Corporate America - Can it be stopped?

[fresco]

If preparing dinner just involved clicking a channel changer and parking oneself on the sofa, a lot more people would do so.

[tommy]

If preparing dinner just involved clicking a channel changer and parking oneself on the sofa, a lot more people would do so.

perhaps not. some just aren't interested in cooking. just as i'm not interested in watching football.

[fresco]

If preparing dinner just involved clicking a channel changer and parking oneself on the sofa, a lot more people would do so.

perhaps not. some just aren't interested in cooking. just as i'm not interested in watching football.

True. But it's also easy to underestimate just how much time and effort is involved in putting dinner on the table--time and effort that has to, in many cases, be squeezed out of a day in which people also have to get themselves to work, their kids to school or day care, and attend to a bunch of other tasks.

[Busboy]

Interspersed with chasing the kids about their homework, doing a little housecleaning, taking the occasional phone call and other evening domestic tasks, I'd say it's pretty easy to spend an hour and a half cooking a good meal from scratch. Maybe an hour if you power through the whole thing, maybe more, non-consecutively, if you add in a half-hour earlier in the day to spatchcock and marinate a chicken or do some other long-term prep. This is not insignificant, but we usually enjoy it.

For what it's worth, we watch the news during dinner prep and a common ultimate goal is to get the dinner on the table just as Seinfeld ends. No TV during dinner (except the weekly "anarchy dinner").

[fresco]

One of the problems, I suspect, is that there is a significant number of single parent families these days. Trying to do by yourself all of the things that two people usually do, including grocery shop, cook and clean up, is pretty daunting.

[tommy]

Interspersed with chasing the kids about their homework, doing a little housecleaning, taking the occasional phone call and other evening domestic tasks, I'd say it's pretty easy to spend an hour and a half cooking a good meal from scratch.

i missed the part about the full-time job in there.

[Mayhaw Man]

I think the food quality decline and the ritual importance of dining are two different, if related, issues.

I grew up in a traditional family in the 60s and 70s with a family dining ritual that I have done my best to pass along to my own children. That being said, family dinners often (I didn't say "always," mom) consisted of tasteless, over-processed convenience food. I never at a fresh green bean before I left home, fish sticks were an important part of my diet.

Let's take it back a generation. My husband and I both grew up in the 40's/50's. And we all gathered around the dinner table every night to eat lots of tasteless overcooked food - main course was almost always beef - accompanied by mushy vegetables (to this day - my mother still refuses to eat fish - the white meat on her chicken is as dry as the Sahara - and she makes eggs you could play ball with).

I am sorry for those of you that seem to equate food at home with tasteless glop. It was not the case in my hme when I was a kid or very many of the kids I knew. I am pretty sure that we all ate fairly weel, some better than others, but no tv dinners (I never ate one until I was 20 and in college).

I was born in 1961. I grew up in comfortable curcumstances with a mother in the house who cooked, pretty much three meals a day, for the 25 years that she had children in the house. The food she prepared was the polar opposite of tasteless. These meals consisted of interesting food that was not always what many of you think of as "Southern Food". Lot's of seafood, fish (freshwater mostly, caught locally, or redfish and speckeled trout). She i s now in her seventies and can still rattle the pots and pans with the best of them.

Was the quality of the ingredients better than it is now? Doubt it. And certainly there is much more availability and diversity now (even the worst grocery store in my neighborhood has maybe 10 kinds of lettuce - whereas 50 years ago - maybe if you were lucky you might find some romaine alongside the iceberg). "Expensive" foods are also more available - and cheaper in inflation adjusted currencies. Someone said a while back in this thread that there was nothing better than the fresh chickens his grandmother used to get. Many of you are probably too young to remember the phrase - "a chicken in every pot". Perhaps that chicken was fresher than what we have now - but it certainly wasn't everyday eating like the whole rotisserie chicken I can pick up at any grocery store for $4-5.

The average supermarket today is light years away from 25 years ago and in another universe from 50 years ago. In 1975 when you looked in the produce section at the grocery store you might have seen something on the shelf other than iceberg and possibly romaine, but I doubt it. There would have only been a few selections of bread (white, more white, and some kind of french loaf in an aluminum bag with garlic goop all over it). We are much better off today. But I do differ with you, Robyn, on one thing here-yard chickens are an amazing taste treat. Real chickens fed real grain and allowed to grow and develop naturally just beat the hell out of industrial chickens. I do miss them and it is not nostalgia, I still get one occasionally when I go visit relatives and they are night and day better than their caged neighbors.

