|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:34 am Post subject: 15% of Americans could not afford food in 2008 |
 |
|
At some point in 2008, 15% of Americans could not afford food in 2008.
| Quote: |
If unemployment benefits aren't taking care of this problem -- and I don't know how they could be given more workers forced to work part-time or accept less pay -- then the government might consider instead taking more time to address underemployment. For example, one suggestion could to broaden temporary food stamp programs until the economy improves. Any solutions should also take special care to target children: this problem is most serious for them, as they can sometimes suffer development issues if their nutritional needs are not met. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
From those who analyze the fine print:
| Quote: |
... the government's own data show that, even though they may have brief episodes of reduced food intake, most adults in food insecure households actually consume too much, not too little, food.
To improve health, policies must be devised to encourage these individuals to avoid chronic over-consumption of calories and to spread their food intake more evenly over the course of each month to avoid episodic shortfalls. |
| Quote: |
| around two-thirds of food insecure households experienced "low food security," meaning that these households managed to avoid any disruption or reduction in food intake throughout the year but were forced by financial pressures to reduce "variety in their diets" |
| Quote: |
| According to the USDA, the remaining one-third of food insecure households (around 4 percent of all households) experienced "very low food security," meaning that at least once in the year their actual intake of food was reduced due to a lack of funds for food purchase. |
| Quote: |
| At the extreme, about 1.4 percent of all adults in the U.S. went an entire day without eating at least once during 2006 due to lack of funds for food. |
| Quote: |
| rarely discussed is that the government's own data show that the overwhelming majority of food insecure adults are, like most adult Americans, overweight or obese. Among adult males experiencing food insecurity, fully 70 percent are overweight or obese.[9] Nearly three-quarters of adult women experiencing food insecurity are either overweight or obese, and nearly half (45 percent) are obese. Virtually no food insecure adults are underweight. |
****
So, to put it bluntly, these people are mostly fat, lazy, overfed, stupid and lack the self control to eat their food evenly over a period of time. They have more than enough money for food and more than enough food. They buy too much, spend to much, eat it all too fast, and then most suffer only from a reduced variety for a few days. A smaller number must actually eat less for a meal or two. Very few actually go for even one whole day without food, only 1.4%, and this only happens because they ate too much on the days prior. No one in the US is described as actually suffering from hunger. In fact, nearly all manage to stay fat or obese, which in the US means really fat or obese , since in the US even normal weight individuals are on the heavy side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
ontheway,
While your assessment is very harsh, I agree with the fundamentals of it.
I know quite a few people who are financially insecure such that any sudden hardship would leave them, at least temporarily, with a tighter belt.
These same people have a propensity for drinking, smoking, and generally not as responsible with their cash as they ought to.
Generally, in my experience among my working-class peers, medical costs are far more responsible for financial insecurity than unemployment. All of the financially insecure I know have at least one job. Many have two or even three. But when you become very sick and a few trips to the ER leaves you with a 20 thousand dollar bill... You're boned, for years to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
From those who analyze the fine print:
| Quote: |
... the government's own data show that, even though they may have brief episodes of reduced food intake, most adults in food insecure households actually consume too much, not too little, food.
To improve health, policies must be devised to encourage these individuals to avoid chronic over-consumption of calories and to spread their food intake more evenly over the course of each month to avoid episodic shortfalls. |
| Quote: |
| around two-thirds of food insecure households experienced "low food security," meaning that these households managed to avoid any disruption or reduction in food intake throughout the year but were forced by financial pressures to reduce "variety in their diets" |
| Quote: |
| According to the USDA, the remaining one-third of food insecure households (around 4 percent of all households) experienced "very low food security," meaning that at least once in the year their actual intake of food was reduced due to a lack of funds for food purchase. |
| Quote: |
| At the extreme, about 1.4 percent of all adults in the U.S. went an entire day without eating at least once during 2006 due to lack of funds for food. |
| Quote: |
| rarely discussed is that the government's own data show that the overwhelming majority of food insecure adults are, like most adult Americans, overweight or obese. Among adult males experiencing food insecurity, fully 70 percent are overweight or obese.[9] Nearly three-quarters of adult women experiencing food insecurity are either overweight or obese, and nearly half (45 percent) are obese. Virtually no food insecure adults are underweight. |
****
So, to put it bluntly, these people are mostly fat, lazy, overfed, stupid and lack the self control to eat their food evenly over a period of time. They have more than enough money for food and more than enough food. They buy too much, spend to much, eat it all too fast, and then most suffer only from a reduced variety for a few days. A smaller number must actually eat less for a meal or two. Very few actually go for even one whole day without food, only 1.4%, and this only happens because they ate too much on the days prior. No one in the US is described as actually suffering from hunger. In fact, nearly all manage to stay fat or obese, which in the US means really fat or obese , since in the US even normal weight individuals are on the heavy side. |
I buy bags of mixed veggies at the local supermart for 1$. A big box of chicken thighs is 4-5$ (for 10 portions or so). Without trying, I could live on about a 1$ a day for food and eat well (half bag of veggies and 2 chicken thighs). Hell, I eat really well now and prolly don't spend more than the cost of a big mac meal for the entire day.
