Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

How much do you/should you spend on food (US)?

1356714

Replies

  • Stockholm_Andy
    Stockholm_Andy Posts: 716 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    This report says those in the US spend 6.4% of their income on food:
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-country-spends-on-food/

    From the article:

    "There are only eight countries in the world that spend less than 10% of their household income on food. Four of these are in Europe: the UK is third at 8.2%, followed by Switzerland at 8.7%; Ireland spends 9.6% and Austria 9.9%.

    The remaining four countries are spread across the globe. The US spends the least at 6.4%, Singapore spends the second lowest amount at 6.7%. Canada spends 9.1% on food, while Australia spends 9.8%."


    This shows per capital spending on food by country (US was a bit over $2,400 in 2016, # 15 in the world):
    https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Food-Security/Expenditures-Spent-on-Food/Expenditure-on-food-per-capita

    Just the wife and I, we probably spend $175-225 on food a week including eating out.

    Actually it says "percent of consumer expenditure spent of food that was consumed at home"

    which is not the same thing as "percent of take home income spent on food"....although I guess the text of the article claims that which is a bit weird...the chart clearly says something different. Makes me wonder if the person writing the article misrepresented the actual data? Not sure.

    Then later in the article it says this

    "Over the past 25 years, the poorest 20% of households in the US spent between 28.8% and 42.6% on food, compared with 6.5% to 9.2% spent by the wealthiest 20% of households."

    But how can the average be 6.4% if the wealthiest spend 6.5 to 9.2%? Something is fishy with that article.

    The linked data was from the World Economic Forum its not a blog article. You can get the source data from the link too.

    As I read it the current average is now 6.4% in the US. The figures above goes back over a 25 years period. So it's trending down.

    I also think that % is so low because I think people (sweeping generalisation) eat out more often than, for instance, Europeans

    Just be glad you're not in Kenya where they're spending over 50% of their income on food eaten at home. Probably not much left over for a dinner out on date night.

    From my experience of travelling in the US food is cheaper in both supermarkets and restaurants than in Europe. Here in Sweden food also carries a 12% sales tax (standard is 25%).
    I recognize it was given as a range over the past 25 years (which is why each value is a range)
    That said there is no way it has trended down to the point that today the average is lower now than the total average for the wealthiest 20% has been over the past 25 years. Do you really believe the average person spends less of their income on food now than the wealthiest in the 80s?

    I know it is on the world economic forum but it is a blog post....places like that hire technical writers to post articles on their websites that describe results of studies...that isn't the study that is an article written by somebody about the study and it is possible it contains an error. It shouldn't but it might. I'm just saying the words used in the article dont match the words used in the figure header and that last part giving the distribution numbers doesn't really make sense.

    From my experience living in the United States my whole life the average household spends more than 6% of their income on food.

    No of course that doesn't stack up Aaron but these figures (the 6.4%) only relate to food for meals consumed at home it's not the full picture. The amount Americans spend on eating out in restaurants has been trending up since the 70s. This would represent upwards of 40% of total spend. Additionally I don't believes this includes the money people spend on snacks and sodas etc they eat at work or in the car etc.

    Those things are significant in the US but wouldn't change the percentage for poorer countries as much.

    The more I think about it the more I think that data was selected so make the gap appear much higher.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,622 Member
    edited May 2018
    IMO, what is "appropriate" to spend is hugely subjective. Granted, if it starts impacting your ability to pay other bills, then maybe you've crossed the line, but beyond that, it's personal preference family to family.

    That said, we spend about $300/week on groceries, give or take for 2 adults and 2 half-time kids.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,121 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    This report says those in the US spend 6.4% of their income on food:
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-country-spends-on-food/

    From the article:

    "There are only eight countries in the world that spend less than 10% of their household income on food. Four of these are in Europe: the UK is third at 8.2%, followed by Switzerland at 8.7%; Ireland spends 9.6% and Austria 9.9%.

    The remaining four countries are spread across the globe. The US spends the least at 6.4%, Singapore spends the second lowest amount at 6.7%. Canada spends 9.1% on food, while Australia spends 9.8%."


    This shows per capital spending on food by country (US was a bit over $2,400 in 2016, # 15 in the world):
    https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Food-Security/Expenditures-Spent-on-Food/Expenditure-on-food-per-capita

    Just the wife and I, we probably spend $175-225 on food a week including eating out.