I am not a Walmart shopper (except for birdseed - they sell high quality birdseed for about half of what it sells for elsewhere). But I do shop at Costco for a fair number of items. Mostly items I use in bulk - like bottled water. Some of the biggest selling items at places like Walmart and Costco are bulk paper products - paper towels - toilet paper - diapers. Perhaps those of you who are single have never needed 100 disposable diapers - but there are lot of people who do. And while the quality of fresh produce may not be the best (don't know about Walmart -but Costco quality is usually pretty good) - what's the problem with saving 50% on stuff that's in can and jars? If I were feeding a family of 5 on a limited budget - I'd buy the huge jar of Hellman's mayo at Costco (instead of waiting for the 2 for 1 on the smaller jar at Publix

Absolutely correct. If you are not shopping for bargains you are wasting money. While everything at Wal Mart and others like them may not be top notch, their diapers, canned goods, etc are just like everybody elses and a whole lot less expensive (generally) than the average Winn Dixie.

Seems to me the focus ought to be more on how to use the raw material that's available to us. How to cook decent meals.

This,in fact, is the crux of this whole discussion. How to get the average person out of the fast food lane and into the checkout lane at the supermarket. The next step is to teach these people that there is more out there than canned peas and carrots, but that is reaching. The real issue is that we have a country that is turning into a country of fat people because they either don't know enough, or care enough, to cook healthy meals at home. Clearly education is probably part of the answer, although I don't know what kind-perhaps if public service ads would work to teach people how much money they could save by not eating garbage (both on food costs and health care) that might help.

This argument seems to continually be digressing into Wal Mart and big discount chains when in fact the big corporations that need to change the way that they do business are fast food chains and McAppleback's.

[Fat Guy]

The average American watches over 4 hours of t.v a day. 

can you point us to the source of this?

The Nielsen Media site is loaded with every imaginable statistic on TV viewing. Probably the most reliable number is total average TV hours per household per week, which is currently 53.15 ( http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ethnicmeasure/...HH_viewing.html ). I believe that does not include time spent playing video games, watching DVDs/videos, or Internet usage.

[bleachboy]

This argument seems to continually be digressing into Wal Mart and big discount chains when in fact the big corporations that need to change the way that they do business are fast food chains and McAppleback's.

When about 8 million of us petition McAppleback's (a phrase I like enough I'm going to try to incorporate it into my daily life) to serve better food, they'll change their tune.

They serve the swill they serve because Americans have voted for that type of swill in spades, with their dollars.

I am willing to bet that when introducing new products these type of places do tons of market research, and someone's telling them that what the American public wants is junk.

So how do we convince the American public that they don't want junk?

[Busboy]

Interspersed with chasing the kids about their homework, doing a little housecleaning, taking the occasional phone call and other evening domestic tasks, I'd say it's pretty easy to spend an hour and a half cooking a good meal from scratch.

i missed the part about the full-time job in there.

That's there, too. Got home about 6:30 and got dinner on the table about 8. My wife also works full-time.

I enjoy the cooking, but I can see how someone else might rather just make a martini and pick up the phone.

[tommy]

The Nielsen Media site is loaded with every imaginable statistic on TV viewing. Probably the most reliable number is total average TV hours per household per week, which is currently 53.15 ( http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ethnicmeasure/...HH_viewing.html ). I believe that does not include time spent playing video games, watching DVDs/videos, or Internet usage.

ah yes. nielsen.

[Busboy]

I think the food quality decline and the ritual importance of dining are two different, if related, issues.

I grew up in a traditional family in the 60s and 70s with a family dining ritual that I have done my best to pass along to my own children. That being said, family dinners often (I didn't say "always," mom) consisted of tasteless, over-processed convenience food. I never at a fresh green bean before I left home, fish sticks were an important part of my diet.

Let's take it back a generation. My husband and I both grew up in the 40's/50's. And we all gathered around the dinner table every night to eat lots of tasteless overcooked food - main course was almost always beef - accompanied by mushy vegetables (to this day - my mother still refuses to eat fish - the white meat on her chicken is as dry as the Sahara - and she makes eggs you could play ball with).

