Extreme grocery shopping saves cash as food prices rise
Evelyn C. Leeper
Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And yes,
the savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see this a lot
when I was young at the base commissary. Retirees would drive in once a
month from long distances and buy all their non-perishables at much
cheaper prices than off-vase.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Just because everything is different doesn't mean
anything has changed. -Irene Peter
clams_casino
> <http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807200323>
>
> Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And yes,
> the savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see this a lot
> when I was young at the base commissary. Retirees would drive in once
> a month from long distances and buy all their non-perishables at much
> cheaper prices than off-vase.
>
He claims to save $60-70 (including $15? in gas costs) by driving 90
miles, but ignores the wear and tear costs on his car. It's easy to
make a profit or show savings when one ignores his costs.
At least half that savings is fictitious.
Is there any wonder why gas prices are so high? Hint - it's primarily
ignorant drivers who only consider the cost of gas as their cost of driving.
Granted, he appears to have saved $30-35, but considering his ignorance
of costs, I question if the pricing difference is as great as claimed.
I did a Stop & Shop cost comparison about two years ago and found
Walmart did have a 30% advantage on cost for a $100 basket of goods I
typically purchase, but certainly not the 50% claimed in the article
($150 in goods with about $75 - 80 in savings). Then again, that could
depend significantly on his basket of goods. On the other hand, they
don't mention if there is a regular Walmart within a few mile, where
much of his savings would also likely be realized without driving 90
miles (regular Walmarts do carry much of the staple products that make
up a bulk of typical shopping lists)
Rod Speed
> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>
>> <http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807200323>
>>
>> Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And yes,
>> the savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see this a lot
>> when I was young at the base commissary. Retirees would drive in
>> once a month from long distances and buy all their non-perishables
>> at much cheaper prices than off-vase.
> He claims to save $60-70 (including $15? in gas costs) by driving 90 miles, but ignores the wear and tear costs on his
> car.
That can be appropriate if the car isnt otherwise used much.
It may in fact reduce the wear and tear on the engine because
it gets a decent warmup on those trips that it doesnt otherwise get.
> It's easy to make a profit or show savings when one ignores his costs.
> At least half that savings is fictitious.
> Is there any wonder why gas prices are so high? Hint - it's primarily ignorant drivers who only consider the cost of
> gas as their cost of driving.
Nope, that doesnt affect world demand or the price of crude much.
clams_casino
>clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807200323>
>>>
>>>Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And yes,
>>>the savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see this a lot
>>>when I was young at the base commissary. Retirees would drive in
>>>once a month from long distances and buy all their non-perishables
>>>at much cheaper prices than off-vase.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>He claims to save $60-70 (including $15? in gas costs) by driving 90 miles, but ignores the wear and tear costs on his
>>car.
>>
>>
>
>That can be appropriate if the car isnt otherwise used much.
>
>It may in fact reduce the wear and tear on the engine because
>it gets a decent warmup on those trips that it doesnt otherwise get.
>
>
>
Agreed that if he's using the car for other errands / visits, it can
lessen the real cost for the groceries.
>>It's easy to make a profit or show savings when one ignores his costs.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>At least half that savings is fictitious.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Is there any wonder why gas prices are so high? Hint - it's primarily ignorant drivers who only consider the cost of
>>gas as their cost of driving.
>>
>>
>
>Nope, that doesnt affect world demand or the price of crude much.
>
>
The intended point was that if a significant numbers of drivers would
consider the real cost of driving (not simply the cost of gasoline),
they'd likely reduce their driving significantly, resulting in a
significant reduction in the consumption of gasoline / demand which
would in turn, reduce the pricing (via reduced futures /
speculation). There's nothing like a glut of product to bring down
pricing.
If drivers would view their habits at 50 cents/mile (IRS conservatively
estimates a 50.8 cent average) vs. the simple 16 cents / mile it costs
for $4 gas at 25 mpg, they'd be using a whole lot more mass transit,
living a whole lot closer to work and just driving a whole lot less.
Lou
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4887679b$0$20919$607e...@cv.net...
> <http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807200323>
>
> Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And yes,
> the savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see this a lot
> when I was young at the base commissary. Retirees would drive in once a
> month from long distances and buy all their non-perishables at much
> cheaper prices than off-vase.
>
whether the car is ever driven or not, and some costs (like gas) depend
directly on how many miles you drive. This means that your average cost per
mile can be lower if you drive a lot.