    Actually it says "percent of consumer expenditure spent of food that was consumed at home"

    which is not the same thing as "percent of take home income spent on food"....although I guess the text of the article claims that which is a bit weird...the chart clearly says something different. Makes me wonder if the person writing the article misrepresented the actual data? Not sure.

    Then later in the article it says this

    "Over the past 25 years, the poorest 20% of households in the US spent between 28.8% and 42.6% on food, compared with 6.5% to 9.2% spent by the wealthiest 20% of households."

    But how can the average be 6.4% if the wealthiest spend 6.5 to 9.2%? Something is fishy with that article.

    The linked data was from the World Economic Forum its not a blog article. You can get the source data from the link too.

    As I read it the current average is now 6.4% in the US. The figures above goes back over a 25 years period. So it's trending down.

    I also think that % is so low because I think people (sweeping generalisation) eat out more often than, for instance, Europeans

    Just be glad you're not in Kenya where they're spending over 50% of their income on food eaten at home. Probably not much left over for a dinner out on date night.

    From my experience of travelling in the US food is cheaper in both supermarkets and restaurants than in Europe. Here in Sweden food also carries a 12% sales tax (standard is 25%).
    I recognize it was given as a range over the past 25 years (which is why each value is a range)
    That said there is no way it has trended down to the point that today the average is lower now than the total average for the wealthiest 20% has been over the past 25 years. Do you really believe the average person spends less of their income on food now than the wealthiest in the 80s?

    I know it is on the world economic forum but it is a blog post....places like that hire technical writers to post articles on their websites that describe results of studies...that isn't the study that is an article written by somebody about the study and it is possible it contains an error. It shouldn't but it might. I'm just saying the words used in the article dont match the words used in the figure header and that last part giving the distribution numbers doesn't really make sense.

    From my experience living in the United States my whole life the average household spends more than 6% of their income on food.

    No of course that doesn't stack up Aaron but these figures (the 6.4%) only relate to food for meals consumed at home it's not the full picture. The amount Americans spend on eating out in restaurants has been trending up since the 70s. This would represent upwards of 40% of total spend. Additionally I don't believes this includes the money people spend on snacks and sodas etc they eat at work or in the car etc.

    Those things are significant in the US but wouldn't change the percentage for poorer countries as much.

    The more I think about it the more I think that data was selected so make the gap appear much higher.

    That was my original point. The OP asked for percent of take home income for total food, you posted that article, and I pointed out that stat wasn't that it was what I listed as the figure heading and you stated that what the OP asked for didn't matter as a statistic. Well...okay, but that is what is being asked for. Sure if you take total (not take home) income and you apply it to only food eaten at home I can believe 6.4%...but that is not as accurate of a picture of actual financial impact as total cost of food on take home income which is what is being asked about. Sure maybe as an economic indicator that isn't as informative but it is how the cost of food feels.

    I looked up the US Census table for income for 2016

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_S1901&prodType=table

    Average family size

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_1YR_S0201&prodType=table

    The average household income for a married-couple family is about $106k. Average family size is 3.27 people. If you are talking gross income not take-home and you take 6.4% of that then that would be 6,784 a year or $565 a month which would be $170 a month per person in groceries. If you apply that to only groceries consumed at home and not anything else then yeah okay I think that is in the realm of plausible but still seems like very little. If you talk total food then no I don't think so, if you talk total food from take home pay like the OP asked about then definitely not.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    Between 5-20 dollars a day, so between 150 and 600 dollars a month.
  • Stockholm_Andy
    Stockholm_Andy Posts: 716 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    This report says those in the US spend 6.4% of their income on food:
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-country-spends-on-food/

    From the article:

    "There are only eight countries in the world that spend less than 10% of their household income on food. Four of these are in Europe: the UK is third at 8.2%, followed by Switzerland at 8.7%; Ireland spends 9.6% and Austria 9.9%.

    The remaining four countries are spread across the globe. The US spends the least at 6.4%, Singapore spends the second lowest amount at 6.7%. Canada spends 9.1% on food, while Australia spends 9.8%."


