Poll: $344/month, semi-urban area for groceries for 2 adults

[WNB]

Would this require any sort of frugality, you think?

ETA: This was my MIL's budget, in 2007 dollars, when she and FIL were just starting out, living on their own. She gave the 1958 value, and went on about how that was when she and FIL had to learn how to eat kidneys. (Not sure if she's talking about organ meat, or kidney beans, honestly.) I was curious, so I inflation adjusted it to try to get a sense for how much her budget would be in today's dollars. Anyway... I must simply conclude that her idea of scraping by and mine are radically, diametrically, completely different.

(I also remember that when I was just starting out living on my own that I wasted a lot of food, though, so $344 a month for someone who doesn't know how to cook is probably not as much as the same money in more experienced hands.)

[mamadelbosque]

I don't think that sounds too bad, honestly. We spend around $500-600 on grocerys a month, but thats for 3 adults and a baby, eating mostly organic. If I really tried I could probably get that down to $400-ish, so $344 doesn't sound all that hard for two, IMO

[HydeParkB]

Although the prices of food have gone up recently, I think that - adjusted for inflation - food prices are probably lower than in the 1950s. I'm sure there's a good source somewhere on line, but I'm too lazy right now to go looking for it. I don't know if the Consumer Price Index would be the place to look.

[shanetedissac]

Our usual food budget is $300 for 2 adults and 3 children. When we have extra wiggle room in the budget we have $480. We went over a year on the $300 a month.

Be well,

[katheek77]

Interesting article here about food costs in 1957 in relation to the rest of the budget. It refers to Britain, but, still, the basics apply. What really makes sense is the following:

"Food is in general much more highly processed, mass-produced and cheaper than it was in 1957. There is also some competition and economies of scale that have emerged with supermarkets, whereas in the 1950s most produce would have been purchased from small local shops."

Similar article here: Food was 33% of the avg. family's budget then.

[Ornery]

We feed a family of five (one of whom is a 12 yo growing boy!) on a budget of between $250 and $300 a month. We stick strickly to the budget as long as I am cooking everything from scratch.

[mamamilkers]

I think it would

Unless they don't care at all about buying organic, don't buy much pre-packaged stuff and do lots of cooking from scratch normally.

[savithny]

Originally Posted by WNB

Would this require any sort of frugality, you think?

ETA: This was my MIL's budget, in 2007 dollars, when she and FIL were just starting out, living on their own. She gave the 1958 value, and went on about how that was when she and FIL had to learn how to eat kidneys. (Not sure if she's talking about organ meat, or kidney beans, honestly.) I was curious, so I inflation adjusted it to try to get a sense for how much her budget would be in today's dollars. Anyway... I must simply conclude that her idea of scraping by and mine are radically, diametrically, completely different.

No, you shouldn't conclude that. Food was much more expensive then, in *constant dollars* Storage and shipment were much bigger issues, frozen food was only then coming into its own, and the kind of food we take for granted today, like fresh vegetables all wnter, fruit bred for long storage, meat brought from overseas -- all wasn't done.

Food is cheaper for much the same reason that shoes are cheaper and toys are cheaper. The STar Wars toy I bought my child yesterday cost the same amount *in actual dollars* as a similar one I recieved in 1978 -- thirty years ago. In constant dollars, it probably cost 1/3 as much.

[WNB]

Well... yes and no.

I see how food prices moving independently of the average inflation rate over the period could distort the picture. But the inflation calculator I used was based on the CPI, so food prices were a major part of the determination of the change.

Anyway, I'm taking away her memory of the excitement and challenge she faced when she and FIL were first married and living on their own, and the sense of responsibility she felt for making sure that they stuck to budget and ate good food. I think her childhood was very different than mine with respect to the amount of autonomy given her by her parents. That first summer would have been the furthest away from her parents she'd ever lived (college was about an hour by train, if that, so very easy to go home), it was most likely the first time she'd ever been sexually intimate with someone -- truly, a huge transition to process. The food budget was probably the least of her challenges.

Thanks for the perspective

[Sharlla]

We spend $250 for a family of , I think having $344 for 2 would kick ass because we would be eating like kings.

[Hippie Mama in MI]

I spend about $150 a month on groceries right now, but last winter when we were REALLY poor, I had only $100 per month. Sometimes I had to do with $80. For myself, hubby and ds. And no, in case you're wondering, we do not get food stamps or any other assistance.

So yes, you can easily get by on the $344. I found that meat ate up a lot of my food budget (haha, sorry about the pun there). Meat can be tremendously expensive. I switched to mostly vegetarian meals, made mostly from scratch, with meat and processed foods as an occasional treat.

I buy a LOT of dry beans, so I'd guess that when your mom referred to "kidneys" she meant kidney beans. How else can you give your family high protein, low fat, low salt, for 25 cents a day? Dry beans, baby! Learn to love them!

I also love frozen vegetables, which are much cheaper than fresh and last longer once you get them home. I've probably tossed out a thousand dollars worth of expensive, ROTTEN fresh produce because I never had time to chop it up. Fresh IS awesome when you can afford it, but sometimes you just can't.

I also watch for grocery sales, plan my meals carefully to avoid overspending, and stick to my plan once I've bought the groceries home to avoid waste.

Hope this helps.

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by Sharlla

I think having $344 for 2 would kick ass because we would be eating like kings.

