Most active commenters
  • jghn(3)
  • bdangubic(3)
  • Retric(3)

←back to thread

Eggs US – Price – Chart

(tradingeconomics.com)
643 points throwaway5752 | 14 comments | | HN request time: 1.351s | source | bottom
Show context
mplanchard ◴[] No.42951168[source]
Fresh, local eggs have remained around the same price here. While more expensive than eggs from large producers in normal times, they are now often cheaper.

This is a great reminder of how important it is to support local farmers and small operations, which increase the resilience of the system as a whole.

replies(25): >>42951224 #>>42951379 #>>42951444 #>>42951492 #>>42951499 #>>42951509 #>>42951632 #>>42951842 #>>42951886 #>>42952197 #>>42952363 #>>42952639 #>>42953110 #>>42953883 #>>42953970 #>>42954145 #>>42955219 #>>42955874 #>>42957470 #>>42958089 #>>42958132 #>>42958719 #>>42960897 #>>42960909 #>>43015565 #
afavour ◴[] No.42951379[source]
This is also a great defense against something like bird flu. When you centralize operations a disease can spread through a population like wildfire. When it's a number of smaller, separate operations the impact is lessened.
replies(9): >>42951470 #>>42951763 #>>42951847 #>>42952199 #>>42952775 #>>42953744 #>>42954304 #>>42954345 #>>42963417 #
SketchySeaBeast ◴[] No.42951470[source]
Really raises the question - should vital infrastructure, like food production, be built in an attempt to maximize profit or resiliency? Have things swung too far in one direction?
replies(10): >>42951584 #>>42951669 #>>42951797 #>>42951902 #>>42952590 #>>42952826 #>>42953132 #>>42953486 #>>42954606 #>>42955496 #
afavour ◴[] No.42951669[source]
To my mind there's no question that it's swung too far. But it's very easy for me to live in the country and say "oh I get all my fresh produce from the local farm!" when there are cities of millions of people that need feeding too. Scaling while retaining resiliency is not easy.
replies(1): >>42952092 #
jghn ◴[] No.42952092[source]
I live in a city and buy most of my fresh produce, meat, and dairy from local farms.
replies(2): >>42952161 #>>42960952 #
1. phil21 ◴[] No.42952161[source]
Which is not scalable for the entire big city. My parents are organic market gardeners, and there is simply no way that model could scale up enough to feed that many people cheaply.

Food budgets would have to go back to the 1940's or earlier - where they were a significant fraction of take home pay. Now they are almost a rounding error comparatively.

I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing. A lot of the asset price inflation like homes can be tracked to food and consumer goods taking an increasingly lesser portion of the family budget. Re-balancing this seems wise to me.

replies(3): >>42952218 #>>42956642 #>>42956676 #
2. jghn ◴[] No.42952218[source]
You put your finger on what I think is the real issue: whether or not access to cheap food is a net benefit or not. I also won't claim to have the perfect answer but do feel we've gone at least a bit too far in one direction.
replies(1): >>42952801 #
3. cj ◴[] No.42952801[source]
I think we've only "gone too far" in the sense that cheap food also means unhealthy food, generally.

Access to cheap food would be wonderful if it were healthy! Unfortunately the cheapest food is typically the worst food for your health.

replies(1): >>42953605 #
4. jghn ◴[] No.42953605{3}[source]
Yes, and I think it goes beyond "healthy", depending on one's definition.

Part of it is also that "cheap" tends to lead to monocultures and other patterns that are more easily disrupted.

An example being the Cavendish banana, which for most of the western world is the only thing they know of when the word "banana" is mentioned. And now the banana supply of a large part of the world is in danger of going extinct [1]

And there's also ecological health. "Cheap" tends to promote mass production in certain areas and shipping everywhere. "Cheap" tends to promote less sustainable farming practices. That sort of thing.

[1] https://www.foodandwine.com/banana-extinction-8715118

5. mrguyorama ◴[] No.42956642[source]
>Food budgets would have to go back to the 1940's or earlier - where they were a significant fraction of take home pay. Now they are almost a rounding error comparatively.

You are demonstrating your privilege. I am pretty frugal and my INDIVIDUAL food cost is like $100 a week, or 10% of my take home pay, and while I make peanuts compared to most in tech, I make more than the average adult.

USDA stats say the average numbers are closer to $500 a month and 11% of gross salary, and also:

>households in the lowest income quintile spent an average of $5,278 on food (representing 32.6 percent of after-tax income).

6. bdangubic ◴[] No.42956676[source]
Now they are almost a rounding error comparatively.

ballparking I’d need about low 7-figure after tax pay for my food budget to qualify as a rounding error…

replies(1): >>42956882 #
7. Retric ◴[] No.42956882[source]
Almost a round error comparatively doesn’t mean it’s 0.01%.

People used to spend ~30% of their income on mass produced basic staple foods with very little meat they cooked at home. You can live like that on like 1$/day. Median household income is over 80k today so we are talking more than an older of magnitude price reduction.

Get regular meal delivery etc and sure you can spend crazy money but it’s not really spending that money on food itself.

replies(1): >>42957213 #
8. bdangubic ◴[] No.42957213{3}[source]
family of 3, never ordered delivery in my life outside of pizza once in a blue moon and eating out no more than twice per month - food bill $1,900-ish / month
replies(3): >>42957369 #>>42960048 #>>42964314 #
9. Retric ◴[] No.42957369{4}[source]
That’s over 20$/day per person. All 3 of you could literally eat exclusively fast food in most of the US on that budget.

You’re not just paying for food here. One possibility is you’re talking things you buy at the grocery store here, but laundry detergent is’t food.

So what’s the actual deal here.

replies(1): >>42957554 #
10. bdangubic ◴[] No.42957554{5}[source]
eating healthy… eggs are $14/dozen and all that “inflation” jazz
replies(2): >>42957587 #>>42968827 #
11. Retric ◴[] No.42957587{6}[source]
The article is literally about eggs being 7$/dozen, which is an egg specific price spike.

Even assuming you’re spending twice as much on eggs it just doesn’t add up to over 20$/day. Flour is 0.50$/lb, lettuce is 3$/lb, butter is 5$/lb, etc. Even a 3,000 calories per day you’re well under that.

12. latency-guy2 ◴[] No.42960048{4}[source]
I have a similar build, basically all adults and I am the only one who pays for food. My monthly bill is about 30 - 60% your bill. Mostly sits in the 30 - 40% range.

I don't dine out, I don't drink, and I have some lifestyle + allergy restrictions for some things, but I tend to believe those restrictions actually make it more expensive than not.

I am also not in a VHCOL, but still quite high since I'm quite close to a major hub in an expensive suburb.

That number is insane to me. I would have to go high end on every single meal to get to the same number. I don't think I debate quality all that much either. I don't feel I cheap out either generally. Food is a fair bit less than 5% of what I make annually too.

13. rcpt ◴[] No.42964314{4}[source]
You should buy an Instant Pot and learn how to make beans.
14. kennysoona ◴[] No.42968827{6}[source]
I think the problem is more you are eating luxuriously than eating healthy.