Be that as it may, it's not uncommon to see estimated cost per mile to drive
in the 50 cent range or higher. For a 90 mile round trip at 50 cents per
mile, it's costing him $45.00 to drive that shopping trip. His actual cost
may be higher or lower, I wouldn't know, but his figure of a saving around
$53 because he spent only $16.29 on gas is probably wildly overstated.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>> Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>>>> <http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807200323>
>>>> Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And
>>>> yes, the savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see
>>>> this a lot when I was young at the base commissary. Retirees
>>>> would drive in once a month from long distances and buy all their
>>>> non-perishables at much cheaper prices than off-vase.
>>> He claims to save $60-70 (including $15? in gas costs) by driving
>>> 90 miles, but ignores the wear and tear costs on his car.
>> That can be appropriate if the car isnt otherwise used much.
>> It may in fact reduce the wear and tear on the engine because
>> it gets a decent warmup on those trips that it doesnt otherwise get.
> Agreed that if he's using the car for other errands / visits, it can lessen the real cost for the groceries.
I meant something quite different, that he may not need to consider the
extra wear and tear on the car if it isnt used for anything else much, just
because a decent run can be good the engine wear in that situation.
Obviously the tyres get more use, but again, if its not used for
anything much except those trips, they may last for a long time
anyway and need to be replaced just due to their age, not the wear.
>>> It's easy to make a profit or show savings when one ignores his costs.
>>> At least half that savings is fictitious.
>>> Is there any wonder why gas prices are so high? Hint - it's primarily ignorant drivers who only consider the cost
>>> of gas as their cost of driving.
>> Nope, that doesnt affect world demand or the price of crude much.
> The intended point was that if a significant numbers of drivers would consider the real cost of driving (not simply
> the cost of gasoline), they'd likely reduce their driving significantly,
Unlikely and even if that did happen in the US, that wouldnt affect the world price of crude much if at all.
The current price of crude appears to have more of a speculation factor than usual.
> resulting in a significant reduction in the consumption of gasoline / demand which would in turn, reduce the pricing
> (via reduced futures / speculation).
Again, I dont believe that that would have much effect
on total world demand, or even on the speculation either.
> There's nothing like a glut of product to bring down pricing.
Sure, but that wouldnt produce a glut and with the increasing use
of oil by China and India particularly, I cant see a glut of oil again.
That unlikey to happen even if we see a full worldwide depression.
> If drivers would view their habits at 50 cents/mile (IRS conservatively estimates a 50.8 cent average)
That includes the financing cost of the car which wont change with less use.
> vs. the simple 16 cents / mile it costs for $4 gas at 25 mpg, they'd be using a whole lot more mass transit,
I doubt it, because its much less flexible than using a car.
> living a whole lot closer to work
I doubt that in spades now that the big sag in property values has
made it a lot harder to move closer to where you currently work.
> and just driving a whole lot less.
I doubt that too.
Yes, it would save some fuel if people say shopped once a month
instead of multiple times a week, but I cant see that they will change
their behaviour like that just from using that higher price calculation.
They didnt change their behaviour much even when the price of gasoline roughly doubled.
Essentially because they can afford the higher price because the US standard of living is so high.
clams_casino
>>
>>
>
> The intended point was that if a significant numbers of drivers would
> consider the real cost of driving (not simply the cost of gasoline),
> they'd likely reduce their driving significantly, resulting in a
> significant reduction in the consumption of gasoline / demand which
> would in turn, reduce the pricing (via reduced futures /
> speculation). There's nothing like a glut of product to bring down
> pricing.
>
> If drivers would view their habits at 50 cents/mile (IRS
> conservatively estimates a 50.8 cent average) vs. the simple 16 cents
> / mile it costs for $4 gas at 25 mpg, they'd be using a whole lot
> more mass transit, living a whole lot closer to work and just
> driving a whole lot less.
>
My error - the IRS recently raised that conservative average to $0.585 /
mile (from $0.505).
clams_casino
>
>
>
>>and just driving a whole lot less.
>>
>>
>
>I doubt that too.
>
>
>
"$4.05+ average national gas costs and $140 barrel oil is having its
effect: Demand destruction brought about by high prices has lead to
Americans driving less.
Total vehicle miles traveled grew by nearly 3% a year from 1984 to 2004,
the rate of growth slowed suddenly in 2005 and 2006 and has declined since."
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/06/chart-of-the-da.html
"Drivers in the US traveled 1.4 billion fewer highway miles, and 20
billion miles for all public roads compared to last years, or 1.8% less.
Cummulatively, 2008 is down 2.1% from 2007"
I'm confident it's beginning to have an effect on supply / pricing.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> and just driving a whole lot less.
>> I doubt that too.
> "$4.05+ average national gas costs and $140 barrel oil is having its effect: Demand destruction brought about by high
> prices has lead to Americans driving less.
