Asymmetrical Information

It's the NannyBot 2005! Programmed to follow you everywhere and slap those nasty unhealthy fried foods and cigarettes out of your hands. Also programmed to prevent unsafe sex (actually, any sex at all, since they'll tear down doors to come into the room and watch), and to monitor compliance with each and every one of Big Brothers edicts! Includes wireless data link to receive every new edict immediately.

I've never understood how the belief that a large swathe of our society is in need of a nanny is reconciled, ideologically speaking, with the belief that we should do everything we can to encourage those people to vote. But that's another rant.

Why would anyone seek ideological consistancy? Sounds like a strange thing to do to me.

"There's a lot more work stress"...if he really thinks that, he doesn't know much about labor and business history.

Repeat after me: Anecdotes are not evidence.

There is so much of this anecdotal crap out there, I reject all of it. Writers have been told to "get the human story" so much that the mound of drivel produced could reach to the moon and back. It may evoke sympathy, but it's completely worthless for any policy-making purpose.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the things I most despise about media coverage. "Man on the street" interviews are patently absurd.

"Poor people eat so badly in America," says one expert. "Yes, and such large portions!" replies t'other.

Actually the line in the story that stuck out for me was this one from the maid: "She loved the feeling of a cigarette between her fingers, the rhythmic rise and fall of it to her lips. Using her home computer, she had figured out how to buy Marlboros online for just $2.49 a pack."

This is not a powerless member of the working poor, not to mention that perhaps 20 years ago all three of these people would be double-dog dead. Oh well.

-cwk.

A side note to that, is one may be poor, but that doesn't mean they go without their cell phone, their tv, and their computer

The Poor Diet Fairy doesn't leave unwanted pork rinds, but you try shopping all-organic on a "barely a living" wage--where a can of organic soup is $3, making a can of empty calories, at $.50, look more attractive, and the pavlovian effect or dare we say, "market efficiencies", draw the poor to bad nutrition like gravity to the breasts of elderly denizens of the trailer parks.

That being said, many of these same poor people squander the money that could have gone toward healthier foods, on cigarettes, useless shiny things for their car, brand new sneakers, video games, alcohol, etc.

What these people need is not so much a nanny, as a Drill Instructor. Or a Zen Master to whap 'em upside the head, randomly.

all-organic != healthy

The product offering at Whole Foods (for example) is no more healthy than your local marketplace. The selection of vegetables and meats at the local market, continually made more affordable year in and year out due to innovations such as genetic engineering, pesticides, hormone treatments, and slaughterhouses, will allow someone to live just as long as a free range chicken with organic lettuce. Its the ding-dongs and fried chicken that are unhealthy.

"I shop at a market in a housing project, and while it's not exactly Wegmans, I manage to put together a balanced diet on a budget so tight the nickels squeak."

Ooohh, aren't you resorceful. What project, tough gal? Stuy Town? Not exactly the 'hood now, is it? Try eating healthy in Starrett City and you won't make these glib comments.

Oh dave,

I live in the burbs but I do my meat and veggie shopping in downtown Detroit. The prices are better and the food is fresh. Only in the past few years have fruit markets been opening in the suburbs that are even close in variety and selection to what could be found in the city.

And yes, the price of the foodstuffs went up with the new markets. Gotta pay that property tax.

*Sigh* How long before this thread becomes another one of those "Hey, when I in college I knew what it was like to be poor... threads?

Such is the erosion of personal responsiblity.

People have their priorities, when something is important to them (like cigarettes, being lazy, booze, etc) they always find a way to get it. If being healthy is important to these unhealthy "poor" people, they could do it.

To blame stores, prices, etc is just silly. The only person that can change your life is you, no matter who you are, what your income, etc. Is it hard? Well, of course. But not impossible.

So I say to these "unhealthy poor" people, shut up and do something about it! Like I heard from a movie once:

Sometimes, life gives you the short end of the stick. And unless you do something about it, that's all you're ever gonna get.

Making *me* give up my hohos isn't going to make *you* any more healthy.

(Oh, and to those people who lament, oh, you don't *know* what it's like to be poor, I say fooey on you. Poor people understand the concept of personal accountability too.)

Food is a great reward: it's relatively cheap, it's widely available 24/7, and it's completely within your control. Is it any surprise that people reward themselves with food when the rest of their lives may seem out of control and without hope for much improvement?

I suggest a Po' Folks Court. To be established in every city, town and gooberville in the country. All "poor" people will be systematically brought before the court for social assessment and will then be sentenced to a remedial regime of education, re-education, bans, public scorn and censoring and if necessary sterilization.

I mean we just can not continue to put up with the wastrel poor who drink alcohol, cigarettes, porn and eat beyond their means.

It is time for a fed id that tells the corporations of world that this person is banned from buying booze, cigs and certain foods until they pull themselves up from their own bootstraps and become "rich".

An intensive education program on nutrition and health (only for those deemed not too stupid to learn) is required as well as a big stencil (temporary) on their forehead stating: "Too stupid to be rich!" Thus, they can be berated by passers by and us who are skinny or hell, just rich enough to smoke, jerkoff, get drunk and get fat.

Certain special cases will be sent to re-education where they will be subjected to endless droning lectures by people better off than them on they made it in the world. (Espcially egregious offenders will be sentenced to lectures by high school guidance counselors for 48 hour stretches) Also extended sessions of heart-wrenching whining by all us rich people about all the taxes we have to pay to keep them in cigarettes, booze and porn.

Recidivists will be sterilized, as will their offspring, if that cat has already escaped the bag.

No more VCR's, DVD players, smokes, booze, porn, and all the other filthy and worthless drek that our materialistic culture pimps.

The sign above the doors of Po' Folks Court:

"The Free Market - Only for those who can prove they deserve it."

(well as "free" as it is anyway)

jswift, point taken.

But I think you misunderstand. I don't want the "poor" to be judged. I just want them to solve their own problems or shut the hell up about blaming the "rich" or the "government" or the "system" for all their problems.

Heck, it's not just "poor" people.. it's *everyone*. Stop blaming other people for your lot in life and *do* something, goddammit!

If you sit around waiting for other people to make things better for you (not just the "poor"), you'll be waiting a long time.

Why should *I* give up my hohos to make *you* healthy when it wasn't *me* that shoved the hohos down your throat?

Is anyone freaked out by the 'rich guy' picture with the seemingly severed head?

...a postal worker is less likely to have a stressful job than an investment banker...

In fairness, the article addresses that point, in the sense that "some researchers now believe" the opposite to be true.

But I think you misunderstand. I don't want the "poor" to be judged. I just want them to solve their own problems or shut the hell up about blaming the "rich" or the "government" or the "system" for all their problems.

Losers always lay off responsibility onto others, and neglect to consider what they could do to influence outcomes. It's the defining characteristic of a loser; in fact, it's what MAKES them losers in the first place.

