Not really. Where I live, big box supermarkeds are often more expensive, at least for non store-brand items. Also I buy less when shopping using my bike or walking. When I drive, it's so easy to just throw in a fridge pack I don't need etc.
Absolutely. When I do my grocery shopping, I occasionally think about how I could get a better deal on something at Costco, but I either don’t have the space or wouldn’t eat it fast enough.
The “they’re paying more per-unit because they’re buying smaller packages” crowd seems to realize this, but they think that the size packages they buy are the correct size, and anybody buying something smaller is being exploited.
The size of packaging and the quantities that people normally buy in are based on the idea that Americans take their car to the grocery store once a week and fill their trunk space with groceries.
Yes. My grocery store often has sales where you have to buy 5 of a large and/or heavy product to get the discount. As a pedestrian I have to either forego the savings or have an awkward trip home.
I don't think it's a genuine comparison to compare 8 * small item to 1 * big item. Even in the same bigger supermarket, there's always going to be a substantial saving when buying a gallon of milk vs 8 individual cartons.
For food & veg, people are much better off buying smaller portions when they need them - even if that means paying a premium over what they would have paid if bulk buying.
The article is not about folk tales of "living within your means". It is about paying more for the same thing because of various factors like whether you can afford to transport yourself to a better store, whether you have the space to transport and store bulk goods, or the working funds to afford bulk purchases, and whether your dwelling even has a kitchen or refrigerator.
The argument about buying “small amounts at higher prices” is really interesting to me.
I recently downsized places for a much more walkable environment. Keeping less stuff in my house is a feature. One I was worried was going to cost me.
But my budget has largely not changed. Any increase in costs associated with bulk buying are at least offset by lowered transport costs. It’s really hard to exactly account though.
My instinct is that it is much more efficient for stores to warehouse things & me do JIT buying. I’d love to see research on it.
Yup, and often those tempting bulk discounts, if calculated, only end up saving a few cents or a dollar or something, so the trade off becomes -- Do you want to be payed 50 cents to store extra supplies at your house? Sometimes that's a good trade-off, but often it isn't.
Bulk-buying mentality is so prevalent in the US, it can sometimes be hard to avoid, and I think US urban planning has a lot to do with it as well - e.g. in many cities I've lived in the US, it would take longer to walk to my car than to walk to a grocery store when I was living outside the US, so you get trained to focus on economizing trips.
Except, for many things buying less frequently results in less packaging, fewer trips to the store, more economical purchases, etc. Lots of upsides to buy once, store for a while.
In the case of Coke, I think the cost of packaging is bigger than the cost of the product, but either way its almost irrelevant to the price - they charge what people are willing to pay. I wouldn't buy a big bottle from a convenience store, a small bottle is more convenient for walking around with. I wouldn't buy a small bottle from a supermarket, I want a big bottle to put in the fridge at home.
Pro tip for other readers: often enough, the smaller box that usually has a higher cost/oz will be on sale making it a better deal than a larger/bulk size which isn’t. Reasons for not making both on sale unclear, but I see it all the time.
What I hate is when I'm shopping on Amazon and it's one for $5, or get a pack of fifty for $7. There's no way I'm ever going to buy the one at such a price disparity, so I end up with a house full of 48 unused items.
> Assuming the "economy" pack is the only offer you visit a distinct store for and the good is perishable (so that stockpiling doesn't work), then it might be cheaper if you factor in the time you need to reach said store, shop there and get back home into the "cost".
I'm actually referring to same-store, same-time prices when neither the economy nor the smaller pack is specially discounted, so the travel, etc., cost is the same.
Stockpiling/perishability doesn't seem relevant in any way that favors economy packs -- an economy pack is either a larger single sealed pack (in which case, with most perishable goods -- which go bad faster once opened -- is strictly more problematic than stockpiling smaller packages with the same aggregate contents) or is itself an aggregate of smaller packages (in which case, its equivalent to stockpiling smaller packages.)
The only place I can see the convenience issue you raise being a factor is if one store only sells the economy pack and another store sells the smaller pack, and there is a convenience difference between the two stores. Then, there is a premium for the convenience of the store. But that kind of different-store scenario is not what I'm referring to.
Not really. I use dollar stores for junk stuff. I'll finish a bag of Oreos in a day, regardless of how much stuff is in it. If it's cheaper and smaller proportionally, whatever.
reply