Maybe they are so cheap in order to force you to consider that buying the cheapest possible food isn't always the best option. For your health, for the environment, for the humane treatment of consumable animals that you may or may not share -- cheap products often have hidden costs. Eggs are "cheap" due to subsidized corn to feed the hens and subsidized soybean to gas up the rigs that ship around that feed and the eggs themselves. Someone's paying for it -- the taxpayer, the farmer with borrowed funds to buy the mega-sized chicken houses, the sick and elderly who used to be able to rely on antibiotics but no longer can -- even if it's not showing up in the price of $.25 per dozen.
Sometimes spending extra money, which is of course shocking to those of us with similar frugal values around here, is actually a better option. I'm sure you're already aware that buying fresh vegetables is a better expense than a cheap, dollar menu burger and fries, even though the fresh veg is more expensive. So spending more money to purchase locally-sourced, true free range and non-antibiotic injected eggs, meat and dairy might be "worth it" to you. Which may depend on whether you value the maximization of the accumulation of money above all else, or whether you also support larger goals like:
- the diminution of greenhouse gases that contribute to global-warming,
- having your hard-earned and reluctantly-spent dollars support a local farmer with a family and a mortgage or going to a multi-national industrial conglomerate like Tyson, and
- leaving the planet better than you found it for future generations that will be around long after your life has ended.
The 4% rule doesn't just apply to you bank account. You could also take the same logic and apply it to global resources. If we use just 4% of global resources annually, the natural supply could last indefinitely (*actual numbers may very, this is a thought experiment not a science project). Instead, we're using much more than that -- which is kind of like closing your eyes and hoping a 14% withdrawal rate is 'safe'.
Never forget that MMM himself has said that this whole project is really about sustainability masquerading as personal finance. If you have the money (and most of us around here are privileged enough to be able to support ourselves AND save a boat load for early retirement), maybe consider that purchasing decisions based on sustainability are just as important as those based on personal finance -- if not more important.
I get what you are saying and actually agree with you, but I've made a decision to not make eggs my line in the sand. I'm going to post my thought process just to show that we all have to make our own value judgements and priorities. I respect yours, but I'm just at a slightly different spot. Here's are things I have personally chosen to cut down and be more responsible (not saying this is what others should do, it's just where I'm at right now with my family).
Currently:
Food for family of 4:
- Rice (50 pound sacks), Pinto beans (25 pound sacks), 10 pound bags of potatoes, and lentils form the bulk of my family's calories.
- Each week I shop, and buy about 60 dollars worth of fruit, veggies, cheeses, eggs, milk, yogurt, etc.
- I buy about 1 pound of meat total for my family for the week. It's used as a garnish on a few of our meals, hardly ever as a main course.
Pros for environment/sustainability: very little meat, lots of greens.
Cons: I buy few organic products. With unlimited resources I would.
rationale: My wife and I each have access to a 403B, 457, and Roth IRA, for a total of 83k that we can shelter. I'm able to hit about 65k of that 83k right now. When our incomes rise to the point that we can totally fill those buckets, then I'll make further improvements on sustainability. That's simply the higher priority for us right now. By doing this we can retire sooner, which will let us simply our lives, which will likely result in us living in a more sustainable way in FIRE.