Doesn't the poor quality of inner-city markets make good food hard to get?

Not that anticompetitive big-city regulations and unions have anything to do with that.

So long as those of us in the tax-paying classes are footing the bill for Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and the like, I think Po Peoples' Court is a great idea.

To be fair though, po' folks do pay plenty in cigarette and liquor taxes, and by dying earlier do save us on SocSec payments, so maybe we're even.

BTW, how many fat people do you see in Chinatown? Last I checked, most of those folks aren't in the higher income brackets...

Well, I lived in East Harlem for 3 years and I can conclusively state that the supermarkets there had plenty of healthy options to choose from. The only real differences between the C-Mart on 115th Street and the D'Agostinos in the West Village are that C-Mart is both dirtier and cheaper.

Or are those projects also not "real", Dave? Because if that's the case, you should really tell the people living there. I'm sure they'd appreciate you informing them they they were no longer poor enough to be used anecdotally by people like me.

In that sort of article, I keep seeing mentions of urban neighborhoods where there's little or no produce for sale, and anyone without a car (especially if they're also taking care of small children) is going to have a very hard time getting healthy food.

This doesn't seem totally implausible, but I've also never seen any numbers about how many people are in that sort of situation.

"Well, I lived in East Harlem for 3 years and I can conclusively state that the supermarkets there had plenty of healthy options to choose from. The only real differences between the C-Mart on 115th Street and the D'Agostinos in the West Village are that C-Mart is both dirtier and cheaper."

You demonstrate nothing with this statement but your own ignorance. There are huge swathes of Brooklyn and Queens with no, I repeat, NO SUPERMARKETS OF ANY KIND. No C-Town, no nothing. Only bodegas and fried chicken joints. You can't buy a salad for any price. Of course, never having been to these neighborhoods, you wouldn't know that. There's a big difference between East Harlem and East New York.

And in case you hadn't noticed, if there's no market close by, and you are buying more than a single bag, you have to pay for a car service to bring your groceries home, a big expense for the working poor.

But why let these messy realities intrude on your self-righteous fantasy about how the poor are to blame for their health problems?

Well, dave, I can't verify that a single word of what you are saying is true...but assuming every word of it is, what percentage of "the poor" live in districts like those, and furthermore, what do you propose as a solution for that phenomenon?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the poor are not to blame for their own health problems. Then who is to blame? Not me - I don't even know them.

"They are not my poor." Ralph Waldo Emerson

OOOOh, the loser option, otherwise known as taking responsibility for yourself.

I suggest Loser's Court. See above for courts and social assesment blah, blah.

Except this time, if you are mental ill you are a loser, heal thyself, you abuse your credit, you are loser, you are bankrupt, you are a loser, get five jobs, you are lazy, swift kick in the ass, get a job, loster, you are an addict, your fault, stop doing it, you loser. You don't eat well, get a job, move, get another job, get a car, get another job, drive to the store loser, you are 12 yrs old and poor, loser, get a job, you are 82 and poor, loser, get a job, can't move without a walker, too bad loser, you have to move faster, you are a retard, too bad, you are still a loser, get a job, you are missing limbs and can't drive t.s. loser, crawl to work, you are fat, loser, stop eating so much, workout... okay maybe not everyone is loser, just those losers who make me pay more taxes.

What to do?

Really is pretty much a summary execution type court. You round up all the losers, put a tracking device on them, put them in a parachute and you give them a knife. You fly them all to the Canadian wilderness (in the summer time of course) and shove them out of the plane. Social Darwinism at its finest man. Can't move fast enough to avoid the wolves in your walker too bad. In a couple weeks you come back and pick up the survivors self-responsiblity assured.

dave,

Just out of curiosity, in the neighborhoods you're talking about, are there no ethnic grocers? No Indian or Vietnamese or Mexican or Korean grocers? I ask only because if you want good, cheap produce, you can generally find it in such places.

And in case you hadn't noticed, if there's no market close by, and you are buying more than a single bag, you have to pay for a car service to bring your groceries home, a big expense for the working poor.

Because no one could possibly take a bus with two bags of groceries. Speaking as one who lived for several years without a car, in a place where getting to the nearest supermarket involved two buses, I say that's bull. I've not "paid for a car service" in my life; I've many times gotten on a bus with four bags of groceries. Awkward, but absolutely not impossible.

And the other thing is that even the lousy excuses for groceries that sell mostly booze generally do also sell canned and jarred and dry goods that would make a more healthful diet than Micky D's. Beans, peas, tomato sauce, tuna, pasta. You could live on that.

I hate having to realize this, but: Jane, you are turning into an asshole.

Ron, to be called an asshole by you is evidently a mark of fine logic and reasoning. Please call me one too.

I hate to piss on J. Swift's reductio ad absurdum parade, but it was the Left who turned all the inmates out of the psych wards out onto the streets. All "deinstitutionalization" accomplished was to turn NYC into one giant nuthouse.

"My house, my rules" was how my father always put it. If we the taxpayer are financing the house, the meals, and the allowance, then I think we have standing. If you don't like being treated like a child, stop acting like one.

I'm sick of the victimology of it all. Any family nowadays that is truly in poverty more than two generations probably needs some serious re-education. Or maybe there's just a certain percentage of the population that will never be able to get out of its own way. Wouldn't that be a bitch.

"Losers always lay off responsibility onto others, and neglect to consider what they could do to influence outcomes. It's the defining characteristic of a loser; in fact, it's what MAKES them losers in the first place."

It's interesting to note that in different areas around the U.S. and in different countries around the world, the number of losers differ. How come countries like Norway have so few losers? So little obesity, too! And everyone earns more than U.S. minimum wage (even on social welfare benefits). How come the worst 25% of Finnish students at the age of 16 perform better than the top 25% of Americans? To me, it appears that the United States is a huge freaking ensemble of losers compared to other societies of similar wealth. Maybe the above comments suggest that losers' inability to succeed in their home countries brought these immigrants to the U.S., i.e. they are naturally predisposed to loserdom? But if they could return to European welfare states, they would no longer be losers. I am perplexed by the American conception of opportunity as social darwinism, of sub-par performance as loserdom. The US is not a melting pot, it's a loser pot.

There are huge swathes of Brooklyn and Queens with no, I repeat, NO SUPERMARKETS OF ANY KIND. No C-Town, no nothing. Only bodegas and fried chicken joints.

Gee, given New York City's warm embrace of innovative, discount retail operations -- you know, the sort of places that really help stretch the budgets of rich and poor alike -- this is really surprising (sarcarsm intended).

"in America, the rich work longer hours than the poor"

and your measure of this is?

Was the Stuy town comment sarcasm, or is that really the place Jane was referring to when she talked about shopping in "a housing project"? I'm strongly hoping that it's just sarcasm.