    This shows per capital spending on food by country (US was a bit over $2,400 in 2016, # 15 in the world):
    https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Food-Security/Expenditures-Spent-on-Food/Expenditure-on-food-per-capita

    Just the wife and I, we probably spend $175-225 on food a week including eating out.

    Actually it says "percent of consumer expenditure spent of food that was consumed at home"

    which is not the same thing as "percent of take home income spent on food"....although I guess the text of the article claims that which is a bit weird...the chart clearly says something different. Makes me wonder if the person writing the article misrepresented the actual data? Not sure.

    Then later in the article it says this

    "Over the past 25 years, the poorest 20% of households in the US spent between 28.8% and 42.6% on food, compared with 6.5% to 9.2% spent by the wealthiest 20% of households."

    But how can the average be 6.4% if the wealthiest spend 6.5 to 9.2%? Something is fishy with that article.

    The linked data was from the World Economic Forum its not a blog article. You can get the source data from the link too.

    As I read it the current average is now 6.4% in the US. The figures above goes back over a 25 years period. So it's trending down.

    I also think that % is so low because I think people (sweeping generalisation) eat out more often than, for instance, Europeans

    Just be glad you're not in Kenya where they're spending over 50% of their income on food eaten at home. Probably not much left over for a dinner out on date night.

    From my experience of travelling in the US food is cheaper in both supermarkets and restaurants than in Europe. Here in Sweden food also carries a 12% sales tax (standard is 25%).
    I recognize it was given as a range over the past 25 years (which is why each value is a range)
    That said there is no way it has trended down to the point that today the average is lower now than the total average for the wealthiest 20% has been over the past 25 years. Do you really believe the average person spends less of their income on food now than the wealthiest in the 80s?

    I know it is on the world economic forum but it is a blog post....places like that hire technical writers to post articles on their websites that describe results of studies...that isn't the study that is an article written by somebody about the study and it is possible it contains an error. It shouldn't but it might. I'm just saying the words used in the article dont match the words used in the figure header and that last part giving the distribution numbers doesn't really make sense.

    From my experience living in the United States my whole life the average household spends more than 6% of their income on food.

    No of course that doesn't stack up Aaron but these figures (the 6.4%) only relate to food for meals consumed at home it's not the full picture. The amount Americans spend on eating out in restaurants has been trending up since the 70s. This would represent upwards of 40% of total spend. Additionally I don't believes this includes the money people spend on snacks and sodas etc they eat at work or in the car etc.

    Those things are significant in the US but wouldn't change the percentage for poorer countries as much.

    The more I think about it the more I think that data was selected so make the gap appear much higher.

    That was my original point. The OP asked for percent of take home income for total food, you posted that article, and I pointed out that stat wasn't that it was what I listed as the figure heading and you stated that what the OP asked for didn't matter as a statistic. Well...okay, but that is what is being asked for. Sure if you take total (not take home) income and you apply it to only food eaten at home I can believe 6.4%...but that is not as accurate of a picture of actual financial impact as total cost of food on take home income which is what is being asked about. Sure maybe as an economic indicator that isn't as informative but it is how the cost of food feels.

    I looked up the US Census table for income for 2016

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_S1901&prodType=table

    Average family size

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_1YR_S0201&prodType=table

    The average household income for a married-couple family is about $106k. Average family size is 3.27 people. If you are talking gross income not take-home and you take 6.4% of that then that would be 6,784 a year or $565 a month which would be $170 a month per person in groceries. If you apply that to only groceries consumed at home and not anything else then yeah okay I think that is in the realm of plausible but still seems like very little. If you talk total food then no I don't think so, if you talk total food from take home pay like the OP asked about then definitely not.

    I didn't post the article mate.

    I was just trying to make sense of the data as I felt the source seemed legit.

    FWIW I wasn't trying argue against your point in fact I liked your post.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,121 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    This report says those in the US spend 6.4% of their income on food:
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-country-spends-on-food/

    From the article:

    "There are only eight countries in the world that spend less than 10% of their household income on food. Four of these are in Europe: the UK is third at 8.2%, followed by Switzerland at 8.7%; Ireland spends 9.6% and Austria 9.9%.

    The remaining four countries are spread across the globe. The US spends the least at 6.4%, Singapore spends the second lowest amount at 6.7%. Canada spends 9.1% on food, while Australia spends 9.8%."


