Thanks for stereotyping. I have and am still paying rent for all my life and the rest of it.
“Should” is meant here for a better/good way do do things. If it is not possible, a “should” just is not applyable, it is a “should” after all.
Maybe this is a language/cultural/mental perspective misunderstanding.
Yes. Because we live in a setting of specialists.
I am no specialist at efficiently growing healthy food. So if I try it, it will be objectively worse than if someone else more proficient does it for me. And if that one is worse in doing something I am better in, we both are off worse and everything overall.
So if we both would do things we are good at, the resulting products/services would be better, the processes would be more efficient (time, ressources, waste), which in return benefits all participants and the environment at the same time.
Actually that is so efficient, it is possible to pay for the store’s rent, the wage of the people transporting, managing and selling that stuff to me. If I ineffectively grow my own food, all these are out of their jobs or have to (badly) grow their food at home, which they cannot afford anymore and they even do not have the necessary space for a field to do so.
What? How can my comment possibly be voted down?
You should shop by ingrediends and ecological reasons. That’s sadly not represented by $/g.
The heavier product with the better “bang for the buck” is usually the one with the poorest quality and lots of sugar/additives/flavours/etc.
Discounter products like “Great Value” can easily have a better quality than stuff produced by “Kraft” and other Unilever/Nestle/etc. products.
Checking the ingredients list and the nutrition table should be a natural first instinct when grabbing something off the shelf.
Care to explain?