Reductio Ad Nauseum, the enlighten version:

Loser Court, Part II (thunk, thunk) our dragnet was too wide, too many losers gathered up and gotten rid in too harsh a means. Okay....

All able bodied men ages 18 to 65, women too depending on if the theocracy has need of breeding stock to keep white folks in majority, must go in for loser assessment. Failure means Survivor Canadian wilderness except you get a flint and steel to go with your knife. And all the liberals who let the mentally deranged out to take over NYC get to go too.

Damn "the snob" we are already going bleeding heart liberal on em. Letting those wastrel 12 year olds get away with this. Who needs a labor department to watchover child labor regulations. Damned tax and spend liberals blowing my otherwise perfectly good beer money on all these regulations. And screw the farmers and the OSHA too. I can buy a lot a beer with that money.

First, Jane lives on the Upper West Side, as she has written on the blog before. I can think of a number of housing projects there that are quite bad and where a lot of poor people do live. I actually live a couple of blocks from them. I see people from those projects going to Mickey D's all the time, despite affordable grocery stores with serious health-food options around. There's also a number of affordable kosher vegan options in that neighborhood. Yet, consistently, the residents choose Mickey D's or the Chinese food joints along Columbus, Amsterdam, and Broadway.

Second, I've gone to Brooklyn several times to do grocery shopping because a) it's cheaper, and b) i can get ethnic foods that I grew up with that I can not find in Manhattan. If I can get from Brooklyn to the UWS with bags of groceries, then certainly, people from East New York can get from Key Food in Brooklyn Heights or the swarm of Russian markets on the south end of Prospect Park back to their neighborhoods if their options are indeed so scarce (which they aren't).

The thing that I find to be most depressing is the fact that the parents take the children to Mickey D's and the other disgusting fast food joints. I once went into Mickey D's to grab a quick soda at around 3 pm, right when school got out. The place was packed with poor mothers taking their kids there after school. It seemed like a regular occurrence for most of them, rather than a rare treat. That is a real shame. But I think that that's more of a function of the parents being lazy rather than any lack of resources. Making healthy food at home for your kids takes time. A lot of these people have that time, but are too lazy to spend it.

"A lot of these people have that time, but are too lazy to spend it."

You are right on target. These people are not victims. They have nobody but themselves to blame for their predicament. Moreover, Mickey D's is not inexpensive. I can easily cook up a great meal for a third of what it cost at a fast food restaurant. Heck, I do it all the time! I authoritatively speak with lots of experience.

Maybe the billions spent on advertising junk food - carefully aimed at less educated people - have something to do with it?

Or is it wicked socialism to ask that question?

"car service" hahahahahahahahahahaha

i'm sorry, but no one outside of the very elite calls it a "car service". most of the world calls it "taxi". I say "james, can you please take me home?" But then, I don't clame to be speaking for the poor.

cheap, good food: chicken, rice by the 25lb bag, vegetables. boring, cheap, good for you. yeah you don't have supermarkets in many neighborhoods in NYC. why is that? The unjions won't let it, the residents burned them out in the 1960s, and the city has horrible zoning regulations. Still, you can buy everything you need to cook healthily. You can't however, buy an organic, bagged salad of heirloom vegetables. Poor people don't buy "salads", they buy vegetables that make up a salad.

Seriously, if y'all defenders of the downtrodden are going to have any sort of credibility, at least understand what the hell you're talking about. Good food takes TIME to make, or is expensive to buy prepared (given that it takes time to make and needs fresh produce). Bad food can be bought cheaply as it can use crappier ingredients and is more condusive to being cooked in larger batches and being reheated/kept under heat lamps.

As for the class complaints... my god, it's such a horrible thing that the middle class dude got an angioplasty in 24 hours, rather than in 2. Go to any other country in the world (such as canada) you ain't getting an angioplasty in 2 hours or 24... more like weeks+++.

Bruce Williams,

Maybe the billions spent on advertising junk food - carefully aimed at less educated people - have something to do with it?

How do you "aim" advertising at "less educated people"? By putting it in certain time slots? Bruce, even the "educated" watch prime-time TV.

Besides, I could swear that this morning one NPR segment was sponsored by Burger King. Of course, that's not "advertising," which is low and dirty; that's sponsorship, which is elevated and noble. Still, they seem to be rather far afield from what you take to be their target demographic, yes?

Jane-- Who is this "Ed" guy? Are you engaged? When is the wedding? Does he like your dog? Is he at least 5'8"?

Also, the biggest weight problem is people of all sizes fatter than heroine addicts who wear clothes that are too tight. If you've got 3 inches of belly and a spare tire hanging over the hiphuggers like foam over the edge of a double latté, maybe try wearing a double XL sweatshirt, OK?

Let’s get something straight. I occasionally enjoy eating at MacDonald’s. The last time I did so it cost me about $3.75. This was for a relatively small cheeseburger, fries, and a coke. I could have easily prepared a large plate of nutritious pasta with meat (including bread and grated cheese) for around $1.50---at the most. A modest glass of wine might set me back 50 cents. A heaping dish of ice cream will not cost more than another 50 cents. I will still have minimally $1.25 left over.

You guys are for real? What a bizzare thing to have a pissing contest over.

The "other rant" mentioned, about urging moral lackwits to vote, is related to the question of whether voting is a duty or a vested right. More here.

Norway?

Well, we don't see much poverty in Greenwich, Connecticut either, nor in Wellesley, Mass., or even Marin County. The Scandinavian countries are nothing like the US. Compare us to France and the results are a little less spurious, and a lot less damning to the US. Last I checked they were quite a bit more generous with the welfare than us.

Swift: Yes, now you've got it. Public housing assistance just distorts the market, which would happily provide slums if given the opportunity, and if we withdraw most forms of public assistance, then I will cease to care what the poor eat, smoke, and generally do so long as they refrain from robbing stores and knifing people. But I suppose that's too far. I think you and I agree that the chronically poor are not fully capable of taking proper adult care of themselves. Isn't that the point of stories like this one in the NYT?

"There are huge swathes of Brooklyn and Queens with no, I repeat, NO SUPERMARKETS OF ANY KIND. No C-Town, no nothing. Only bodegas and fried chicken joints. You can't buy a salad for any price."

I have also seen huge swathes of suburbia with no stores of any kind - but that's due to boneheaded zoning laws. If there's a market for salad in the neighborhood, and the law doesn't make it too difficult to sell it there, there will be a store selliing it. If there are only bodegas (whatever that is) and fried chicken joints, that's because that's what the people living around there want. Or just maybe you are looking for suburban-style supermarkets and missing the smaller grocery stores that actually are there...

"How long before this thread becomes another one of those 'Hey, when I in college I knew what it was like to be poor...' threads?"

