Prices are up, but Mother's Day still means brunch 18%

By Alina Selyukh0% Scott Horsley0%

5/10/2026, 6:27:52 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 7.7% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 329 faulty-reasoning hits from 611 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.3% and a BS Rank of 18% (17,983 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.20% of the article peer group.

Sign up for the Planet Money newsletter. 
The world is confusing. 
Economics can help. 
Economist Michael Swanson offers a tip for this Mother's Day: 
"If you really want to show mom that love and TLC, you can whip up a pretty nice buffet at home for a lot less money" than going out for that classic brunch, says Swanson, who tracks food prices as the chief agricultural economist at Wells Fargo. 
His daughters apparently know this too: Their plan for Sunday is an egg bake for mom at home, with dad on flower-buying duty. 
But they are in the minority, even as the cost of going out to eat is rising twice as fast as the cost of groceries. 
Mother's Day is by far the busiest day of the year for U.S. restaurants overall. 
It's also one of the biggest days for florists, right after Valentine's Day, and for greeting-card sellers. 
And although rising gas prices have Americans feeling anxious about the economy, that's not stopping them from opening their hearts  and wallets  for their moms this Sunday. 
Record holiday spending 
Spending on this Mother's Day might soar to a record $38 billion, increasing a whopping 11% from last year, according to a forecast by the National Retail Federation. 
The projection is based on a survey that suggests the vast majority of shoppers will buy flowers and cards, while some are also looking for jewelry, clothes and electronics. 
Plants are becoming a more common gift too, according to the Society of American Florists. 
This year, the trade group surveyed florists and found that two-thirds expect Mother's Day sales to increase or remain steady this year  with the rest less optimistic. 
Many florists reported "leaning into value-focused offerings," including cheaper grab-and-go bouquets and smaller arrangements. 
And dining out is still the top activity. 
Reservations platform Resy says bookings as of Wednesday were up nearly 30% compared with the same time frame last year. 
Rival OpenTable says its reservations were "trending up by double digits" compared with last year. 
More eggs, less steak? 
In San Diego, Ed Powers is grateful for the drop in egg prices ahead of the brunch-focused Mother's Day celebrations. 
Eggs are used in three-quarters of the dishes at Broken Yolk Cafe, the 42-restaurant chain where Powers is the director of operations. 
Retail egg prices were down nearly 45% in March compared with a year ago, as the industry rebuilds after a persistent bout of bird flu. 
Wholesale prices have dropped even more. 
"It's like, oh my gosh, great recovery," Powers says. 
Meat is another story. 
The price of beef was up more than 12% in March from last year, as U.S. cattle herds remain historically small. 
Chicken and pork prices have stayed pretty flat. 
"So a lot of bacon or ham in that buffet option," says Swanson. 
"But if it's going to be a high-end steakhouse, bring two wallets." 
Overall, the cost of going out to eat was up 3.8% in March compared with a year ago, federal data shows. 
The cost of groceries rose at half that rate. 
The price of flowers and plants was up 7.5%, and the cost of jewelry 9.9%. 
High gas prices are weighing on people's budgets. 
The national average price has jumped more than $1.50 a gallon since the war in Iran began. 
Prices are even higher in California, where Broken Yolk Cafe is based. 
Powers says this is forcing customers to scale back, although less so for special occasions. 
"I've seen weekday business be a little bit softer," he says. 
"But holidays have still been pretty strong." 
Copyright 2026 NPR 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Alina Selyukh: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Alina Selyukh: 4.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Alina Selyukh: 6.3%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Alina Selyukh: 6.4%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Alina Selyukh: 5.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Alina Selyukh: 8.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Alina Selyukh: 6.7%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.7%Alina Selyukh: 4.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion4.7%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.0%Alina Selyukh: 5.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 3.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.5%Alina Selyukh: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.5%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

611 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech512writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Swanson • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageEd Powers • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Swanson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Swanson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageEd Powers • 11 words • 0.0% coverageEd Powers • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Swanson

65%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words73% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Indoctrination-0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%Michael Swanson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.