I am sorry for those of you that seem to equate food at home with tasteless glop. It was not the case in my hme when I was a kid or very many of the kids I knew. I am pretty sure that we all ate fairly weel, some better than others, but no tv dinners (I never ate one until I was 20 and in college).

The point I was trying to make, was that food quality is a separate issue from the quality of the family dining experience. That observations about Wal-Mart should be separate from observations on the breakdown of the American Dining Tradition.

Home cooking wasn't tasteless glop, but it was, often, the kind of convenience foods identified in this thread with coporate food production -- frozen vegetables and Chun King Chinese food when we were feeling exotic. Nonetheless, the family dinners were a great part of my childhood.

And mom, being southern, could fry a chicken up and put out a mean batch of corn bread when she was in the mood, too.

[sammy]

What I am most fearful of with respect to the corporate behemoth's is that it may lead to a lack of choice in the future. If so many are going to be doing their food shopping at Super Walmart, what chance does the small retailer have.

I'll use a local independently owned seafood store as an example. The local store stocks a wide variety of seafood and I never know what I may find the day I go in. Of course they always have the usuals of tuna, farm raised salmon, a few varieties of shrimp, etc. For me, the value of the store is the personal service I receive and the wide variety of fish available. The risk the store runs in stocking such a wide variety of fish is spoilage. Shrimp, no problem. Most of it is frozen and they simply defrost an amount that they'll sell in a day. They'll also use the profits on a commodity product like shrimp to support possible losers like fresh whole black bass. They'll do the same with farm raised salmon. The problem is what happens when Costco or Super Stop and Shop sell commodity products like shrimp and salmon for $2 less per pound than the independent fish store? If the independent store loses customers and revenue on the commodities, they will not be able to afford to continue to stock the wide variety of fish.

I've made the decision to buy all of my fish from the independent store, even when it is more expensive than Costco on products where there is no appreciable difference in quality because I want to support them and the variety they offer. Clearly, not everyone feels the same way. Costco is selling a lot of salmon at $4.99 per lb while offering very little variety, at least in the store closest to me.

Getting off of food but another example: 5 years ago, there used to be 5 video stores within 2 miles of where I live. There was one store in particular that stocked many independent films to go along with the "Hot New Releases." The owner of the store was undoubtedly able to stock the wide varieties of videos (the independent movies typically are more expensive to purchase than hollywood blockbusters) by renting as many of the mainstreeam movies as possible. Plus, the owner of the store was a real film buff and was able to make wonderful recommendations. Then, Blockbuster came to town and started charging $.50 less than the independent store. I continued to rent from the independent store, even when renting a mainstream movie because I was concerned that Blockbuster would put him out of business and my choices would be limited. Too many others ran to Blockbuster to save the $.50, and sure enough the independent store, as well as 3 of the other independent stores closed up.

Blockbuster offers very little variety and they have no incentive to add variety. In addition, unless a movie stars Adam Sandler, the kids working there are clueless when it comes to films.

I believe we are at risk of the same thing happening to other areas of the food market. Maybe it won't happen in big cities like NY and Chicago, where there are enough people to continue to support the "little guy" but I'm not optimistic in the suburbs.

[fresco]

It's worth noting that Blockbuster, in turn, probably has a very short life expectancy, because cable companies are offering video on demand and other outfits are springing up to push DVD rentals by mail--keep them pretty well as long as you want, no late fees. Etc.

But back to food. Some communities have welcomed Wal Mart BECAUSE they wanted more choices and competition. In North America, we are accustomed to having choices. It's hard to imagine a situation where your only choice is Wal Mart or Costco, at least, not for very long.

[Mayhaw Man]

Getting off of food but another example: 5 years ago, there used to be 5 video stores within 2 miles of where I live. There was one store in particular that stocked many independent films to go along with the "Hot New Releases." The owner of the store was undoubtedly able to stock the wide varieties of videos (the independent movies typically are more expensive to purchase than hollywood blockbusters) by renting as many of the mainstreeam movies as possible. Plus, the owner of the store was a real film buff and was able to make wonderful recommendations. Then, Blockbuster came to town and started charging $.50 less than the independent store. I continued to rent from the independent store, even when renting a mainstream movie because I was concerned that Blockbuster would put him out of business and my choices would be limited. Too many others ran to Blockbuster to save the $.50, and sure enough the independent store, as well as 3 of the other independent stores closed up.