    This shows per capital spending on food by country (US was a bit over $2,400 in 2016, # 15 in the world):
    https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Food-Security/Expenditures-Spent-on-Food/Expenditure-on-food-per-capita

    Just the wife and I, we probably spend $175-225 on food a week including eating out.

    Actually it says "percent of consumer expenditure spent of food that was consumed at home"

    which is not the same thing as "percent of take home income spent on food"....although I guess the text of the article claims that which is a bit weird...the chart clearly says something different. Makes me wonder if the person writing the article misrepresented the actual data? Not sure.

    Then later in the article it says this

    "Over the past 25 years, the poorest 20% of households in the US spent between 28.8% and 42.6% on food, compared with 6.5% to 9.2% spent by the wealthiest 20% of households."

    But how can the average be 6.4% if the wealthiest spend 6.5 to 9.2%? Something is fishy with that article.

    The linked data was from the World Economic Forum its not a blog article. You can get the source data from the link too.

    As I read it the current average is now 6.4% in the US. The figures above goes back over a 25 years period. So it's trending down.

    I also think that % is so low because I think people (sweeping generalisation) eat out more often than, for instance, Europeans

    Just be glad you're not in Kenya where they're spending over 50% of their income on food eaten at home. Probably not much left over for a dinner out on date night.

    From my experience of travelling in the US food is cheaper in both supermarkets and restaurants than in Europe. Here in Sweden food also carries a 12% sales tax (standard is 25%).
    I recognize it was given as a range over the past 25 years (which is why each value is a range)
    That said there is no way it has trended down to the point that today the average is lower now than the total average for the wealthiest 20% has been over the past 25 years. Do you really believe the average person spends less of their income on food now than the wealthiest in the 80s?

    I know it is on the world economic forum but it is a blog post....places like that hire technical writers to post articles on their websites that describe results of studies...that isn't the study that is an article written by somebody about the study and it is possible it contains an error. It shouldn't but it might. I'm just saying the words used in the article dont match the words used in the figure header and that last part giving the distribution numbers doesn't really make sense.

    From my experience living in the United States my whole life the average household spends more than 6% of their income on food.

    No of course that doesn't stack up Aaron but these figures (the 6.4%) only relate to food for meals consumed at home it's not the full picture. The amount Americans spend on eating out in restaurants has been trending up since the 70s. This would represent upwards of 40% of total spend. Additionally I don't believes this includes the money people spend on snacks and sodas etc they eat at work or in the car etc.

    Those things are significant in the US but wouldn't change the percentage for poorer countries as much.

    The more I think about it the more I think that data was selected so make the gap appear much higher.

    That was my original point. The OP asked for percent of take home income for total food, you posted that article, and I pointed out that stat wasn't that it was what I listed as the figure heading and you stated that what the OP asked for didn't matter as a statistic. Well...okay, but that is what is being asked for. Sure if you take total (not take home) income and you apply it to only food eaten at home I can believe 6.4%...but that is not as accurate of a picture of actual financial impact as total cost of food on take home income which is what is being asked about. Sure maybe as an economic indicator that isn't as informative but it is how the cost of food feels.

    I looked up the US Census table for income for 2016

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_S1901&prodType=table

    Average family size

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_1YR_S0201&prodType=table

    The average household income for a married-couple family is about $106k. Average family size is 3.27 people. If you are talking gross income not take-home and you take 6.4% of that then that would be 6,784 a year or $565 a month which would be $170 a month per person in groceries. If you apply that to only groceries consumed at home and not anything else then yeah okay I think that is in the realm of plausible but still seems like very little. If you talk total food then no I don't think so, if you talk total food from take home pay like the OP asked about then definitely not.

    I didn't post the article mate.

    I was just trying to make sense of the data as I felt the source seemed legit.

    FWIW I wasn't trying argue against your point in fact I liked your post.

    My apologies I hadn't noticed and I assumed I was talking to the same person so I carried over from the previous conversations and made assumptions that didn't apply. I agree the source does seem legit and it does seem unlikely there would be an error in the article, perhaps just more likely an error in terms of how I or others are interpreting it. I think your points are valid.
  • zdyb23456
    zdyb23456 Posts: 1,706 Member
    I’m in Virginia Beach, so relatively low cost of living. For my family of 5, I average about $500 a month when my spouse is home ($200 when he’s gone). This includes toiletries and paper products.