But clearly hasnt brought the price down as a result.
> Total vehicle miles traveled grew by nearly 3% a year from 1984 to 2004,
Which is nothing like what demand has grown worldwide in that time.
> the rate of growth slowed suddenly in 2005 and 2006 and has declined since."
Not world wide it hasnt, and thats what matters for the price of crude.
> http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/06/chart-of-the-da.html
> "Drivers in the US traveled 1.4 billion fewer highway miles, and 20 billion miles for all public roads compared to
> last years, or 1.8% less. Cummulatively, 2008 is down 2.1% from 2007"
And world demand has increased by a lot more than that.
> I'm confident it's beginning to have an effect on supply / pricing.
More fool you, it isnt. It has in fact gone thru the roof to historical highs over that time.
Rod Speed
> i finger myself often and when this boy did it to me for the first
> time i had to pretend to come, i couldn't feel him go in me, it jus
> felt like he was rubbing up and down. i find my clit da most
> stimulating but wot can i do next time...should i ask him to rub it or
> wot?heklp will be taken gratefully(i aint a dork btw with all the big
> words lol )thanks x
Rod Speed
ye bawled out:
> Yes, after becoming severely depressed I confessed to 'previously'
> having a cocaine problem.
Rod Speed
transformed into a beast; for I can nowhere find like thee a man, ye
disquieted:
> Did you know that I am obsessive about asking stupid, inane questions?
Evelyn C. Leeper
Actually, the article does say:
"It's not that Dobbs Ferry doesn't have a grocery store - there is a
Stop & Shop just under a mile away - but there isn't a Wal-Mart
Supercenter with a full grocery section any closer."
I can easily believe he saves that much by picking and choosing what to
buy in Walmart versus what to buy locally. (For that matter, when
you're at the Walmart, buying stuff where you save a lot, you might as
well also buy the stuff where you save only a little.)
(I have several items I buy in Price-Rite in Massachusetts when I'm
there, because they are cheaper than around here (e.g., 79 cents for six
pieces of pita versus 1.99 or more). But I wouldn't make a special
400-mile round trip!)
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
--
----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin
www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4887679b$0$20919$607e...@cv.net...
> <http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807200323>
>
> Article about driving 90 miles round trip to buy groceries. And yes, the
> savings takes into account fuel costs. I used to see this a lot when I
> was young at the base commissary. Retirees would drive in once a month
> from long distances and buy all their non-perishables at much cheaper
> prices than off-vase.
>
same here. one used to bring in a uhaul truck to stock up yearly. they
lived up in the mountains.
Brian Elfert
>At least half that savings is fictitious.
>Is there any wonder why gas prices are so high? Hint - it's primarily
>ignorant drivers who only consider the cost of gas as their cost of driving.
Some of the costs of driving like insurance are a fixed cost no matter if
the car is used or not. Insurance in most cases is not priced on miles
driven.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin
www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
"Lou" <lpo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:x1Qhk.356$X2.36@trnddc03...
but, he does say that he literally counts pennies, so even if he saves 1.00
after
everything is included, and he doesn't value his time, or it's more
important to
save the 1.00 than use his time elsewhere, he comes out ahead.
Jonathan Grobe
These numbers are not appropriate. A substantial amount of the money
used in computing this figure is in fixed costs. So you have to pay
these costs whether or not you do these extra grocery trips. The numbers
you should use in computing whether or not you should do these additional
trips should only involve additional costs.
--
Jonathan Grobe Books
Browse our inventory of thousands of used books at:
http://www.grobebooks.com
clams_casino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>My error - the IRS recently raised that conservative average to $0.585 /
>>mile (from $0.505).
>>
>>
>
>These numbers are not appropriate. A substantial amount of the money
>used in computing this figure is in fixed costs. So you have to pay
>these costs whether or not you do these extra grocery trips. The numbers
>you should use in computing whether or not you should do these additional
>trips should only involve additional costs.
>
>
>
As I've previously said, it's very easy to claim savings when you
ignore costs.
If you don't buy tires during the trip, is there really a cost involved?
So if no gas is purchased during the trip, should gas costs be ignored?
Since it wasn't an additional cost during that trip, why should it be
considered a cost?.
If a headlight burns out & needs replacement during the trip, should the
entire cost of replacement be considered a cost of that trip?
Hint - only a fool considers just the cost of gasoline when determining
the cost of a trip.
clams_casino
Agreed, but in most cases, very little is not a function of miles driven.
Rod Speed
Quite a bit actually, particularly the insurance and registration costs, the
finance cost if the car isnt bought for cash, even the depreciation may not
change much, particularly if that particular individual only uses the car much
for that particular use, shopping etc and say otherwise works from home.
clams_casino
There will always be exceptions. That's certainly not the norm.