Two things-

1) Using my little part of the world as an example might not be fair, as there seemed to be an inordinate number of book stores to serve a small population, but when Barnes and Noble came to town all but one of them shut down within a year. People who knew the owners of these stores, their friends and long time customers all chose to go to a large chain bookstore because of their vastly superior selection. While talking to a knowledgable bookseller is always pleasant and often a great way to find out about books, that little service apparently did not outweigh much lower prices and greater variety.

2) All of this "small independent video store stuff" is moot now. Netflix and believe it or not Wal Mart Movies are going to put them all out of business. Easy, fooll proof, good selection, no late fees.

I am the first to get in line to support small retailers, especially if they are vending goods and services that are superior to large chain stores, but in some cases (books and movies for example) what I want is selection and price and these large retailers provide this. Judging from their success I would say that I am not alone in this as we are not talking about food here (which we should be) but items that are truly purchased with extra income. And since books are available in public libraries, that expense becomes even more a matter of choice.

I do choose to shop at my local seafood and vegetable markets, small meat vendors (we have at least two superior butcher operations here) and I gnerally buy most of my groceries at a small family owned (but great) grocery store. But those choices are being made by someone who considers food to be one of the most pleasurable parts of his life and who can afford to pay alittle more for quality stuff.

The average person goes to Wal Mart (I am talking groceries here, as they are by for the largest grocery in South Louisiana) because the selection is good, the produce is ok, and the prices are rock bottom. It is a sound economic decision and I would much rather see them make this choice than head to BK 7 times a week.

The real question remains- How do you get people to shop in stores, any stores, before they choose to go get fat laden fast food?

[Fat Guy]

The point I was trying to make, was that food quality is a separate issue from the quality of the family dining experience.

Food quality needs to be assessed in a historically meaningful way, however. Trends can be messy when viewed out of context.

For example, advances in refrigeration and shipping technology have made it possible to transport fresh foods efficiently to remote areas of the country. But we have to assume that trend and discount for it, otherwise our arguments are as contextless as "a candy bar used to cost a nickel" -- we have to adjust for inflation.

I do think it's true that food quality, in the sense of choice, technology, etc., has improved even as the quality of family dining has declined. But I don't think that demonstrates a lack of linkage between the two issues. Because those who dine with the family are, almost inevitably, enculturated about food in a manner superior to those who grow up eating McDonald's and pizza.

[sammy]

The average person goes to Wal Mart (I am talking groceries here, as they are by for the largest grocery in South Louisiana) because the selection is good, the produce is ok, and the prices are rock bottom. It is a sound economic decision and I would much rather see them make this choice than head to BK 7 times a week.

Agreed. There are many places where Walmart or Costco may actually bring an increase in variety or quality. But where I live, the big stores are putting the little guys out and the selection and quality are NOT as good. People are being swayed by "perceived" value (big packages) and not recognizing what they may be losing in variety, taste and service as the smaller stores are forced to close.

I'd rather overpay for milk at the small italian grocery where I can get homemade mozzarella, homemade sausage and 5 different kinds of bread from the Bronx than buy milk from Costco. Selling milk at a higher price helps support the italian grocery store. Again, I'm not talking about major dollars. What tends to happen is that people get lazy and while going to Costco to save $1.00 on each gallon of milk, they end up buying packaged mozzarella and premade sausages there and the italian grocery struggles to survive.

And using the Blockbuster example, the smaller video stores actually had better selection than Blockbuster. While Blockbuster's store is 5 times the size and may have 50 copies of Terminator 3, the smaller store will have 10 copies of Terminator 3 and single copies of 15 movies not carried by Blockbuster.

[Busboy]

I do think it's true that food quality, in the sense of choice, technology, etc., has improved even as the quality of family dining has declined. But I don't think that demonstrates a lack of linkage between the two issues. Because those who dine with the family are, almost inevitably, enculturated about food in a manner superior to those who grow up eating McDonald's and pizza.

All true. It appeared to me, however, that cause and effect were becoming confused. I disagree with the idea that the decline in family dining is the direct result of the rise in Wal-Mart selling, or vice versa.