How about when I was supporting my wife and 1 kid on military E1 pay (not much more than minimum wage)? This was fairly tough, but not impossible, due to great money management by my wife. OTOH, one of my wife's friends got a string of radio stations in a divorce settlement. With a more than middle class income, she often can't make it to the next quarterly dividend without pawning some jewelry. Of course, the problem is that the average poor American is mentally much more like my wife's friend than like my wife.

How do you "aim" advertising at "less educated people"? By putting it in certain time slots?

Isn't this the essence of modern advertising? Different television programs have different demographics, and people in different demographics respond well to different types of sales pitches, music, and language.

If you watch Jerry Springer in the middle of the day or late at night, you'll see lots of ads for credit counseling services, beauty academies, "spiritual advisors", and technical schools. These people don't advertise during Arrested Development.

How about when I was supporting my wife and 1 kid on military E1 pay

Yes, that's the kind of thread he was talking about.

I don't know how it relates to rich and poor, but I think the biggest determining factor in obesity is the people around you. I come from Los Angeles, live in Tokyo, and visit rural Maryland often. In Tokyo, and to a lesser extent Los Angeles, people are relatively thin. You feel some pressure to be thin, or rather, you think more about what you are eating.

In rural Maryland a much larger proportion of the population is fat. Spending a couple weeks there, you just start to believe there is no problem in eating huge portions and then ordering a huge dessert. The cheddar muffins alone that are freebies at Red Lobster are good for a few meals in Tokyo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

We already have a nanny state, in that the government seeks to protect those who would indulge in various narcotic drugs.

Why? Not to protect them, but to protect society. Outside of a few libertarians, society generally acknowledges the fact that human beings are weak enough that a significant number would, given unlimited freedom and someone willing to provide the opportunity, damage or destroy themselves. However, no man is an island, and in the process of doing themselves harm, they can cost us all dearly, and in the extreme case, destroy society. So, society enacts laws to "protect people against themselves" as an act of self-preservation.

So the question is not "if nanny state", but "how much nanny state". Things have changed over the years in two important ways: (1) We are vastly more efficient and thus *can* provide harmful goods and services to the vast majority of the population at a cost that would allow them to partake enough to destroy themselves, (2) Ethical views have changed so that providing such goods and services no longer results in social disapproval. If successful enough, the snake oil salesman is embraced as a clever businessman giving people what they want, not shunned for harming his customers.

Evolution is not perfect. It has provided us with desires that may have helped survival 100,000 years ago, but are now self-destructive. There is a strong commercial interest in fulfilling those desires and little social opprobrium for those for those who do so.

This does not mean a license to regulate everything, as that regulation has cost, and sometimes substantial cost. But it does mean that there are two sides to the regulation question, and they must be carefully weighed against each other, something that seems not to happen too often in these comments...

"You guys are for real? What a bizzare thing to have a pissing contest over."

The really bizzare thing is that this "why the poor are fat" topic comes up about once every three weeks, and it never seems to get old.

Tom West,

Excellent post. Yours is the voice of reason among the bickering masses.

So, how much nanny state? That depends on how much freedom you want to take away from everyone else to protect the destructive people from themselves.

Everyone has a different view on what this is.

Tom: The trouble with that argument is that the war on some drugs is doing much more damage to society than a few losers destroying themselves with drugs ever could. Not that it seems to have had much success in stopping the self-destructive, either, unless you think destroying their lives by sending them to prison is a big improvement over them destroying their lives themselves.

Anecdotes aren't evidence? Neither are statistics.

I remind y'all that people get fat for one and only one reason: calories consumed regularly exceed calories expended. The quality and composition of food consumed is irrelevant.

The intelligent and disciplined have a higher tendency to take care of their bodies (eat right, exercise, listen to their doctors). The intelligent and disciplined also have a higher tendency to not be poor, or at least not remain that way for long. Of course, intelligence and discipline are not monolithic character traits, so I'm sure there are 300-lb. chain smokers who live in gated communities and ride to work in limos. Those are the tendencies, though.

So why do so many people scorn this brilliant company's advice? Could it be they are giving the finger to the self-appointed,unproductive (this refers to government-derived incomes) scolds?

I totally agree on the disc operation. 90% of people with spinal disc problems will recover in the long run without needing an operation. In fact, many disc operations don't make a difference in long term outlook, although they can help in the short term.

My doctor referred me to a disc surgeon when I ruptured a herniated disc. After reviewing all the alternatives, I declined to have disc surgery and am glad I did so.

Brittain33,

If you watch Jerry Springer in the middle of the day or late at night, you'll see lots of ads for credit counseling services, beauty academies, "spiritual advisors", and technical schools. These people don't advertise during Arrested Development.

Oh, I know just what you mean. I used to watch old Perry Mason shows at noon by way of lunch hour, and the ads were hilarious. If you're watching TV in the middle of the day, you are obviously either unemployed (cue technical-institute ad) or just wrecked your car (cue auto-insurance ad) or have substance-abuse problems (cue rehab ad), or are in hospital (cue personal-injury-attorney ad), or . . .

But, see, fast-food ads aren't really any commoner in the middle of the day or late at night than they are in prime time. At least, they don't seem to be. And that was my point. Fast-food joints aren't specifically targeting the poor; it's the poor who are disproportionally eating fast food. Or rather, I should say, subsisting on it, rather than eating it occasionally for convenience or for fun.

Here's an additional reason, not yet mentioned, that I think poor people eat less-healthy foods:

Fatty, sugary, high-cholesterol foods are the world's cheapest sedatives. Eating a supersize McDonalds value meal sedates me more than a valium -- I have trouble staying awake for hours afterwards.

It's not just that the poor are lazy or unable to find healthy food. They like junk food because junk food makes them feel good right away. And it's pretty much the only legal/affordable thing they can get that does that.

By "good" I mean it's sweet/salty/rich-tasting going down, and after they've eaten they feel full and fuzzy and don't care about anything. That's not a bad place to be for someone who doesn't have many prospects in life.

I avoid unhealthy foods because I can't get anything done after I've eaten them. But that's because I WANT to get something done. I have thinks I believeI can accomplish in life. If I didn't believe I was going to accomplish anything tonight, or tomorrow, or ever, I'd probably try to drown myself in fast food -- that is, if I couldn't find a stronger drug.

No comment on this thread has done more than either say (1) oh no, the poor poor people, or (2) I am smart and hard working, that is why I am not poor, not fat, etc.

Even the Times' series does not try to do more than point out that people who are born poor generally tend to stay that way, ditto with those born rich, and that rich people have better lives than poor people.

Isn't anyone interested in WHY?