:

we spend about $600-$700 a month for all consumables (and that is about to be cut because I am quitting my job . . . but I will also have a lot more time to cook and we will waste a lot less and be tempted a lot less.) and that is for 5 people and the 5 year old is little but she eats like a trucker . . no kidding. when there was just two of us we probably got by on $125 a month and we ate a lot of expensive crap food.

[Sandrine]

When i got married in 2000, i used to buy about 350$ per mth for dh and I. After a few yrs and after 2 kids, we had the same budget of 350$. We used to buy more prepackage food at that time then with 2 young kids. We updated out budget when dd3 was born 19mths ago to 400$(not counting non-food items)

[polyhymnia]

Originally Posted by WNB

Would this require any sort of frugality, you think?

ETA: This was my MIL's budget, in 2007 dollars, when she and FIL were just starting out, living on their own. She gave the 1958 value, and went on about how that was when she and FIL had to learn how to eat kidneys. (Not sure if she's talking about organ meat, or kidney beans, honestly.) I was curious, so I inflation adjusted it to try to get a sense for how much her budget would be in today's dollars. Anyway... I must simply conclude that her idea of scraping by and mine are radically, diametrically, completely different.

(I also remember that when I was just starting out living on my own that I wasted a lot of food, though, so $344 a month for someone who doesn't know how to cook is probably not as much as the same money in more experienced hands.)

I spend about $80-90/week to feed DP & I breakfast, lunch, dinner. We entertain 2-4 people occasionally (maybe 1x/quarter) and eat out maybe 2x/month. We do not make a point to buy organics but we do have meat, fresh produce, and higher quality foods when applicable. This also includes good beer & wine (maybe a beer a day and 2-3 bottles of wine a month), and we live in a reasonably high-cost area. So, I think it is reasonable. I do struggle with wasting food just buying for two, but it helps that we bring our lunches to work.

mta: I do think though that in general I have inherited frugal practices from my mom so maybe this is not typical for most people. I buy in bulk and freeze, or pick up meat/bread when it is 50% off on its sell by date. I do prepare a lot of things from scratch. We don't have meat for every meal, and i keep a well stocked pantry. I try to use the same ingredients in several meals in a given week. I don't however use coupons or spend time looking at store flyers to plan my weekly menu, nor do I go out of my way to buy things on sale.

[savithny]

Originally Posted by Hippie Mama in MI

I buy a LOT of dry beans, so I'd guess that when your mom referred to "kidneys" she meant kidney beans. How else can you give your family high protein, low fat, low salt, for 25 cents a day? Dry beans, baby! Learn to love them!
.

Actually, for 1955, I'd be about 95% sure she was referring to organ meats. In the 50s, people didn't tend to refer to their beans by name so much, and the preference for meat with every meal would have meant kidneys were preferably to beans any day.

My FIL talks about all the tongue and kidney he ate while living in a co-op at university with a very limited food budget.... he said he drew the line at brains, which a number of his housemates kept pressing the food buyer to consider.

[savithny]

Okay, some sources:

First, a cool site where you can look up what things cost in Bergen County, NJ for selected years covering the last century. These are *actual* prices:
http://www.gti.net/mocolib1//prices/1952.html

Those prices for meat look cheap, but remember that the average income was $2970 that year (1952).

Table 3 here is interesting.
http://osuextra.okstate.edu/pdfs/F-511web.pdf
While food prices (as a percentage of income) 1966-87 only went down 2.9%, the cost of meat dropped 15% and poultry dropped 32%. Eggs dropped 51% and dairy dropped 20%. Much of the offset (that makes it look like prices didn't drop so much) comes from things like beer and soda.

The cattle industry says that beef cost 26% less in 2005 than it did in 1950 (http://www.cattletoday.com/archive/2005/May/CT397.shtml), measured in constant dollars. And chicken prices fell 67% between 1955 and 1987 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...v12/ai_7678605).

To really figure out what the equivalent food budget of today would be, you'd either have to convert modern foods to 1950s prices, or proportion out her shopping list and decrease it by the correct amounts.

It's easy to idealize the diets and food of the past in many ways, but they spent a lot more on food and a lot less on things we've come to think of as necessities, simply because food cost so much more.

[WNB]

Originally Posted by savithny

Actually, for 1955, I'd be about 95% sure she was referring to organ meats. In the 50s, people didn't tend to refer to their beans by name so much, and the preference for meat with every meal would have meant kidneys were preferably to beans any day.

My FIL talks about all the tongue and kidney he ate while living in a co-op at university with a very limited food budget.... he said he drew the line at brains, which a number of his housemates kept pressing the food buyer to consider.

yes, I think you're right too, just because beef tongue was a holiday meal when DH was growing up, and I know MIL actually likes liver (or claims to, anyway).

Cool information from your post below -- thank you for taking the time to look it up and share.

[jamiew]

Originally Posted by Hippie Mama in MI

I buy a LOT of dry beans, so I'd guess that when your mom referred to "kidneys" she meant kidney beans. How else can you give your family high protein, low fat, low salt, for 25 cents a day? Dry beans, baby! Learn to love them!

I wish I could get into using dry beans. We're veggie, but I have so little time to prepare dinners that a can of beans is ready in 10 minutes and just the right amount for 2 people.

I've tried using dried beans before, and it always took forever to make dinner, because I'd forget to soak the beans the night before...Here's my husband waiting for dinner : "How much longer???"