I'd argue that both phenomena are the result of the post-war eveolution of the American economy, with its emphasis on efficiency and wealth at the expense of the non-monetary rewards of affluence.

On the plus side, genetics, technology and advanced distribution strategies mean mean that more people have greater access to a large variety of inexpensive, hygenic, nutritious and even tasty (if you look for it) food than ever before. On the down side, that same economy demands an increasing amount of time and energy from the people who drive it forward, so people have less ability and inclination to take advantage of this bounty.

An interesting paradox is that, in many cases, it appears to be the most productive (by pure economic measure, we can argue how much attorneys and consultants "produce" on a more wholistic scale at another time) who have the least time for dinner.

[hjshorter]

I'd rather overpay for milk at the small italian grocery where I can get homemade mozzarella, homemade sausage and 5 different kinds of  bread from the Bronx than buy milk from Costco. Selling milk at a higher price helps support the italian grocery store. Again, I'm not talking about major dollars. What tends to happen is that people get lazy and while going to Costco to save $1.00 on each gallon of milk, they end up buying packaged mozzarella and premade sausages there and the italian grocery struggles to survive.

(Emphasis mine)

Why is that lazy? What if the packaged mozzerella and premade sausages are adequate for their purposes, and the savings offered at Costco is significant enough to make a difference in their monthly budget?

For instance, I can no longer afford to be spending $1000 a month on groceries for a family of four. Significant cuts need to be made, and one of them is likely to be shopping at the farmer's market. We simply cannot afford to spend twice as much on our lettuce and apples, regardless of their organic fabulousness. Do I feel bad to be taking business away from the producers? Sure. But I have other things to spend my money on, like bills and shoes for the kids.

[sammy]

I'd rather overpay for milk at the small italian grocery where I can get homemade mozzarella, homemade sausage and 5 different kinds of  bread from the Bronx than buy milk from Costco. Selling milk at a higher price helps support the italian grocery store. Again, I'm not talking about major dollars. What tends to happen is that people get lazy and while going to Costco to save $1.00 on each gallon of milk, they end up buying packaged mozzarella and premade sausages there and the italian grocery struggles to survive.

(Emphasis mine)

Why is that lazy? What if the packaged mozzerella and premade sausages are adequate for their purposes, and the savings offered at Costco is significant enough to make a difference in their monthly budget?

For instance, I can no longer afford to be spending $1000 a month on groceries for a family of four. Significant cuts need to be made, and one of them is likely to be shopping at the farmer's market. We simply cannot afford to spend twice as much on our lettuce and apples, regardless of their organic fabulousness. Do I feel bad to be taking business away from the producers? Sure. But I have other things to spend my money on, like bills and shoes for the kids.

That's fair but let's exclude the true economic hardship cases from the argument. There is no doubt that the majority of people buying groceries at Costco and Walmart are doing so by choice, not as a necessity. Clearly, the big chains are not generating billions of revenues from people in economic hardship.

For those people buying groceries at Costco by choice, is the mozzarella adequate, maybe. Is it better than the home-made, definitely not. At the end of the day, the people buying mozzarella from Costco are not eating as well (and I mean tasting good) as they could if they bought the mozzarella from the italian grocery. And yes, I consider them to be lazy if they make the decision to buy everything at Costco recognizing that they are not buying as high a quality product as they could because they don't want to make an extra trip to a store. My point is that as more people buy the Costco mozzarella, the less likely stores like the local italian grocery will be able to survive and then we all lose because availability of the really good stuff will be limited.

Again, my point has nothing to do with the difficult economic reality that many people face. I'm talking about people that have a choice and choose to patronize the Walmarts and Costcos and Blockbusters over the independent stores that are providing products and services of value.

[Busboy]

I'd rather overpay for milk at the small italian grocery where I can get homemade mozzarella, homemade sausage and 5 different kinds of  bread from the Bronx than buy milk from Costco. Selling milk at a higher price helps support the italian grocery store. Again, I'm not talking about major dollars. What tends to happen is that people get lazy and while going to Costco to save $1.00 on each gallon of milk, they end up buying packaged mozzarella and premade sausages there and the italian grocery struggles to survive.

(Emphasis mine)

Why is that lazy? What if the packaged mozzerella and premade sausages are adequate for their purposes, and the savings offered at Costco is significant enough to make a difference in their monthly budget?