There are some interesting sociologists & law professors out there working on a thesis that community standards play a large role. You are more likely to get a good job, work out at the gym, not beat your wife, etc., if that is what your family, friends and neighbors expect of you. If your decision to impregnate a 15 year old girl and not support her, remain unemployed, gain so much weight that you cannot see your own feet, etc., does not provoke any serious reaction from those around you, then you are less deterred from engaging in this destructive (though not unenjoyable) behavior.

And by the way -- what kind of nasty meat are you putting in your pasta sauce and cut rate wine are you drinking? No way a full pasta meal costs $1.50.

CBH,

Re; "Isn't anyone interested in WHY?"

Not really, no. Being middle class requires some education, a solid work ethic, and the avoidance of stupid behaviors. It ain't rocket science.

CBH,

And by the way -- what kind of nasty meat are you putting in your pasta sauce and cut rate wine are you drinking? No way a full pasta meal costs $1.50.

If David Thomson (no relation to me, btw) lives anywhere near a Trader Joe's, this is totally possible. A 28-oz can of tomatoes is about a dollar, and will probably turn into five or six servings of sauce once cooked up. You will want some salt and probably garlic and parsley and other seasonings; these are cheap, and you'll only need little bits of them for any one meal. (And they, like the tomatoes, will keep if you refrigerate them properly.) Ditto cheese: one chunk of domestic "Parmesan" will keep you for some time. Pasta itself is absurdly cheap.

I don't know what David intended by "meat." I generally throw 6 oz. of canned tuna into 28 oz. of tomatoes, but even as the most expensive item in the mix it doesn't add all that much to the cost per serving. As for wine, Trader Joe's "Two Buck Chuck" (a vast buy of Charles Shaw they first made years ago and I gather have since repeated) is perfectly decent vin ordinaire, and David's 50-cent glass is about right, at $1.99 a bottle.

...and a postal worker is less likely to have a stressful job than an investment banker.

So the phrase to use to describe being stressed in a job and flipping out is going banker?

In the case of food, culture does have something to do with it. I have given diet/cooking lessons in battered women's shelters and have encountered women who've never used fresh broccoli and didn't know how to prepare it. Another time we got in a case of almost-stale-dated yogurt and it "tasted funny" to them; just a flavor that felt foreign. I remember experiencing the same thing when I first started eating it, but I had lots of re-inforcement for continuing and they didn't.

So I concentrated on where they were, not where they "should" be. That meant pinto beans and cheese, ground beef, canned tomatoes, etc. Fresh veggies I limited to green beans (some of them grew their own), onions, celery, potatoes and cabbage. We talked about how to use oatmeal.

They were motivated to help their kids, they just didn't know how. And the stupid government pyramid of foods was guaranteed to make anyone with the thrifty gene fat. Ever seen those school lunch programs? They're about as smart as the curriculum the kids get.

Being poor *is* stressful. You know you're a failure by anyone else's standards. You've been thru a govt school and are often barely literate so you know it must be your fault, and you are afraid to try. No one you know reads or goes to museums. If you ever did such a thing, you'd be ridiculed.

You know those micro-credit programs that places like Bangladesh have? We need a micro-mentor program for the underclass. Someone who can show them how "the rich" (which is anybody with a home and a paid-for decent car and regular employment)make decisions.

So good on Bill Cosby. He's credible and he's determined. We need more like him, black and white.

Well, I'm poor, fat, hard-working, well-educated, and successful. I'm starting my own business so my income is at college-student level and I smoke and eat red meat frequently and if I lived in Europe I'd probably have a little trouble shopping for clothes. So what? We all have to make sacrifices in order to save Social Security.

Some years ago Mad magazine satirized the media reporting the end of the earth as a result of a comet strike (or something) The best headline was the one poking fun at the Times.

"World To End Tomorrow. Poor And Minorities Hit Hardest"

Made me laugh 50 years ago, makes me laugh now.

Hey, you guys got a problem with fat people?

There are some interesting sociologists & law professors out there working on a thesis that community standards play a large role.

The corollary, which dymphna touched upon, is the "crab bucket syndrome" whereby the community enforces the status quo -- i.e., if I'm going to be poor and barely literate, then so are you.

(Crabs in a bucket will try frantically to escape -- but if one makes progress, the others pile on and drag that crab back down. In their case, it's just flight-instinct at work, and the highest graspable object is a potential escape path; in humans, it's something more like insecurity or spite.)

This can make it far more difficult to be healthy, or disciplined, or successful in any legal pursuit. Motivation draws abuse, hence even a clear and open opportunity may dissipate quickly from neglect.

So the phrase to use to describe being stressed in a job and flipping out is going banker?

- Michigander

Blue-collar employees who show up one day and shoot a dozen co-workers are disgruntled sociopaths. What does stress have to do with is?

"Note: As usual, I will be policing the comments and ruthlessly deleting those that propose such theories as "arabs/muslims/middle-easterners are stupid/evil/violent-by-nature". We thank you for your cooperation." -- Jane Galt, 'What do insurgents want?'

". . . one may be poor, but that doesn't mean they go without their cell phone, their tv, and their computer" -- FMD, this thread

". . . many of these same poor people squander the money that could have gone toward healthier foods, on cigarettes, useless shiny things for their car, brand new sneakers, video games, alcohol, etc. . . What these people need is not so much a nanny, as a Drill Instructor." -- Ciggy, this thread

"People have their priorities, when something is important to them (like cigarettes, being lazy, booze, etc) . . . I don't want the 'poor' to be judged. I just want them to solve their own problems or shut the hell up . . ." -- ns, this thread

"Losers always lay off responsibility onto others . . ." -- Occam's Beard, this thread

"To be fair though, po' folks do pay plenty in cigarette and liquor taxes, and by dying earlier do save us on SocSec payments, so maybe we're even." -- the snob, this thread

"Making healthy food at home for your kids takes time. A lot of these people have that time, but are too lazy to spend it." -- Yevgeny Vilensky, this thread

"These people are not victims. They have nobody but themselves to blame for their predicament." -- David Thomson, this thread

"Here's an additional reason . . . that I think poor people eat less-healthy foods . . . the world's cheapest sedatives. . . It's not just that the poor are lazy or unable to find healthy food. They like junk food because junk food makes them feel good right away." -- Aaron, this thread

"Being poor *is* stressful. You know you're a failure by anyone else's standards. You've been thru a govt school and are often barely literate so you know it must be your fault . . ." -- dymphna, this thread

Wow.

So what's your take, Rofe? That poor people are poor through no shortcomings of their own, but because the rest of us are oppressing them? That it isn't really true that the poor are more likely to smoke, drink, and eat junk food, or squander their limited resources on consumer goods they really can't afford? If you don't think it's fair to characterize the poor as people who aren't as bright or disciplined as the middle class, then you need to provide an alternate explanation as to why they are not doing as well.

