While I like the graphic and I do think it makes a good point, I'm not necessarily convinced that better food isn't more expensive in the long run. Organics, for example, will tend to be more expensive surely.
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
Programs: AA EXP, BA Gold, A3 Gold, BMI Gold, DL Silver
Posts: 2,614
Buying a meal at a restaurant is significantly more expensive than making that same meal at home. And the McDonalds meal includes drinks while the others don't, throwing off the price comparison and the calorie comparison.
__________________
New York to London via Bangkok....Is there really any other way?
Last edited by justforfun; Jun 20, 12 at 12:40 pm..
But isn't that the whole point of this graphic? Isn't the myth that eating at McD's is cheaper than cooking healthy at home?
Then why is the title of your thread "The 'Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food' Myth" and not "The 'Eating At McD's Is Cheaper Than Cooking Healthy At Home' Myth"?
Then why is the title of your thread "The 'Only Rich People Can Afford Healthy Food' Myth" and not "The 'Eating At McD's Is Cheaper Than Cooking Healthy At Home' Myth"?
Because the second one is really stupid?
And also it's the quote from the blog I got this from.
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
You are the one who voiced the (alleged) myth. <Shrug>
I should have been more clear, my sincere apologies my good friend. I was suggesting that the McD's example was an instance of the myth, not the myth itself. Thank you very much for allowing me to clarify.
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
While I like the graphic and I do think it makes a good point, I'm not necessarily convinced that better food isn't more expensive in the long run. Organics, for example, will tend to be more expensive surely.
Even buying in season and not organic ... those fruits and veggies add up.
Time is also money ... and cooking on budget takes time. Time for menu planning based on whats on sale, time to shop, and time to cook.
If you eat off the dollar menu at McD's, you can get at least that much food for under $20. Not saying its nutritionally sound, but still...
Then there's the issue of not being able to buy $.55 worth of oil, or 4 slices of bread. Cooking is cheaper if you plan ahead and do it regularly ... and that goes back to the time issue. If you're working a couple jobs to make ends meet, it would be pretty easy to forget to put those beans out to soak the night before.
Also... no seasonings other than salt & pepper? And plain bread?
If you're working a couple jobs to make ends meet, it would be pretty easy to forget to put those beans out to soak the night before.
I agree, though don't you think folks often also use the time excuse when it's not really true? I know lots of folks, for example, who talk about not having enough time to do this and that but what they really mean is that when they get home at night they're tired so they conk out on the couch or whatever. I think often the time argument reduces to an argument about effort.
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
Not counting the costs of the time and convenience needed to transform the raw materials into something edible (and discounting the fact that some people simple do not know how to do it) is what singles your post as tendentious.
I don't know what you want to prove; it is definitely not that it would be cheaper to eat at home - for this to happen, someone has to cook. And this someone could, perhaps, think that he/she has better things to do with their time.
Not counting the costs of the time and convenience needed to transform the raw materials into something edible (and discounting the fact that some people simple do not know how to do it) is what singles your post as tendentious.
First of all this is an absurd assumption: raw food is often edible.
Second, what are the costs of time needed to cook beans and rice, for example? 20 minutes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NPF
I don't know what you want to prove; it is definitely not that it would be cheaper to eat at home - for this to happen, someone has to cook. And this someone could, perhaps, think that he/she has better things to do with their time.
I don't want to prove anything. I want to shed light on this prevalent myth, one you seem to have bought into. I think it's wrong. I think you're wrong. That's my point.
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
