Overheard at the discount grocery store
February 23rd, 2006 | by mbhunter |“Why do we have to come here?”
This was a child, probably 8 years old or so but I’m not sure.
My wife and I shop at our local “scratch-and-dent” grocer very often. Ours deals with dented, discontinued, or slightly-out-of-date merchandise, or merchandise that became collateral damage after one of its case-mates exploded. The food is almost always perfectly good but declared salvage by the retail grocer, and our discount grocer prices a lot of the items quite a bit below retail. We like the deals we can get there.
I noticed the child’s remark, and though I didn’t say anything then, I’ll talk about it here.
Granted, “discount grocery store” lacks snob appeal in much the same way as “thrift store” does, or “slightly irregular” clothing does. They’re not quite as good as the unblemished items, but for almost all other purposes they’re the same, and the only real stumbling block to consuming or using them is whether or not it bothers you.
I imagine that it bothered this kid.
I don’t know the family’s financial situation, but at one level I could see it bothering me if I didn’t have a choice but to buy the discounted stuff because I couldn’t afford the retail stuff.
On another level, though, it doesn’t matter at all what the family’s financial situation was. I remember a time when I was young that I turned up my nose at looking for clothes at a thrift store. My mother gave me what-for. They could have easily afforded to buy them new, but they understood then, as I do now, that I could get perfectly good clothes for about a quarter the price of new. Besides, I was going to outgrow them soon, anyway!
As I mentioned in the Money Blogger Podcast, I consider buying used whenever it makes sense. Not that I buy used food (!) but the food is one step removed from new or retail, whatever you want to call it. For me, many times buying used or scratch-and-dent stuff is worth the price differential because it doesn’t bother me.
What do you think? Does it bother you to buy distressed or used goods or food? Did it bother you at some point, but not now?
7 Responses to “Overheard at the discount grocery store”
By FMF on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Good post.
Doesn’t bother me in the least now.
It did at one time — when I was a kid — so I can empathize with the child.
By Jennifer on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Actually given that the kid is 8 or so, he probably resents going to any grocery store when he could be home playing xbox. I don’t know where you live, but the kids around here think that food comes from two places: McDonalds and the corner mini mart. This is because procuring food should never interfere with the xbox. That’s kids today. You hardly see kids over the age of 5 in any grocery store from Whole Foods to Sav-a-lot.
By CW on Feb 25, 2006 | Reply
I do remember a bit of a stigma, or shame, associated with having to go to the type of store you mention when I was much younger (also, with having to wear clothes bought at thrift stores/garage sales/etc.). More of that feeling, though, might’ve been due to being ashamed about my family being “poor” (which, naturally, is a wholly subjective notion and speaks a lot about our society when a young child can feel shame about his family’s financial status. . . especially as I imagine my whole notion of “poor” and “rich” were informed, primarily, by our over-commercialized media). However, part of it is probably just as much to due with a child’s natural fear of being “different” (regardless of your age, our culture doesn’t seem too forgiving of those who stand out). Just think of how some groups respond to those with disabilities or different skin color than what is viewed as the “norm” (at least viewed as the “norm” by the observer. . . it isn’t an accident that we have a whole score of legislation to do with this poor treatment of those who stand out. . . e.g., affirmative action legislation, the American Disabilities Act, several examples of legislation to do with educating students with exceptional needs, etc.). I listened to your responses on a podcast (can’t remember which, doh!), and I thought one thing that should be added to your response about why people are in debt = American society/culture sends a very powerful message to people about what success is and what it means if you don’t meet that defintion. Naturally, this definition is informed by corporate advertising campaigns (which reminds me. . . there are wonderful articles/studies around about how skillfully, and stunningly, Madison Ave/corporations markets to children, and bank that the whine factor will equal big money at cash registers as kids almost force their parents to buy them worthless crap). . . . and, I’m gettting ahead of myself (and am way too tangental, I know. . .), but. . . don’t forget, the whole notion (at least found in circles of sociology/anthropology, literature, and philosophy) of the “Protestant” work ethic informing much of what we now do, and value, as a country. After all, many academics point to the Puritan interpretation of predeterminism as the basis for the American penchant for conpicuous consumption. . . i.e., essentially, the Puritans viewed wealth/a good harvest/a large family as a sign that God, having already predetermined everything according to some divine master plan, has “elected” that person for heaven. To put it simply, it was the belief that if you were blessed by material things on earth, it was a sign that you were elected to go to heaven. Conversely, those who were poor (or unfortunate) were thought to be sinful (i.e., this is where some of the knee-jerk “get a job, you lazy bum” reactions come from when people encounter homeless people who might otherwise really need some medical attention/help). This is an expansive topic, but I did want to point out that your blog (and others like it) are great, because I think corporations and marketing firms have learned how to adeptly exploit this sense of “well, even if i don’t really have the money for the big house and nice, shiny new car, I still *have to* buy them. . . if only to show them off/prove to my neighbors that I’m “elected”). Of course, people aren’t conciously walking around and trying to prove to people that they’re going to heaven. . . but, I do believe too many people equate their life’s “success” and overall value based upon the material possessions that they have to show off to others. It’s sad, really. . . thanks god that there are plenty of PF bloggers out there (and forums like FW) to give some of us a chance to escape the miserable trap of empty consumption/hedonistic materialism. Now, if only we could convince the majority of Americans that a nice, 4-door sedan (and possible a smaller pickup, if they have *some* light hauling to do) is all that they really need (i.e., not those ridiculous monstrosities AKA hummers). . . . well, then we might have some hopes as a country. Then again, all the people out there with money invested in the short-term gains of oil companies would be unhappy. . . and, well all know that this country/corporations/etc. loves short term gains over long term longevity/gains anytime of the week. Alright. . . sorry for the long rant. ::steps off soapbox::
By mbhunter on Feb 25, 2006 | Reply
Thanks everyone for the great comments. Always a pleasure to see your comments, FMF.