The comments about the poor you quoted are not really equivalent to stereotyping a particular ethnicity as "stupid/evil/violent-by-nature". In fact, they are closer to stereotyping lousy baseball players as people who can't hit, throw or catch a ball. For one thing, it's not possible to say "being stupid, evil, and violent can cause one to become an Arab", but it IS possible to hypothesize that being lazy and not terribly bright can lead one to poverty. Hard to believe this is even controversial.

Rofe, don't you get it dude, the only real victim here is me. Me. Me. Me. I have to pay taxes for something other than the military and it is just such a burden. I have to work all them days to prop up our government and society and I just can't understand it.

Can you just imagine how much friggin stuff I could buy if I did'nt have to pay all those taxes. I mean I could have a Lexus like my next door neighbor for god's sake! In fact I could probably swing moving into bigger house and show that jerk, I tell ya.

And something else, if I did not have to pay all these taxes for losers, well then I could stop whining about it on blogs. Man, that would save a couple of hours a day at least.

I think the problem here is that there are two types of people:

1. people who believe that change and success starts with the self.

2. people who believe that their bad lot in life was brought about circumstances out of their control.

I think there are many people on this board that are more of the type #1. It may sound uncompassionate, but many people who are not doing as well (which we label as "the poor") are of the type #2. If they were a type #1, they wouldn't BE poor - or they wouldn't be for long.

I personally believe that you can achieve anything you put your mind to. (sounds like a PBS special) But it's really true. People always have a choice, and there are always consequences to their actions or inactions. Sure, it's hard, but all it takes is a change in attitude and you can get what you want in life.

People who are not where they want to be in life have no one to blame but themselves. Sure, the "system" or the "oppressor" probably makes it harder, but I don't believe in this day and age anyone can keep anyone else down for long.

It's often hard to admit your faults and change yourself. Most people who do see their own faults would rather wallow in it and wait until someone comes and fixes things FOR them.

Ever talk to a "loser?" Ask them what they can do to improve their life... and most often they draw a blank. Or they say something like, if SOMEONE would give me a CHANCE! It's always someone else and never me. They are always powerless to change their lot.

j swift,

Can you propose any other solution than to levy the burden on society (through taxes, social programs, etc) that can improve the situation for "the poor?"

I find it telling that you want everyone else to solve this problem. I myself, have worked extensively with the have-nots - through shelters and various charities - and I'll tell you, most of the people that come through CAN change their life, but refuse not to.

I've housed these have-nots in my own home, paid thousands of dollars to help them out of my OWN PERSONAL MONEY, and all in the end have achieved NOTHING. That's from working and coaching and advising, day to day. In the end, I almost ruined my own marriage because of it. Did I really "help" anyone? No, because the more you help, the more they lean, until they suck you dry and you have to kick them out.

I know anecdotes are not evidence. But I have seen this happen over and over. And those on this board that say "The poor have no one to blame but themselves" - those people have a foot in the truth. So to dismiss their comments as just whining made by selfish greedy people not wanting to part with their money I think is a very unfair assessment.

ns,

There is no silver bullet solution.

It is clear that human beings are fallible, flawed and at times frail. We can not all be strong all the time or right all the time. Human beings are not all the same in ambition, intelligence etc. The assertion that anyone can do anything is bullshit. I do not have the natural ability to play in the NBA. It is assinine to think otherwise. The assertion that poor people are all losers is bullshit because it is a generalization. The poor are certainly subject to varying levels of "fault" for their situations.

Since humans are fallible "poverty" will always be a social problem that has to be managed as best it can. That is all we can do.

We can do this with compassion and/or we can do it by practicing some version of social darwinism and let the poor sink or swim. When it gets down it we should neither be making them dependent nor throwing them in the deep end with rocks in their pockets. Extremism will not work in this situation anymore than it will in anything else.

I have to chuckle at the fact that both rich and poor claim their victimhood. I think everyone has done it in our lives at some point. I certainly have. However, if anyone should forego that kind of self-pity it is the rich. For every loser who is lacking in character there is a rich person who is lacking, just in a different area. They are first ones to say "I earned it" when they may well have lied, cheated, or just got lucky.

People talk about frugality as a responsibility that the poor must take on and yet this does not seem to apply to the rich. Do celebrities, sports figures and CEO's really need to take all that money they are offered. (think Pat Tillman). There comes a point in time when people take a reward only because they can, not because they are worth it or deserve it. They are certainly fortunate that they can do it, does not mean that they get high marks in character by doing so.

At least there are some poor who truly are victims of circumstance.

Rofe,

Many of those statements are empirically true. Most people who are 'poor' have TVs, and most of those who are under 28 have cell phones too.

Whether things will be better if they are different I do not know, but that they will have to be different if they are to be come better, that I do know?

j swift,

I think I was unclear earlier. When I say you can do what you want to if you put your mind to it, I did not mean you can make yourself an NBA player out of sheer will.

What I meant to say is that anyone who is ABLE can improve their lot in life and get out of poverty in this country. But then I guess we can go back and forth on the definition of "able" - and I'd rather not get into a Bill Clinton definition of what "is" is argument.

Many have-nots do have the ability, but not the will. Or they try, fail once or twice, then give up and lament about how everything is unfair.

Sure, the rich are just as dysfunctional as everybody else. But let's not get into who deserves what, because no one can make that determination - you will never get any kind of consensus on who is deserving and who is not.

Everyone knows how to get ahead in life. Get an education, work hard, save money, etc. Sure, if you set your goals too high, you may not achieve it. But it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to pull yourself out of poverty. This is NOT a hard feat if you are relatively healthy and not disabled.

You want to help the "poor" or the have-nots?? Why don't YOU devote your life to helping them. Then you will see the reality.

I tried to do just that, because I used to feel the way you did. You give and give, over time, it builds into resentment, on the part of the giver AND the part of the taker. Yet they cannot stop taking, and you cannot stop giving... and in the end, it either destroys your life or you kick them out and let them sink or swim.

Harsh as it is, that is the reality.

"but you try shopping all-organic on a "barely a living" wage--where a can of organic soup is $3, making a can of empty calories, at $.50, look more attractive,"

God forbid you should bother to cook for yourself.

"There are huge swathes of Brooklyn and Queens with no, I repeat, NO SUPERMARKETS OF ANY KIND. No C-Town, no nothing. Only bodegas and fried chicken joints. "

And razor wire fences with minefields to keep people in.

Look, the foods people ate a century ago, like beans and corn and greens are still cheaper than fast food. Dandelions greens cost nothing, but how many people even remember that they are edible? People eat fast food because they prefer it. They don't eat the healthier stuff because that's what country people eat, and it is far worse to be country than to be fat. That's a choice right there. So when they get tired of the rest of this, they'll go ahead and change. They may even try some weird ethnic stuff, like wine and tofu. No kind of meat I can think of is as cheap as tofu.

