Is the show “watch where you spend your money, so that you’ll get superior product for your money”? Or is it, “watch where you spend your money, so you’ll accomplish what you intend to accomplish by spending your money”? If the former, then your complaint makes sense. But it seems to me that it’s the latter. And in that context, many people want to accomplish not despoiling the environment when they spend their money.
To you.
The article is obviously about trade-offs as you stated in your OP.
You also added information that was not in the article for tip #3 to make your point.
They specifically did not say “that sheets and towels are offered elsewhere at better prices and more selection”.
What they did say was:
[QUOTE=Moneywatch article]
Target and Wal-Mart have this market cornered and they do a great job," says Budget Fashionista’s Finney. Costco, by contrast, rarely stocks more than a handful of top-selling colors in sheets and towels. “If you want 20 colors, this isn’t the place,” admits Jim Klauer, Costco merchandise manager for bedding and the home
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you just do not consider irresponsibly utilizing our seas or lakes as a trade-off when making value purchases but this is not logically consistent with accepting #3.
You’re right – it’s obviously “to me.” So far as I can determine with three minutes of Google, CBS MoneyWatch does not have a mission statement, so I can hardly claim this direction exceeds or flouts their mission.
I can only repeat what I said above, because I don’t think it’s a reaction peculiar to me: a news offering called “MoneyWatch” does not strike me as one where I’d expect to get guidance on the advisability of buying only from stores that have reached an accord with Greenpeace over sustainable seafood.
If you wish to consider this thread any sort of reasonable sample (formally I wouldn’t), then yeah people other than yourself think that this consideration is outside the mission of MoneyWatch. I think I understand the point-of-view. On the other hand, given the environment we live in, as revealed by the small self-selected sample, it’d be foolish of MoneyWatch to not give 20-30% of each article to these sorts of considerations.
This can be demonstrated by consumer and business behavior. There are many people in the thread who would like to know more about where their money is going. Particularly if that money is being used to purchase things they do not want to support. The shrimp information in the article and up-thread does actually guide me in making a purchasing decision. Companies like Costco and Wal-mart react to their customers’ concerns by investigating how they get their supplies and changing their behavior (The Wal-mart article from MoneyWatch has two socially conscious "don’t buy"s btw). In many cases, the product’s social packaging is more relevant than its price-tag. As an example, I submit all of Whole Foods (or Whole Paycheck).
A bargain isn’t a bargain if half of it is going to rot by the time you use it or if there is shoddy construction (two examples in the two articles), but to a huge swathe of the population, it is also not a bargain if their dollars are buying environmentally unsound practices.
I honestly don’t know why you feel that “social consciousness” in spending my money is somehow different from watching my money. If I’m to be conscious don’t I need the information to make it through one or more of my senses so that I may be aware of it?
I wonder if this has something to do with how you were raised regarding your life as a consumer. From little bits you’ve said before, Bricker, your parents raised you to frugality and thrift and serious savings–virtues that are emphasized by examining what value you’re getting for your money.
One of my earliest memories of consumer products, on the other hand, is my mom not letting us eat Nestle products because of a boycott of Nestle. Rather than emphasizing what value you get for your money, she emphasized what values you express through your money.
For me, it’s totally legitimate to watch what values you’re expressing through spending money. Other folks might not find it as important.
Absolutely correct. I still save those tiny little slivers of soap until I have enough to mush them together and make another quasi-soap bar. I can perfectly well afford to buy stacks of Irish Spring, but why waste any of it? And when I was a kid, we could not afford to go buy stacks of Irish Spring, so doing it then was more a necessity than a quirk.
Well, you’re right – there’s nothing illegitimate about it … it just seemed out of place for a “MoneyWatch.” But you’re right – that determination itself arises from what you expect to gain by watching money.
(1), (3), and (4) have a direct impact on consumers (consumers doesn’t get what they think they paid for, don’t have a wide selection, and will end up paying for food they won’t eat). These are things a generic consumer would be expected to have an interest in.
Item (2) have a direct impact on the environment which could have an indirect impact on the consumer. But IMO it assumes a generic consumer is interested in environmental issues, which I don’t think is a valid assumption. The article makes it clear that “you’re better off buying shrimp at Trader Joe’s” because they have " pledged to remove all non-sustainable seafood from its stores by the end of 2012." Bricker is asking why a generic consumer would care about that?
To be clear, I think this is a good reason not to buy shrimp at CostCo (which is why I don’t), but it’s not clear it’s a good consumer-based reason for doing so (tragedy of the commons notwithstanding).