Jennifer, good point. I hadn’t considered that the child might not want to be in a grocery store, period.
CW, I’ll respond to your heartfelt thoughts in detail. You hit on a number of important topics.
First, the Puritan reference is fascinating. I believe that God has specific things for all of us in His plan. He has places for the childless and the poor in His kingdom, so I don’t hold much credence to the Puritan view. (Perhaps you don’t either.)
Second, one thing I have been accused of (by my wife, anyway) is that I’m too insensitive towards people who are in financial trouble and too quick to say “get a job” or “work harder” or something like that. I mentioned in the podcast that I’ve been very fortunate in that I was never really wanting for anything. My wife, when she was young, was wanting for things at times. So, it’s quite true that I do not understand the shame of not being able to afford undamaged food or new clothes, while my wife does. So, I need to be reminded of this once in a while. Now, though, I know I never think ill of anyone shopping in a thrift store or a discount grocer — quite the opposite: I see them as very wise.
Third, you’re correct about advertising that forms a very clear picture of what’s “cool” or “trendy.” I wrote an article that reviews Born to Buy, so yes, I absolutely agree with you there. The Joneses are awfully hard people to keep up with, but I think it would be a lot easier if every target of envy had their credit card or HELOC balance flashing on a big sign above their head. Appearances can be deceiving.
What’s really worrisome is the impact that hedonistic consumerism is going to have on us a few years from now. Lots of people are entering retirement age with unfounded assumptions about the viability of their pension plans and Social Security. Who’s going to foot the bill if these things go South? Even if you think you’re prepared for retirement, what if the rules change and you’re not? Suddenly you wish that you hadn’t gotten the Hummer with its annual $10k gas price tag, but then it’s too late.
By CW on Feb 26, 2006 | Reply
“Now, though, I know I never think ill of anyone shopping in a thrift store or a discount grocer — quite the opposite: I see them as very wise” I’m very much in agreement with you. . . and, essentially, about everything you’ve said. I’m just entering the workforce, and have already (more or less) decided that I’m going to plan my life as if all of the retirement safety nets won’t be there when I retire (though, of course, I’ll still set aside everything that I can, even at the expense of those pretty, new $10k gas guzzlers. . . ha ha). I guess it just bothers me that, most likely, at a certain point of my career (likely sooner, rather than later) a vast majority of my salary will go towards paying for other people’s irresponsibility, namely many irresponsible/pie-in-the-sky boomers who didn’t plan one bit for their golden years (more like “fool’s gold”, I suppose). Well, that doesn’t even touch on the madness of deficit spending and government excess (whole other cans of worms), but it’s troubling, to say the least. However, I’m also quick to judge others and, harsh though it seems, I happen to agree that there are times when people do just need to work or get a job. Granted, there are many situations where things are complicated and its never that simple. However, I think Americans are quite spoiled (even those of us who had to deal with “doing without”. . . which is a joke to begin with, as we really weren’t doing without the essentials) and that, compared to a large portion of the world’s population, we’re pretty lucky to have access to the standard of living that we enjoy. That’s what scares me the most. . . when the stuff hits the fan, I think whole segments of the populace aren’t going to be able to take the reality of not being able to consume at this level. It’s why I’m so happy that, at least for now, PF blogs (and similar forums) provide some voice of sanity in an otherwise insane sea of mindless consumerism. Of course, don’t get me wrong. . . I think capitalistic societies and corporate models of operations have their definite benefits (especially when compared to some pretty dismal alternatives). . . yet, sometimes I think those who can make money (whether its banks lending this money, or vendors marketing products) go to far, and they are actually dooming their own future bottom lines. Oh well. . . great blog, though. And, of course, thought-provoking topic. ^_^
By CW on Feb 26, 2006 | Reply
oh. . . and, yeah. . . the puritans were a bit “exceptional” in their way of looking at things. But, their influence (or, at the very least, perceived importance) to American society is fascinating. Quite unrelated, but I was reading some journal entries from Puritan leaders where they celebrate the death of surrounding native american tribes (from smallpox) as a blessing of divine providence (after all, they interpreted such as a sign that God was removing the savages from the land that was rightfully yours). History is such a strange series of chance events (and strange reactions/interpretations of those events). . . boggles the mind, really. ^_^
By CW on Feb 26, 2006 | Reply
whoops. . . land that was rightfully yours = theirs. Tired and don’t believe in proofreading (obviously)