Great post. It kills me everytime they run one of these stories. I don't eat fast food often not only because it's not healthy, but repeat after me, THEY COST MORE THAN COOKING AT HOME!! It cost one dollar for a box of pasta that feeds 4 -6 people. What's with liberals that make them incapable of simple critical analysis.

People talk about frugality as a responsibility that the poor must take on and yet this does not seem to apply to the rich.

I believe you are conflating income aquired and income spent, to the detriment of your claimed point. Some forms of income aquired may indeed be eye-poppingly exorbitant (e.g. a $21.1 million golden parachute for Carly Fiorina) but to drag that into this discussion reeks of envy politics.

A better question is, should a person who may run out of food before the end of the month (or run out of work during their profession's off-season) contractually commit to 1-2 years of $30+/month for cell phone service (barring the possible, but less-common cases, where a wealthier reltive pays for it or the phone replaces a land line service of comparable cost)?

I think the answer is an obvious "no," yet there are plenty of low-income people running around with cell phones -- and commonly these are not the cheap or free-with-service-commitment models, either.

Giving up excess (what is unneeded) with a long-range view toward sustenance (what is needed) is arguably the spirit of frugality. Perhaps there are many wealthier people who would benefit from incorporating moderation into their own lives, but since those people can aquire excess without forfeiting sustenance, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

We can do this with compassion and/or we can do it by practicing some version of social darwinism and let the poor sink or swim.

Compassionate is admirable, and I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise. It's misleading and unfounded to imply that those who object to COMPULSORY compassion are uncompassionate.

People talk about frugality as a responsibility that the poor must take on and yet this does not seem to apply to the rich.

Gee, I wonder why? Could it possibly be that frugality is a little more crucial for the person who has to decide between vodka and baby formula than it is for the person who flies around in a Gulfstream jet? Frugality is only a responsibility depending on the consequences of profligacy.

Do celebrities, sports figures and CEO's really need to take all that money they are offered.

Does anyone really NEED anything, beyond food, some rags to wear, and a park bench to sleep on? Who are you to decide for anyone besides yourself what are and aren't legitimate desires? And if the shareholders of XYZ Corp. decide that it's worthwhile to pay $X million for the services of Mr. CEO, or the owners ot XYZ sports team decide that it's worthwhile to sign a contract for $X million with some athlete, then unless you're one of the counterparties involved, it's none of your business.

But they have so much less spare time.

I mean, back in the days before I owned a Dishwasher, Garbage Disposal, Washer & Dryer, Microwave, etc. I had scads of free time.

Of course I was 12, unemployed, and had a maid (thanks Mom).

Once I got my part-time job at 13 things just went downhill. :-p

Let's urge Congress to pass a law forbidding anyone in the bottom two income quintiles from
eating brocolli, tofu, beans, anything not fried,
whole grain breads, etc. Let Rev. Jesse and Rev.
Al, the NYT, WaPo, etc. scream about Republicans
oppressing the poor, minorities, and the "children." See the million man march on Washington brandishing "Tom Delay should be Filleted" signs in one hand and carrot sticks in
the other. Forbid anyone to weigh more than 200 lbs. and see everyone under 30 rebel against authority.

Rob,

Re; "It's misleading and unfounded to imply that those who object to COMPULSORY compassion are uncompassionate."

Well said.

Socialism is heresy. Charity is a very good thing. But neither charity nor need create a mandate for theft. I am not at all opposed to charity. I am opposed to theft. I am not bothered in the least by accusations that I am uncharitable, lacking in compassion, greedy, etc., etc., because I am aware that my accusers are addicted to theft.

Pardon me, I forgot that rich people are not to be bothered by moral consequences regarding their excess wealth.

Rich people can not be greedy, they are rich.

J. Swift: Could you detail those moral consequences and provide a schedule of the amount of "excess wealth" required before they kick in? I'm sure it would be an entertaining read.

-rpl

But rpl I never suggest that they should, would or could. You are putting words in my mouth and reading what you want to see. You seem to think that I expect the rich to cough up more than the tax dodging rich do at present. Are you such a dogmatic rut-stuck thinker that you believe I am one also?

People are entropy and society will evolve. The political and social environment will change and it will move left and right over time. As long as our country stick somewhat close to the constitutional principles that we all hold dear, this country is not going to come to some calamitous end because of the democrat or republican agenda. Does not mean I agree with it, or we could do it better.

Besides as was so eloquently stated above it is none of my business.

All rich people are pure and obtained their money through hard work. They never used deceit, do not lie, cheat in general, use unethical business practices, cheat on their taxes, commit fraud of any of many numerous things. They never took a student loan, or any other government benefits, nor did their parents because they were rich too. And neither did the corporation and businesses that they founded or run. I mean every rich person is stalwart individualists and would never stoop to taking advantage of any government largesse in any way shape or form. Unlike poor losers who gorge themselves at the government trough,, commit fraud and laugh at the rich for being suckers.

How could I possibly question what the upper management of Enron were paid and how much money and property they own.

As I implied above (in the surreal world of generalizations) the rich are truly government free except that they are victimized by taxes and imposed on by burdensome regulations that don't allow them to work 11 year olds for 12 hours a day. I mean the pure rich of today would never put a child to work if there were no laws agin it.

Don't be willfully obtuse, j. swift. Very few people here have denied that poverty has complex causes, and sometimes, those causes can be the inappropriate actions of the rich. But you have a long row to hoe if you want to make the rich some sort of primary cause such that they should be a focal point of evaluating poverty; or, if that's NOT your goal, why the obsessive references?

I am a mother of three, and I've spent a lot of time working and volunteering in schools, daycamps, childcare centers, etc. all over the class spectrum, plus putting in probably thousands of hours sitting on the bench in urban playgrounds watching the way other people interact with their kids.

I can tell you the class background, aspirational class status, and educational achievments of a mother based on what she's feeding her child. The single most telling thing - the Great Divide of American class status - is whether you give fruit as a snack. Doesn't matter if it's an apple you bought at a gas station or if it's organic olalaberries you bought at the foofy hippie store. Underclass moms don't give their kids fruit. Underclass moms who start giving their kids fruit stop being underclass pretty fast. The mom who gives her child fruit is a middle class mom.

Leaving organics aside for the moment, the really critical information to absorb here is that FRUIT IS BOTH BETTER FOR YOU AND CHEAPER. And you know what? The mom at the park who's giving her kids cheeze doodles or Hostess cupcakes or Pringles KNOWS THAT. And the really, really eerie thing is that in my experience, she thinks of herself as someone who acts at on that knowledge. (I have a lot of conversations with these women at the playground.) Each McDonald's trip, each bag of corn chips, each dinnertime on the floor eating Domino's in front of the TV, is a one-time occurence - just like the last time was, and just like the next time will be. This state of constant indulgence exists in constrast to an imaginary life in which she cooks healthy food and sets a table and turns off the tv - and gives her kids an apple.