    I clip coupons and shop sales at Aldi, Lidl, the military Commissary, and Harris Teeter. I purchase a few bulk items at Sam’s club a couple times a year.

    I think I’m really frugal. We don’t drink alcohol and only buy diet soda when it’s super cheap otherwise it’s milk or tap water. I refuse to be brand loyal and anything can be eliminated from our diet if it’s too expensive ie we don’t eat seafood except for the occasional bag of fish sticks, no steaks, etc. I really can’t justify spending $7/lb. for meat or seafood when chicken breast is $1.89/lb.

    We get takeout or eat out a few times a month. Usually, it’s takeout either pizza or Chinese. Every once in a while an actual restaurant.

  • nickssweetheart
    nickssweetheart Posts: 904 Member
    It looks like I spend about $45/week on average, usually with one larger week of 50-60 dollars, followed by one smaller week of 20-30 dollars. This is for my household of 1 plus a cat (her food included in the total.) I could get it down some, but as long as I plan carefully, what I'm doing now allows me to pretty much eat what I want (just not all at the same time.) It helps that I don't eat meat.

    I tend to rotate my fruits and veggies so I can buy larger quantities with lower costs and use them up. For example, two weeks ago I got an amazing price on a watermelon, so I ate apples and watermelon, this week I have bananas and oranges, and on Friday I'm buying apples, bananas, and a pineapple.

    Since I'm one person, it takes a lot of thought to use everything up, so I'm often pre-logged on my meals for a week or more ahead. I try to buy things I can use in multiple ways: like the lemons for piccata also get turned into salad dressing for romaine and then used to brighten up lentil soup, to use an example from last week. I buy a fair amount of frozen veg, so it won't be wasted if I don't get to it or deviate from my plan.
  • DKG28
    DKG28 Posts: 299 Member
    if I'm getting a variety of fruits and veg - about $10/day US for one person. I buy conventional produce. I don't eat much meat. There is a lot of produce waste (which i compost) when wanting a variety and only having 1 person to feed.
  • BrunetteRunner87
    BrunetteRunner87 Posts: 591 Member
    I was wondering this too. I realized this weekend my husband and I (no kids) spend almost $700 per month on food, including protein supplements, but not even including eating out (which we do fairly infrequently but go big when we do). That's about 7% of our income before taxes and I live in a pretty cheap place in the Midwest. But it also includes other stuff you'd buy at the grocery store like paper towels, cleaning supplies, cat food. We rarely buy snacks aside from RX bars.

    I am looking for a source somewhere that can help me, step by step, figure out how to reduce my grocery budget. I know it comes down to a lot of planning and looking for sales, but I'd really like to find something truly for dummies.
  • musicfan68
    musicfan68 Posts: 1,004 Member
    I spend about $80 - $100 a month on groceries. add to that about $50 a month eating out, so about $160 a month. But I'm single, basically eat once a day and live in a small town in the midwest so cost of living is cheap. I also am very careful how much I spend because I only gross about $28,000 a year. I almost wish I qualified for food stamps, I could eat a lot better.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    edited May 2018
    Family of five. We spend ~100-150/week on groceries.

    We eat out about once every two weeks and that's more just to get out of the house.

    Edit - from my high school economics class I believe we were to budget ~10% of income to food and have stuck by that.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,012 Member
    I don't know if there's a "should"...it would depend a lot on your level of income. We spend quite a bit on groceries, but we also eat a lot of fresh produce and fish and other quality meats...but the fish is probably the priciest thing on our grocery list.

  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,842 Member
    edited May 2018
    $600-700 per month for my bf and me including toilettries. I live in an expensive area (Southern California) and buy only free range or grass fed meat, pasture raised eggs, wild caught shrimp, and organic fruits and veggies on the dirty dozen list. I do buy some things in bulk which saves money. I'm not sure if this is a lot or not. I do use coupons when possible. I just calculated that what I spend is 8% of my take home pay. My mortgage is 45% of my income and the biggest expense. I dont eat out much, maybe twice a month.

    The grass fed beef I buy is $10/1 lb ground beef.

    $4/half gallon milk.

    $4/lb strawberries.

