A day later and this newspaper article is STILL on my mind.

It's suppose to be illustrate that, yes, minimum wage needs to increase. I wholeheartedly agree. I make just above min. wage and there's absolutely no way I could live on my own on that type of salary.
I applaud the senators for doing this...shopping on a "real persons budget." But to use this particular "experiment" to "prove" the need for the increase...is really weak.

If I subtract all the lotions, potions and beauty stuff (some were needed, by the way...we needed new toothbrushes), and get down to the basic essential food items, this week I spent less than $30 on groceries, for a family of two. And that's using 1 coupon and no special savings card. This includes foods I got at Costco...we'll eat roughly 1 lb of cheese (at $3.60/pound) and a pound of chicken ($2.99/pound).

I make all of our meals from scratch (it's fun for us!), we try to eat what's in season (I DID buy a tomato and green pepper, but it's winter and I live in Michigan, so it's ok?), we eat very little red meat (expensive and it's bad for you anyway!)

I say, we eat well, maybe even lavishly.

I take it for granted that I know how to meal plan and know what foods are going to make feel good and what foods are nutritionally dense. Basically, I have basic knowledge on what foods are "best for my dollar" and where to shop for them.

--
That being said, I think the article is better suited for an argument in which there's a big difference between what a person living ABOVE the poverty line knows about food/nutrition vs. someone living BELOW the line. And that, too, is a battle that needs to be won.
--
Glad to get this stuff off my chest. :)