If someone rarely uses a car, they pay dearly for those miles driven.
Under those circumstances, the use of a cab and / or renting for
occasional trips could actually be a frugal alternative to owning /
maintaining a vehicle.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>
>>> My error - the IRS recently raised that conservative average to
>>> $0.585 / mile (from $0.505).
>>
>> These numbers are not appropriate. A substantial amount of the money
>> used in computing this figure is in fixed costs. So you have to pay
>> these costs whether or not you do these extra grocery trips. The numbers
>> you should use in computing whether or not you should do these additional
>
> ignore costs.
>
> If you don't buy tires during the trip, is there really a cost involved?
>
> So if no gas is purchased during the trip, should gas costs be ignored?
> Since it wasn't an additional cost during that trip, why should it be
> considered a cost?.
>
> If a headlight burns out & needs replacement during the trip, should the
> entire cost of replacement be considered a cost of that trip?
>
> Hint - only a fool considers just the cost of gasoline when determining
> the cost of a trip.
Yes, oil, tires, etc. should be included. But probably not insurance
and registration.
Rod Speed
> clams_casino wrote:
>> Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>>
>>>> My error - the IRS recently raised that conservative average to
>>>> $0.585 / mile (from $0.505).
>>>
>>> These numbers are not appropriate. A substantial amount of the money
>>> used in computing this figure is in fixed costs. So you have to pay
>>> these costs whether or not you do these extra grocery trips. The
>>> numbers you should use in computing whether or not you should do
>>> these additional
>>
>> As I've previously said, it's very easy to claim savings when you
>> ignore costs.
>>
>> If you don't buy tires during the trip, is there really a cost
>> involved? So if no gas is purchased during the trip, should gas costs be
>> ignored? Since it wasn't an additional cost during that trip, why
>> should it be considered a cost?.
>>
>> If a headlight burns out & needs replacement during the trip, should
>> the entire cost of replacement be considered a cost of that trip?
>>
>> Hint - only a fool considers just the cost of gasoline when
>> determining the cost of a trip.
> Yes, oil, tires, etc. should be included.
But those dont affect the cost per mile much even when they are.
> But probably not insurance and registration.
Certainly not. The depreciation of the vehicle in spades as long as that trip isnt done too often.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>> Brian Elfert wrote
>>>> clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> writes
>>>>> At least half that savings is fictitious.
>>>>> Is there any wonder why gas prices are so high? Hint - it's primarily ignorant drivers who only consider the
>>>>> cost of gas as their cost of driving.
>>>> Some of the costs of driving like insurance are a fixed cost no matter if the car is used or not. Insurance in
>>>> most cases is not priced on miles driven.
>>> Agreed, but in most cases, very little is not a function of miles driven.
>> Quite a bit actually, particularly the insurance and registration
>> costs, the finance cost if the car isnt bought for cash, even the
>> depreciation may not change much, particularly if that particular
>> individual only uses the car much for that particular use, shopping
>> etc and say otherwise works from home.
> There will always be exceptions. That's certainly not the norm.
Yes, but if that trip is only done say monthly, it wont affect the depreciation
of the value of the car much if any at all if the car is otherwise used normally.
> If someone rarely uses a car, they pay dearly for those miles driven.
Nope, not the marginal cost of those miles.
> Under those circumstances, the use of a cab and / or renting for occasional trips could actually be a frugal
> alternative to owning / maintaining a vehicle.
Not necessarily, most obviously with an older vehicle.
His real costs for that shopping trip would be quite close to the ones he
actually used, particularly if he only bothered with the compulsory insurance.
Lou
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4888e561$0$7360$607e...@cv.net...
Whyever not? If he didn't have a car, he wouldn't incur any of these costs.
Sure, he'd have to shop locally, and he'd pay more for a dozen eggs and so
on, but possibly at the end of the year he'd be ahead.
Lou
"Brian Elfert" <bel...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:m6mdnYKpybfuNRXV...@posted.visi...
I don't know at the moment if that's an issue for me, but in years past,
auto insurance costs were partly based on the kind of driving you did - if
you drove to and from work, the annual cost was higher than if you used the
car only for "pleasure" driving. Also, if the commute was more than 10
miles one way, the annual cost was higher.
h
Yup. I work at home and drive a 10 year old, paid for, used car. I pay $500
a year for insurance (no collision) and it's listed as "pleasure". When I
commuted to work 20 miles each way (no collision) it was $750 a year. That
was 10 years ago, so I suspect it's a lot more for commuters these days.