The real (differential) cost of avocado toast. Is less than you'd expect.
And just like that I'm back because I have an opinion, but I'm not up to sharing it with the Straits Times because, not like it's going to improve anything. I found this infographic on the Straits Times today:
Source: (just in case it doesn't show up): The real cost of Avocado Toast
In summary, the Straits Times argues that millennials could potentially save $4953.30 a year if they gave up their terribly extravagant habits, like gelish manicures, hair colouring, and avocado on toast. Yes, we all have the image right now, of nubile little bloggers toting their preciousBoy Chanels Michael Kors bags, fluttering their eyelash extensions outside Habitat Coffee.
I DO like my avocado on toast, and I do like money too, so I was drawn to the piece, like a bee to honey... Until I read it in detail and found so many discrepancies, I just... I just kennot. Also, the Straits Times effectively discounted all the time and effort these professionals invest in delivering their products, and also ignores the cost of looking female... even as they rely on product insertions in HerWorld (alternatively, their Beauty Awards) to drive revenue. Ok la, but HerWorld is a totally different publication right? Let's look at today's issue of the Sunday times itself - the feature appeared on page C3, before reverting to discussing the latest new cafe joints on pages C19, C20..... Isn't that quite hypocritical, Straits Times?
Must be tough being the official mouthpiece for our nation. But I digress (as always). Here is why I found the article difficult to stomach. And like ST, I too, did quick calculations, relying only on my knowledge of how much things cost, and a little bit of my iPhone calculator:
1. Avocado Toast - At Home: $3.95 a week for 1 avocado + 1 loaf of bread vs $20 at the Lokal
No, ST. Shouldn't your resident foodie journalists have updated you? Cafe standard avocado toast consists of (based on the image used): Ricotta ($2.50), cherry tomatoes ($1), vinegar ($1), egg ($0.50), herbs and pepper ($1). And I've already prorated the costs - a tub of ricotta is actually $10. The at home cost of avocado on toast is thus closer to $9.95, bringing the savings from eating at home down from $16 to... $10.
And we're totally ignoring the time required to acquire the skills to poach the eggs until they're good enough, or the skills required to open the avocados at the right time. Furthermore, not everyone has a kitchen they can use, and this ignores social benefits of eating out with your friends, and the joy of dining in the environment so lovingly put together by the cafe proprietors.
Yes. This is coming from someone whose mom has OCD AND an all-white kitchen.
2. Starbucks Latte: $5.90, Nespresso: ~$1.30 a day
In their estimate, ST actually neglected to include the cost of milk (for my latte, I need like 1 X milk carton (~$2.80?) a week, so the cost would really be about $1.70 a day. By neglecting the cost of milk, they kind of negated their entire argument.
What really rankled was that they didn't even bother considering the effort that Starbucks (or any hipster cafe's) baristas invest in crafting the beverages. Starbucks baristas are TRAINED to steam the milk to the correct temperatures, and also to manage the espresso machine. Which brings me to my next point... a Nespresso machine is NOT an espresso machine - my sister has one that will steam the milk for you, and I swear - the results aren't even similar. My frugal baby boomer parents can tell the difference, so I'm not being anal.
I couldn't calculate the real savings for this because.. well that would mean that I'd need to calculate and depreciate the cost of a coffee machine. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.
3. Manicures ($55 - 85 a month) vs at home: $162.40 over a year (so ~$12-15 a month)
Okay. Gelish manicures at $55-85 usually consist of nail art and a whole lot of cuticle maintenance, massages, and sawing off of dead skin using a professional machine. It's not just about a nail lamp and nail polish, ST. I know this to be true because I HAVE journeyed across the causeway to JB, where it was just $30 to colour my nails using Gelish at an arguably atas place, but they didn't have the tools or skills, and they've all chipped within 2 weeks.
High quality manicures require time and skill, and at ~$60, they generally consist of some nail art which the nail artist must invest time in learning to do. Regardless of where you do your manicures, be it China, the Philippines, Singapore, or Malaysia, high quality nails with nail art WILL cost you about $80, because the only people who can perform such craft have been trained by the Japanese.
But if it's just the at home nail job that the Straits Times is proposing, then... it really costs just $20 at your neighbourhood parlour.... which means that the savings are just $5 a month.
4. Hair Dye ($150 at the salon vs $18 at home using Liese)
Kudos to the writers for actually using Liese instead of the cheaper L'Oreal as an example. I still remember the TWO times I coloured my hair at home. The first time I did it, I was home alone, just back from Montreal, and struggling with the thought of losing my independence. So independent woman that I was, I broke out the Liese, and coloured my hair.. brown. God, it was so smelly. And I concluded the experience with straw-like brown hair that would've made a scarecrow cry. The second time around, I took my mom's leftover red dye, and coloured my hair auburn. I had to condition my hair for WEEKS after that to get my hair back to its original consistency.
Truth is, at-home hair dyes RUIN your hair, and that's why most people with professional jobs go to the hair salon to get their hair done. If the Straits Times had wanted to really contest the idea of salon jobs with at-home options, then it should've included the cost of hair repair. And the picture they used wasn't even accurate! They used pink hair, which is difficult to achieve at home, using products available on the market.....
