posted:

Spending on Food Reaches A New Historical Low; And It's Nothing At All Like The Great Depression
[mjperry.blogspot.com]



The chart above is based on data from the USDA showing "Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income," from 1929 to 2008 (total spending for both "food at home" and "food away from home" ).

In the entire history of the U.S., it's only been in the last eight years that the percent of income spent on food for Americans was in single digits - since 2000 it's been below 10%. In all previous years, spending on food was in double-digits, and in most years from 1929 to 1952 it was above 20%. Consider that in 1932, spending on food at home took almost 22% of disposable income, compared to the record low of only 5.6% in 2008. Food has never been more affordable than today, as a share of income.

In 2008, despite the "Great Recession," total spending on food as a share of disposable personal income fell to 9.6%, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in U.S. history. And since spending on food as a share of income is lower in the U.S. than in any other country, the 9.6% share of income spent on food in the U.S. for 2008 is probably the lowest ever in the history of the world.

This amazing trend in lower food prices as a percent of income reflects first of all the relentless and significant improvements in the production and distribution of food over time, and doesn't even take into account the significant improvements in the quantity and quality of most food products available for today's Americans compared to previous generations (whole, 2% 1%, 1/2%, and skim milk are available for today's consumers vs. whole milk only in the past as just one example).

And second of all, Americans are more than 7.7 times wealthier today compared to 1933 based on per-capita real GDP in constant 2004 dollars ($5,653 in 1933 vs. $43,716 in 2008), see chart below. With higher real incomes and lower food prices, it's not surprising that spending on food as a share of income is at an all-time low. And it also makes the comparisons of today's economic conditions and our current standard of living to the conditions during the Great Depression pretty silly, doesn't it?

pragmatica posted:

Yeah, being on an island wouldn't help. Also, I agree the prices are higher here in Canada and I think it's because our market is much smaller and a lot of the US competition doesn't exist here. In any case, I don't doubt our costs have gone down too in Canada - perhaps just not to the same degree.

Everything is cheaper in the USA, whether it's electronics, food, or clothing (and yes, I'm correcting for the currency difference).

When I was in Arizona recently, I bought some clothes new for less than I pay for used clothing up here. Our telecom providers also charge twice what US telecom providers charge, in part due to their near-monopolies/lack of competition. Also, the meat deals in the US were much better. I bought a huge wild-caught salmon for $10 which would go for $45 up here.

jayetheartist posted:

While it is more expensive to buy healthy foods than junk foods, Americans would spend even less if they'd stop consuming such huge quantities of everything. Eating 1500-2000 calories a day of junk food certainly isn't as good as eating healthy foods, but it's better than eating 3000-4000 calories of junk food a day.

pragmatica posted:

jayetheartist posted:

While it is more expensive to buy healthy foods than junk foods, Americans would spend even less if they'd stop consuming such huge quantities of everything. Eating 1500-2000 calories a day of junk food certainly isn't as good as eating healthy foods, but it's better than eating 3000-4000 calories of junk food a day.

Yes indeed. I find one of the main problems with the food and restaurant industry is the default serving sizes are way too huge considering the calorie content.

It's worse in the USA, but even up here most restaurants serve more than an appropriate size of serving. People can easily and unknowingly get an entire day's worth of (mostly empty) calories in one fast food or restaurant meal.

I've seen some progress in the area of serving sizes in junk food. Sugary regular chocolate is now being replaced with more nutritious dark chocolate containing fibre, antioxidants, and iron, and correctly sized servings are being offered in ice cream fingers or chocolate bars - but the vast majority out there is still too big. One ice cream finger bar might contain 150 calories while a regular sized square one contains 450. It makes a huge difference for those who consume these things regularly.

One serving of meat is the size of a deck of cards. People shouldn't be getting served huge slabs of meat that provide two days worth of meat servings and fat unless they specifically ask for it.

Setting the default serving size to small would help a lot as then the onus in on the consumer to actively ask for more or to come back for more.