For instance, I can no longer afford to be spending $1000 a month on groceries for a family of four. Significant cuts need to be made, and one of them is likely to be shopping at the farmer's market. We simply cannot afford to spend twice as much on our lettuce and apples, regardless of their organic fabulousness. Do I feel bad to be taking business away from the producers? Sure. But I have other things to spend my money on, like bills and shoes for the kids.

That's fair but let's exclude the true economic hardship cases from the argument. There is no doubt that the majority of people buying groceries at Costco and Walmart are doing so by choice, not as a necessity. Clearly, the big chains are not generating billions of revenues from people in economic hardship.

I think you have an unrealistic view of the cost of raising and feeding a family. An Median U.S. family income is about $43K/year. Deduct taxes, housing, transportation, utilities and other off-the-top expenses and the cost of feeding a family of four becomes a pretty significant budget item for an average family. I hit the farmers markets in season and easily drop $60-80 for premium produce, artisonal bread and the like, and then the run to Whole Foods for fresh fish, cheese, meat and whatever else hits $100 pretty quick. If my wife or I lost our jobs, this level of consumption would become untenable.

It's easy to take shots at Wal-Mart shoppers, but it can start to look pretty shallow when phrases like "And yes, I consider them to be lazy if they make the decision to buy everything at Costco recognizing that they are not buying as high a quality product as they could because they don't want to make an extra trip to a store," start getting tossed around.

Edited December 9, 2003 by Busboy (log)

[tommy]

That's fair but let's exclude the true economic hardship cases from the argument. There is no doubt that the majority of people buying groceries at Costco and Walmart are doing so by choice, not as a necessity.

for whom is saving money not a concern?

[sammy]

Let's keep this to just food:

1. Tom and Jane can afford to shop wherever he/she wants.

2. While in Costco buying 100 rolls of toilet paper, Tom buys a color television, 3 inkjet cartridges, snow tires and a lawnmower. On the way out he thinks about dinner and picks up a gummy fresh bread, prepackaged mozzarella, frozen italian sausages, tasteless tomatoes, a box of pasta (actually a 5 pack), and prepackaged parmigiana cheese.

3. Jane buys the same things at Costco as Tom but stops on the way home at the italian grocery and buys fresh mozzarella, storemade sausage, has a wedge of parmigiana cut from a wheel, a box of pasta and picks up a seeded semolina bread from the Bronx.

Who eats better, Tom or Jane?

[Mayhaw Man]

My point is that as more people buy the Costco mozzarella, the less likely stores like the local italian grocery will be able to survive and then we all lose because availability of the really good stuff will be limited.

This is assuming that everyone has the chance to go into some little Italian Mom and Pop and it is also assuming that said Mom and Pop have fabulous homemade Mozzerrella.

I don't have one handy (although there are a large number of them across the lake in New Orleans) and as far as I know, none of them vend fabulous homemade mozz.

As far as cheese products go with the big warehouse chains there are some serious bargains there. I can get huge pieces of various kinds of cheeses for a fraction of the price that they are available at in Winn Dixie or Albertson's. I cannot imagine that this cheese is of less quality (likely less, judging from taste) than what I can pay up to 4 times less for at Sam's. My family goes through huge amounts of Parm Reg and lots of Rat Cheese. I buy big honking chunks of this stuff and repackage it. I save a ton of money. Is it as good as what I could buy at a cheese shop? Maybe not. But is it worth paying all that extra money for something that I am going to enjoy only marginally more? Most of the time not, although there are clearly exceptions to the rule and many times I do buy the best, but it depends on the end use of the cheese.

Edited because I have a problem with question mark usage

[fresco]

That's fair but let's exclude the true economic hardship cases from the argument. There is no doubt that the majority of people buying groceries at Costco and Walmart are doing so by choice, not as a necessity.

for whom is saving money not a concern?

I used to see Ken Thomson ("Lord Thomson of Fleet") the richest guy in Canada, and one of the richest in the world, at my local fruit and vegetable shop, hunting for bargains.

One day, he was ahead of me in line and exchanging a package of whole wheat pita bread for plain. The price difference was I think three cents, in his favor, which he politely explained to the cashier, and very carefully placed each of the pennies in his little squeegee change thingee.