J. Swift:

Don't leave us hanging here, man. You've hooked us with your nimble satire; now it's time to reel us in with the punchline.

-rpl

[blockquote]All rich people are pure and obtained their money through hard work. They never used deceit, do not lie, cheat in general, use unethical business practices, cheat on their taxes, commit fraud of any of many numerous things. They never took a student loan, or any other government benefits, nor did their parents because they were rich too. And neither did the corporation and businesses that they founded or run. I mean every rich person is stalwart individualists and would never stoop to taking advantage of any government largesse in any way shape or form. Unlike poor losers who gorge themselves at the government trough,, commit fraud and laugh at the rich for being suckers.[/blockquote]

You're satirizing a viewpoint that nobody here holds. Keep bashing your strawman, if you've got nothing better to do.

[blockquote]How could I possibly question what the upper management of Enron were paid and how much money and property they own.[/blockquote]

That's it, completely cloud the issue by dragging corporate fraud into it. Maybe I'll make a comparable argument against welfare by implying that all poor people are drug dealers and rapists.

D'oh, should've hit 'preview'. Here's a repost with proper html formatting:

All rich people are pure and obtained their money through hard work. They never used deceit, do not lie, cheat in general, use unethical business practices, cheat on their taxes, commit fraud of any of many numerous things. They never took a student loan, or any other government benefits, nor did their parents because they were rich too. And neither did the corporation and businesses that they founded or run. I mean every rich person is stalwart individualists and would never stoop to taking advantage of any government largesse in any way shape or form. Unlike poor losers who gorge themselves at the government trough,, commit fraud and laugh at the rich for being suckers.

You're satirizing a viewpoint that nobody here holds. Keep bashing your strawman, if you've got nothing better to do.

How could I possibly question what the upper management of Enron were paid and how much money and property they own.

That's it, completely cloud the issue by dragging corporate fraud into it. Maybe I'll make a comparable argument against welfare by implying that all poor people are drug dealers and rapists.

"FRUIT IS BOTH BETTER FOR YOU AND CHEAPER"

Fresh fruit is healthy, but it's a also a lot more expensive than alternative snacks. The only exception I can think of is, if it's summer and you happen to be giving your child fruit which is in season. Well living in the Chicago area, we only have fresh fruit in season about 3 months of the year. And it should be no surprise that fresh fruit is more expensive... it has to be handled more carefully, it has to be shipped in a timely manner, if it is not locally grown it has to be shipped a long way, and it has a pretty short shelf life.

A bag of pretzels or potato chips is cheap, lasts a long time and provides a lot of snacks. I am not poor, but I am sure that people who are make tradeoffs about what to buy all the time... spend an extra few dollars on fresh fruit each week, or put that money towards clothing and other necessities? This is why stores that sell non-perishable food in bulk are so popular. And not just among the poor... middle class people use them too, at least where I live.

Non-perishable foods are more convenient, but in my experience they are no cheaper because a person can eat so much more of them, and often does. An apple, orange, or banana contains a good bit of both fructose and fiber, and quickly quells the urge to continue eating. A potato chip does no such thing until you have eaten far too many.

Barring a winter shipyard workers' strike, at least one of the major fruits will be available in any given week (you may have to watch the sales, of course) at 5-6 servings for $3-4. What $3-4 bag of chips last for more than five or six snacks?

My eye, Chicago mama. I may live in California, but our bananas come from Ecuador just like yours.

Hey, you guys got a problem with fat people?

Well, fat people are a lot like drug addicts. They have trouble stopping their unhealthy habits.
Obesity causes more death and disease than do illegal drugs.
Interestingly our society demonizes users of certain drugs ( a list that has nothing to do with science ), and lauds as business heroes the pushers who help food addicts get fat.
I suggest a more even handed solution.
Let people do what they want with their own bodies and health. But educate them well. Tax decisions on a sliding scale; say zero for spinach to alot more for a Big Mac. Or cocaine.
Empty the prisons of free people in just for the maner they get high. But don't let the head of McDonald be a hero.

This is neat. The people who have no trouble finding apples, eggs, fresh fish, etc. for bargain prices are going to explain how impossssssible it is to find cheap junk food.

What $3-4 bag of chips last for more than five or six snacks?

I just looked at a bag of Trader Joe's Tortilla Chips (salted) that we bought for a party last night for $1.79. They claim it has 16 servings of 15 chips each. A similar bag sufficed for a party we had last night with two dozen people.

Even under the most extreme circumstances I can't imagine someone eating two whole bags in 5 or 6 "snacks." They pack a lot of chips in these bags.

And that's Trader Joe's, not a store the working classes use much. You need to look at the junk food they sell in big bags at the grocery store, instead of comparing the prices of rural farmstand apples bought by the case to the single-serving Terra Chips bags your workplace's cafeteria positions next to the cash register.

(P.S. that second bag went straight in the garbage, unopened.)

Obesity causes more death and disease than do illegal drugs. Interestingly our society demonizes users of certain drugs (a list that has nothing to do with science)

Interestingly, obesity causes more death than snake bites. Is getting bitten by a rattler better than eating a bag of chips?

Maybe narcotics are demonized more than junk food because fat people can hold jobs, drive cars, raise their kids, and generally make it through life without being either a burden or a danger to their fellow citizens. Crack heads, heroin addicts, and crystal meth users don't exactly make the best parents, neighbors, or employees. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather that the driver in the other lane scarfed two jelly donuts an hour ago than two sugar cubes saturated in LSD.

Most of the negative consequences of a poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are personal. On the other hand, many of the negative consequences of drug abuse are borne by society at large. The possesion and consumption of certain drugs is illegal for the same reason that driving 120mph is illegal: it's reckless behaviour that endangers the lives and property of others.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether the speed limit should be 55, 65, or 75, but they don't think our highways should be the autobahn. Reasonable people can disagree over exactly what kinds of weaponry private citizens should be trusted to own, but they don't think tactical nukes should be on the list. Reasonable people can also disagree over whether possesion of a given substance - say, like marijuana, or alcohol - should be perfectly legal, an infraction, or a misdemeanor. Reasonable people may or may not think the government should attempt to minimize the availability of cocaine (e.g. crack down on smugglers) and discourage it's use (e.g. prison sentences for users), however reasonable people do not think the government should be involved in someone's decision of whether or not to eat a Big Mac.

Ok. I work from 7 AM to 7PM. I am a single mother with 2 children. After child care, I have $50 per week for groceries. I go home exhausted and have housework, laundry, "help with homework", baths, etc. Yes, I am overweight. I am not stupid or lazy. Give me a realistic weekly grocery list for the 3 of us on which we can really survive.

Comments are Closed.