Household goods affordability

Page 9 of 10  
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:41:47 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"

For two, they're probably not that far from reality. I prefer home cooked meals, though. Restaurants are nice but not every day!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


You are right about eating out in my area it is cheaper eating out then cook at home the only thing is when you eat at home you know what are you eating!!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, October 14, 2013 2:56:59 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:

Which universe is it that you're living in where it's cheaper to eat out than cook at home?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:24:31 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

It's probably not that far off. We can eat out for $20ish, plus tip. We spend a *lot* more than $100/wk at the grocery store and that doesn't include the monthly (six weeks?) trips to Sams to fill the freezer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/14/13 5:23 AM, dadiOH wrote:

The first paragraph of the article breaks the expense down to about 5.5% at home and about 4% away from home for 2009. I didn't see anything more at a quick glance.

Eating in town was a big deal especially for farm kids. I still remember a McDonalds in Lincoln, NE. It had the golden arches but no place to sit if I recall correctly. Small towns typically had bars/restaurants. Most of those would have a noon special. One could probably get a burger or pizza if the bartender was in a good mood in the evenings. I guess I did eat "in town" five days a week during the school year. That was mandatory.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WWII?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:22:47 -0500, Dean Hoffman

We currently spend around 13% of GPD on medical care and the projection is that it will rise to 25%. Do you really think that's sustainable? A quarter of ALL our productivity will go to medical care????? I know the below is hard to read but at the least it shows how much GOVERMENT money is spent on various categories. So when you look at the healthcare it presumably does NOT include private payments to health care costs. Does it really seem right that the two biggest expenses of the gvt are pensions and health care??? Is that the purpose of GVT ????

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/21/2013 03:59 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

The pension payout is MY money. My employer and I have been paying in 15% of my wages my entire career.
The health care problem is going to bankrupt the US. Over half the people are lazy and obese from eating sugar-loaded junk food. Most are moments away from a heart attack or stroke and Joe Taxpayer gets stuck with the nursing home tab.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/21/13 2:59 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote: nch of new toys and techniques they didn't have in the past.

No, it doesn't seem at all right to me. I vote for what ever small government candidate I can. I picture the Founding Fathers looking down on us and yelling "No, you idiots, that's not what we meant".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:44:19 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:

The conclusion is an obvious one. Even the "poor" have cars, multiple TVs, microwave ovens,...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 3:44:19 PM UTC-7, Neill Massello wrote:

Was it ever anything but?
HB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson

Big government? No, of course not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/13/13 5:44 PM, Neill Massello wrote:

A bit here about U.S. house sizes: http://tinyurl.com/ldc2ms2
House sizes roughly doubled since the 1950s despite family size decreasing. Houses have been getting a bit smaller lately. Maybe people are regaining their sanity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:57:53 -0500, Dean Hoffman

I see no evidence that they're getting smaller. There are a dozen or so going up in my neighborhood, all of which are in the 3000-4000ft^2 range. All five and six bedroom. The smallest in the neighborhood is about 2500ft^2 but none of the new ones are that small. No one is building small houses (<2000ft^2) around here.
Sanity? Is your left leg that much shorter than your right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:37:52 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

You have to measure them. Hard to see the changes on a daily basis, but if you measure them once a month you can see the shrinkage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does it have something to do with the expansion of the universe?
Seriously, it's hard to build a small house and make money. The $$/sf numbers just don't add up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/14/2013 1:59 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If wool shrinks when wet, why don't sheep shrink in the rain?
Six thick sheep, twixt six thick thumbs.
. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wonder where they are getting their inflation multiplier.
When I run $2.09 through http://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html I get $16.31
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm and http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ each give $16.80.
Both figures being a long way from American Enterprise Institute's $19.30.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:15:48 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:


But, to use that example... how long will the 2013 gas stove be usefully se rviceable relative to the 1958 gas stove? Gotta consider the whole life cy cle. I really would like to know if this is just a mistaken impression or able to be supported by statistics, but it seems that a lot of new products are made simply cheaper, not necessarily less expensively. I hope I'm wro ng.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, October 14, 2013 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, N8N wrote:


serviceable relative to the 1958 gas stove? Gotta consider the whole life cycle. I really would like to know if this is just a mistaken impression o r able to be supported by statistics, but it seems that a lot of new produc ts are made simply cheaper, not necessarily less expensively. I hope I'm w rong.

Valid points. I think you're right, that many things don't last as long as they used to. But it's even more complicated than just making them cheaper so they don't last. In the case of a stove, how long would most customers want a stove to last? The 1950 stove might have lasted 30 or 40 years. But today appliance styles, features, colors, etc change. So I don't think many people would want a stove to last that long, nor would they be willing to pay extra to have it last that long, especially on a lower end one that costs $400. Even if it lasts 10 years, it's just $40 a year and then you have a brand new looking new stove again. Even if the super stove lasted 30 years, it's gonna look like hell by then.
On the other hand, it seems a common complaint here that furnaces for example, HVAC stuff instead of lasting 25 to 30 years, only lasts 15 now. But maybe that isn't entirely bad either. If you shelled out extra money in 1985 for an HVAC that would last 30 years was that such a good thing? That furnace was less than 80% efficient and now you have furnaces that are 95%, two stage, etc. AC was less than 10 SEER, now you have 14. So, it's really a more complex problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.