this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
1474 points (97.9% liked)

People Twitter

5210 readers
2798 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

going to multiple different stores due to the simple fact that the gasoline used for driving around is most likely going to cancel out any saving from shopping around

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Here in suburbia, there are different stores every couple miles. Figure even a 5-mile detour to go to another store, and that "simple fact" of gasoline used turns out to cost less than a dollar. I save that much on a pair of salad kits by going to one store over another, and it's really more of a one-mile detour anyway. Plus, there are simply things that one store does better than the other and I like to take advantage of that too.

[–] Grabthar@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Seriously. Sale items are often several dollars cheaper per item. It is well worth the time and gas driving to several stores unless they are very far apart, then just roll that into another trip. Some big "what could it cost, 10 dollars?" vibes off that comment.

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You also need to factor in opportunity cost or concede that your free time doesn't have value.

If you value your free time at the same rate that you work hourly, then suddenly it's very hard to save money by spending more time. If you value free time as overtime equivalent, it gets even worse.

[–] Grabthar@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Dude, we all waste more than enough time on any given day that we don't need to worry about the value of losing a half hour to save tens of dollars on our grocery bill. I can't imagine anyone using a site like this one is particularly worried about lost productivity during their free time.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not about "lost productivity". It's about what you enjoy doing. If you don't enjoy shopping for food, it's the same as if it were part of your job.

There are only two logical situations:

  1. You dislike shopping - you should go to one store maximum because your time is valuable. Get everything else delivered online. Do something you like in your free time.

  2. You like shopping - you should work for a shopping delivery service in your spare time. You can make hundreds of extra dollars and get your own groceries at the same time

[–] Grabthar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Getting value for time is productivity. Up to you if value is in money or enjoyment. Your "logic" seems extreme. I'd have to have some irrational hatred for shopping before I'd spend even more on groceries to get someone else to do it. Similarly, I'd have to have some pretty strong feelings to love it so much I'd take a minimum wage job to do it in my spare time. I think the average person is going to fall firmly in the "if shopping for an extra 30 minutes saves me 20 dollars, I'm doing it" camp.

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

30 minutes for 10 hours and all the unnecessary waste of gasoline? Hard, hard pass. In fact, I'd work so that this was punished, what a waste of a limited resource that harms the environment.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 4 points 5 months ago

Standard IRS reimbursement rate per mile driven is 67¢ per mile this year, which is essentially the per-mile average cost for driving a car. But like, with this sort of thing everyone has their own personal calculus for what they want to optimize for. Do they want to save as much money as possible? Do they want to have fun while shopping? Do they want to shop as quickly as they can? A lot of people will balance these priorities against each other and come up with a solution that isn't optimal in any one specific area.