to discern so much about a given person’s life or choices that you KNOW what the hell you’re talking about.
Same with the sweeping statement about retirees. An awful lot of retirees may have “steady” income in increments that they can barely live on because of their medical bills. You don’t know. An awful lot of retirees do not enjoy the health to continue to work. Lots of them can’t get work because they’re old and people don’t want to hire old folks. Lots of them are ineligible because they don’t have the skills that modern jobs required. But it’s your pleasure to blithely make pronouncements about an entire class of people because of this concept that it’s a “steady” income.
What your remark didn’t take into account was the relative disadvantages that so many people who are retired have to live with.
But what the hell, why pass up a chance to make broad sweeping statements about a given class of people?
Merry Freakin’ Xmas, Judge Barbie!
December 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Brunette, I considered many of your points, but stepping back, that wasn’t the point at all–the point was simply a matter of that one place in Raleigh being a place that does NOT offer the best deals for your money. You definitely do bring up valid reasons WHY someone might shop there. If you’ll look back at my original comment, I admitted it was a snarky thought.
And I’m also not arguing your points about retirees. My own father-in-law is retired due to an injury, and I know he’d prefer working because he’s been a hard-working person his whole life. Was it his choice? No. But again, that wasn’t my point: my point is that he gets a steady income, just like many other retirees. Knowing you have SOMETHING coming to you every month (I agree for many people it’s not enough) is different than having NOTHING coming to you.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Ummm … What I meant by my original comment re: Cameron Village is that the reporter/photographer went to the grocery store closest to their downtown office. (I would’ve gone to at least gone to 2 different stores.) I wasn’t passing judgment on people who shop at the CV-Harris Teeter.
Let’s face it, many people appreciate a short commute and accordingly much of the N&O’s newsroom lives inside-the-beltline and that can’t help but impact their choice of locations to visit/profile. Now I guess I’m passing judgment on the reporter and where they live … AND how they do their job! With ever-shrinking-resources! Happy Holidays y’all
December 16th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Well it could be that the N&O cut mileage reimbursement so the reporter had to find a store within walking distance
December 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Nah, as I read the article I kept saying did Harris Teeter pay for this article. If you looked at the list of saving pointers the article had in a side box, not one was going to the cheapest store. My wife has been a frugal buyer of groceries all our married life and she still says Food Lion is the lowest with Wal-mart next. Now all our neighbors scoff at her going to Food Lion, but she’s not changing.
Number 5 in the list of saving money had this:
“Even at major grocery chains, you may be able to negotiate a deal if you talk with the meat department manager.”
I thought this was bizzare as my first thought was to head to Sam’s, BJ’s or Costco, which was never mentioned for bulk purchases.
Tom