So anyway, to compare apples to apples... if you wanted to do a home quality dye job at the salon, it costs just about $60 at the neighbourhood salon, and $53 at home ($18 + $35 for Olaplex on Carousell). And we haven't even counted the cleanup costs if you stain your bathroom (+$3 for vinegar + $2 for baking soda). The savings are literally like $7 a month.
My price comparison ends here, because I don't really drink. According to ST, doing things at-home can save you about $180 a month (excl the coffee), based on the items mentioned above. But if we align the items and do apple-to-apple comparisons, the difference is really just $22........
At this point, I began to get quite irritated by the article. I'm all for a national broadsheet doing its part to get the nation think the way the administration wants them to, but how can it expect to do so when its articles are not convincing to their target market? Funny today's edition of the Straits Times came with an article about good journalism. Heng I didn't go into journalism.
5. Cocktails
Haha, I don't drink (much). But my first thought is - the drinks are rarely the point of the night out. It's usually the joy of spending time with friends, and if we wanted to get very calculative, then the potential of business deals ten years down the road. At #4 on the Economist's crony capitalism index 2016, I don't think we can dispute the usefulness of that.
As you should have realised by now, the main problem here isn't how much things cost, but how we've grown addicted to these little luxuries. If we all chased aimlessly after food trends like avocado or mermaid toast, and HAD to do manicures, then yes, of course we would have issues saving, because even when we managed to replicate the experiences at home, the next new trend would emerge and then we would need to adapt, but first we'd need to spend to see what it is.
Also, an important aspect of consuming these products is that it is conspicuous consumption. We spend at these cafes not because of the avocado toast or poached eggs, but because we enjoy sitting at the table like bosses, and then instagramming and storying our experiences afterwards. We do the manicures a little bit because we like the art, but also distinctively because all our colleagues are doing the same, and there's nothing uglier than a bitten fingernail telling us how good our quarterly forecast is going to be. We look unkempt. Next, we do the hair dye possibly because we feel that looking constantly filtered is going to make us look better. I feel strongly that ST is (1) making the wrong point, and (2) doing a very bad job of proving it.
As a millennial, I'm actually offended by their proposals for "at-home" options. If anything, I would've been more inclined to spend more, lol.
Signing off, with my chipped JB gelish nails.
P.S., I must sound like a high spending millennial by now. I do indeed, spend too much, but on holidays. I love my gelish nails, and I do spend about $90 each time, but I generally do these like twice a year. I do drink Starbucks when there's one-for-one, or if I'm having a bad day, but in general no more than twice a month. I don't think many millennials actually spend so much on cafes, or even if they do, they balance it out with hawker centre food. ST really could've been more convincing if they'd spend more time on the article. Seriously.
In summary, the Straits Times argues that millennials could potentially save $4953.30 a year if they gave up their terribly extravagant habits, like gelish manicures, hair colouring, and avocado on toast. Yes, we all have the image right now, of nubile little bloggers toting their precious
I DO like my avocado on toast, and I do like money too, so I was drawn to the piece, like a bee to honey... Until I read it in detail and found so many discrepancies, I just... I just kennot. Also, the Straits Times effectively discounted all the time and effort these professionals invest in delivering their products, and also ignores the cost of looking female... even as they rely on product insertions in HerWorld (alternatively, their Beauty Awards) to drive revenue. Ok la, but HerWorld is a totally different publication right? Let's look at today's issue of the Sunday times itself - the feature appeared on page C3, before reverting to discussing the latest new cafe joints on pages C19, C20..... Isn't that quite hypocritical, Straits Times?
Must be tough being the official mouthpiece for our nation. But I digress (as always). Here is why I found the article difficult to stomach. And like ST, I too, did quick calculations, relying only on my knowledge of how much things cost, and a little bit of my iPhone calculator:
1. Avocado Toast - At Home: $3.95 a week for 1 avocado + 1 loaf of bread vs $20 at the Lokal
No, ST. Shouldn't your resident foodie journalists have updated you? Cafe standard avocado toast consists of (based on the image used): Ricotta ($2.50), cherry tomatoes ($1), vinegar ($1), egg ($0.50), herbs and pepper ($1). And I've already prorated the costs - a tub of ricotta is actually $10. The at home cost of avocado on toast is thus closer to $9.95, bringing the savings from eating at home down from $16 to... $10.
And we're totally ignoring the time required to acquire the skills to poach the eggs until they're good enough, or the skills required to open the avocados at the right time. Furthermore, not everyone has a kitchen they can use, and this ignores social benefits of eating out with your friends, and the joy of dining in the environment so lovingly put together by the cafe proprietors.
Yes. This is coming from someone whose mom has OCD AND an all-white kitchen.
2. Starbucks Latte: $5.90, Nespresso: ~$1.30 a day
In their estimate, ST actually neglected to include the cost of milk (for my latte, I need like 1 X milk carton (~$2.80?) a week, so the cost would really be about $1.70 a day. By neglecting the cost of milk, they kind of negated their entire argument.