    $8/lb chicken.

    $5/package of 7 slices turkey bacon.

    $5/dozen eggs.

    $4/lb honeycrisp apples.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Alright this thread is kind of humbling for me. I just went to the grocery store at Safeway (so not like it is Whole Foods). Got 1 cantelope, 1 bunch of banannas, 3 oz of green beans, 3 cans of black beans, 1 carton of eggs, 2 gallons of milk, 2 boxes of oatmeal, 2 chocolate bars, 1 pack of cookies, about 15 vegetable purees and a 6 pack of beer. No meat in there and none of that stuff is particularly fancy but it cost about $88.

    None of that stuff is for dinners or anything just snacky stuff. If I decided to try to live off that somehow it'd probably last me like 2-3 days for just me if that. It is hard to fathom a multiperson family living off $100-$150 a week in food. Pretty sure I spend more than that on just myself and I rarely eat at restaurants. Clearly don't know what I am doing.

    I guess to answer the OP's original question, I feel stuck spending more than everyone else...well I do now.

    i find safeway to be the more expensive of my local options (Giant, Safeway, Shoppers and Food Lion within a 5-10min drive; Aldi if i want to go about 15min) - but they tend to have a wider range of items (second maybe to Giant)

    Safeway is the cheapest in Seattle. Other options are QFC, Whole Foods and PCC in order of cost. The ones you listed dont exist here.

    Lower than Wal-mart or Aldi?
  • solieco1
    solieco1 Posts: 1,559 Member
    edited May 2018
    We spend a ton but also have 16 yo 6'5 twin boys LOL. Can you say BOTTOMLESS stomachs? We are also a gluten free house so that contributes to the $$ too. We keep Costco in business.
  • sunfastrose
    sunfastrose Posts: 543 Member
    I'm single and rarely eat out. I budget $250 per month for groceries, maybe $50 to 100 for eating out. I definitely am not careful with my spending. I've been challenging myself this month to clear my pantry, and have spent $15 so far this month on groceries.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,121 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Alright this thread is kind of humbling for me. I just went to the grocery store at Safeway (so not like it is Whole Foods). Got 1 cantelope, 1 bunch of banannas, 3 oz of green beans, 3 cans of black beans, 1 carton of eggs, 2 gallons of milk, 2 boxes of oatmeal, 2 chocolate bars, 1 pack of cookies, about 15 vegetable purees and a 6 pack of beer. No meat in there and none of that stuff is particularly fancy but it cost about $88.

    None of that stuff is for dinners or anything just snacky stuff. If I decided to try to live off that somehow it'd probably last me like 2-3 days for just me if that. It is hard to fathom a multiperson family living off $100-$150 a week in food. Pretty sure I spend more than that on just myself and I rarely eat at restaurants. Clearly don't know what I am doing.

    I guess to answer the OP's original question, I feel stuck spending more than everyone else...well I do now.

    i find safeway to be the more expensive of my local options (Giant, Safeway, Shoppers and Food Lion within a 5-10min drive; Aldi if i want to go about 15min) - but they tend to have a wider range of items (second maybe to Giant)

    Safeway is the cheapest in Seattle. Other options are QFC, Whole Foods and PCC in order of cost. The ones you listed dont exist here.

    Lower than Wal-mart or Aldi?

    Never even heard of Aldi and I am not aware of a Walmart close to me. I live four blocks from a Safeway, apparently the closest Walmart to me is 12 miles away.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    $600-700 per month for my bf and me including toilettries. I live in an expensive area (Southern California) and buy only free range or grass fed meat, pasture raised eggs, wild caught shrimp, and organic fruits and veggies on the dirty dozen list. I do buy some things in bulk which saves money. I'm not sure if this is a lot or not. I do use coupons when possible. I just calculated that what I spend is 8% of my take home pay. My mortgage is 45% of my income and the biggest expense. I dont eat out much, maybe twice a month.

    The grass fed beef I buy is $10/1 lb ground beef.

    $4/half gallon milk.

    $4/lb strawberries.

    $8/lb chicken.

    $5/package of 7 slices turkey bacon.

    $5/dozen eggs.

    $4/lb honeycrisp apples.

    To be intellectually honest though you are choosing to pay 2-4X the cost for free range, organics, etc.