What really rankled was that they didn't even bother considering the effort that Starbucks (or any hipster cafe's) baristas invest in crafting the beverages. Starbucks baristas are TRAINED to steam the milk to the correct temperatures, and also to manage the espresso machine. Which brings me to my next point... a Nespresso machine is NOT an espresso machine - my sister has one that will steam the milk for you, and I swear - the results aren't even similar. My frugal baby boomer parents can tell the difference, so I'm not being anal.
I couldn't calculate the real savings for this because.. well that would mean that I'd need to calculate and depreciate the cost of a coffee machine. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.
3. Manicures ($55 - 85 a month) vs at home: $162.40 over a year (so ~$12-15 a month)
Okay. Gelish manicures at $55-85 usually consist of nail art and a whole lot of cuticle maintenance, massages, and sawing off of dead skin using a professional machine. It's not just about a nail lamp and nail polish, ST. I know this to be true because I HAVE journeyed across the causeway to JB, where it was just $30 to colour my nails using Gelish at an arguably atas place, but they didn't have the tools or skills, and they've all chipped within 2 weeks.
High quality manicures require time and skill, and at ~$60, they generally consist of some nail art which the nail artist must invest time in learning to do. Regardless of where you do your manicures, be it China, the Philippines, Singapore, or Malaysia, high quality nails with nail art WILL cost you about $80, because the only people who can perform such craft have been trained by the Japanese.
But if it's just the at home nail job that the Straits Times is proposing, then... it really costs just $20 at your neighbourhood parlour.... which means that the savings are just $5 a month.
4. Hair Dye ($150 at the salon vs $18 at home using Liese)
Kudos to the writers for actually using Liese instead of the cheaper L'Oreal as an example. I still remember the TWO times I coloured my hair at home. The first time I did it, I was home alone, just back from Montreal, and struggling with the thought of losing my independence. So independent woman that I was, I broke out the Liese, and coloured my hair.. brown. God, it was so smelly. And I concluded the experience with straw-like brown hair that would've made a scarecrow cry. The second time around, I took my mom's leftover red dye, and coloured my hair auburn. I had to condition my hair for WEEKS after that to get my hair back to its original consistency.
Truth is, at-home hair dyes RUIN your hair, and that's why most people with professional jobs go to the hair salon to get their hair done. If the Straits Times had wanted to really contest the idea of salon jobs with at-home options, then it should've included the cost of hair repair. And the picture they used wasn't even accurate! They used pink hair, which is difficult to achieve at home, using products available on the market.....
So anyway, to compare apples to apples... if you wanted to do a home quality dye job at the salon, it costs just about $60 at the neighbourhood salon, and $53 at home ($18 + $35 for Olaplex on Carousell). And we haven't even counted the cleanup costs if you stain your bathroom (+$3 for vinegar + $2 for baking soda). The savings are literally like $7 a month.
My price comparison ends here, because I don't really drink. According to ST, doing things at-home can save you about $180 a month (excl the coffee), based on the items mentioned above. But if we align the items and do apple-to-apple comparisons, the difference is really just $22........
At this point, I began to get quite irritated by the article. I'm all for a national broadsheet doing its part to get the nation think the way the administration wants them to, but how can it expect to do so when its articles are not convincing to their target market? Funny today's edition of the Straits Times came with an article about good journalism. Heng I didn't go into journalism.
5. Cocktails
Haha, I don't drink (much). But my first thought is - the drinks are rarely the point of the night out. It's usually the joy of spending time with friends, and if we wanted to get very calculative, then the potential of business deals ten years down the road. At #4 on the Economist's crony capitalism index 2016, I don't think we can dispute the usefulness of that.
As you should have realised by now, the main problem here isn't how much things cost, but how we've grown addicted to these little luxuries. If we all chased aimlessly after food trends like avocado or mermaid toast, and HAD to do manicures, then yes, of course we would have issues saving, because even when we managed to replicate the experiences at home, the next new trend would emerge and then we would need to adapt, but first we'd need to spend to see what it is.
Also, an important aspect of consuming these products is that it is conspicuous consumption. We spend at these cafes not because of the avocado toast or poached eggs, but because we enjoy sitting at the table like bosses, and then instagramming and storying our experiences afterwards. We do the manicures a little bit because we like the art, but also distinctively because all our colleagues are doing the same, and there's nothing uglier than a bitten fingernail telling us how good our quarterly forecast is going to be. We look unkempt. Next, we do the hair dye possibly because we feel that looking constantly filtered is going to make us look better. I feel strongly that ST is (1) making the wrong point, and (2) doing a very bad job of proving it.
As a millennial, I'm actually offended by their proposals for "at-home" options. If anything, I would've been more inclined to spend more, lol.
Signing off, with my chipped JB gelish nails.
P.S., I must sound like a high spending millennial by now. I do indeed, spend too much, but on holidays. I love my gelish nails, and I do spend about $90 each time, but I generally do these like twice a year. I do drink Starbucks when there's one-for-one, or if I'm having a bad day, but in general no more than twice a month. I don't think many millennials actually spend so much on cafes, or even if they do, they balance it out with hawker centre food. ST really could've been more convincing if they'd spend more time on the article. Seriously.
Comments
Post a Comment