Food is cheap. Food stamps spent properly are entirely sufficient to feed a family. When I do go to the markets in the poor areas I always take note of what is in the carts. Life makes sense sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, in any given week, I spend about the same on groceries now as I did in college 10 years ago. And I live in a more expensive area now than I did then (DC vs. St. Louis). What's the difference ? Buying more produce and fresh foods and fewer processed foods. Also helps that I started shopping at places like Trader Joe's and asian produce markets too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Yeah, in any given week, I spend about the same on groceries now as I did in college 10 years ago. And I live in a more expensive area now than I did then (DC vs. St. Louis). What's the difference ? Buying more produce and fresh foods and fewer processed foods. Also helps that I started shopping at places like Trader Joe's and asian produce markets too. |
More healthy = less expensive, generally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
From those who analyze the fine print:
| Quote: |
... the government's own data show that, even though they may have brief episodes of reduced food intake, most adults in food insecure households actually consume too much, not too little, food.
To improve health, policies must be devised to encourage these individuals to avoid chronic over-consumption of calories and to spread their food intake more evenly over the course of each month to avoid episodic shortfalls. |
| Quote: |
| around two-thirds of food insecure households experienced "low food security," meaning that these households managed to avoid any disruption or reduction in food intake throughout the year but were forced by financial pressures to reduce "variety in their diets" |
| Quote: |
| According to the USDA, the remaining one-third of food insecure households (around 4 percent of all households) experienced "very low food security," meaning that at least once in the year their actual intake of food was reduced due to a lack of funds for food purchase. |
| Quote: |
| At the extreme, about 1.4 percent of all adults in the U.S. went an entire day without eating at least once during 2006 due to lack of funds for food. |
| Quote: |
| rarely discussed is that the government's own data show that the overwhelming majority of food insecure adults are, like most adult Americans, overweight or obese. Among adult males experiencing food insecurity, fully 70 percent are overweight or obese.[9] Nearly three-quarters of adult women experiencing food insecurity are either overweight or obese, and nearly half (45 percent) are obese. Virtually no food insecure adults are underweight. |
****
So, to put it bluntly, these people are mostly fat, lazy, overfed, stupid and lack the self control to eat their food evenly over a period of time. They have more than enough money for food and more than enough food. They buy too much, spend to much, eat it all too fast, and then most suffer only from a reduced variety for a few days. A smaller number must actually eat less for a meal or two. Very few actually go for even one whole day without food, only 1.4%, and this only happens because they ate too much on the days prior. No one in the US is described as actually suffering from hunger. In fact, nearly all manage to stay fat or obese, which in the US means really fat or obese , since in the US even normal weight individuals are on the heavy side. |
I buy bags of mixed veggies at the local supermart for 1$. A big box of chicken thighs is 4-5$ (for 10 portions or so). Without trying, I could live on about a 1$ a day for food and eat well (half bag of veggies and 2 chicken thighs). Hell, I eat really well now and prolly don't spend more than the cost of a big mac meal for the entire day.
Food is cheap. Food stamps spent properly are entirely sufficient to feed a family. When I do go to the markets in the poor areas I always take note of what is in the carts. Life makes sense sometimes. |
It doesn't sound like you have any children, mises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I sure don't. A family of 4 could easily live on 5-6$/day, or 150$ a month.
.. I don't want to lessen the spirit of the op. The economy has gone to hell. This is a depression. But it isn't at the point of mass-starvation or hunger. Everybody is still fat.
Last edited by mises on Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I sure don't. A family of 4 could easily live on 5-6$/day, or 150$ a month. |
I'm sure they could, but obviously they don't.
You guys are persuasive, its hard to argue that the adults who experience this haven't somewhere failed to plan or budget. But I'm sure there are some children in that 15% who have suffered for their wards' failures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But I'm sure there are some children in that 15% who have suffered for their wards' failures. |
Yes. It is true. Nothing can really be done about it either. A quarter of the population is less intelligent than the upper 3/4. This is just a fact of life. It sucks. Some people (lots) are not able to care for themselves or their offspring with any sense of future. The poorly raised kids from my elementary school at home are now doing a poor job raising their own kids. And so on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeonmunka
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am sure they could afford food. It is just that they had other expenditures as well so cut down on certain types of food.
If on the other hand you say, '18% of North Koreans couldn't afford food,' then I would say, 'Yeah, you are likely 100% right about that.'
If any American had only 20kgs of rice they would be well short of food, yet a NKen with a large bag of rice like that is doing very well indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| But I'm sure there are some children in that 15% who have suffered for their wards' failures. |
Yes. It is true. Nothing can really be done about it either. A quarter of the population is less intelligent than the upper 3/4. This is just a fact of life. It sucks. Some people (lots) are not able to care for themselves or their offspring with any sense of future. The poorly raised kids from my elementary school at home are now doing a poor job raising their own kids. And so on. |
I had no idea you were such a tight-a#$%d Puritan who believes the poor are poor because they deserve it. The money boys wreck the world economy and pop loses his job as a result, so the family is responsible for the lack of food on their table. Hmmmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who said anything about 'deserve'. Some people make terrible decisions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| But I'm sure there are some children in that 15% who have suffered for their wards' failures. |
Yes. It is true. Nothing can really be done about it either. A quarter of the population is less intelligent than the upper 3/4. This is just a fact of life. It sucks. Some people (lots) are not able to care for themselves or their offspring with any sense of future. The poorly raised kids from my elementary school at home are now doing a poor job raising their own kids. And so on. |
I had no idea you were such a tight-a#$%d Puritan who believes the poor are poor because they deserve it. The money boys wreck the world economy and pop loses his job as a result, so the family is responsible for the lack of food on their table. Hmmmm. |
America is relatively rich in terms of both international comparisons and historical comparisons. The report in the OP is just a kickoff for another powergrab by the government to make more programs and spend more money. But, these people don't need more food, nor more money to buy food, nor food stamps, nor another army of over-paid-but-useless bureaucrats to provide another failed program of food assistance.
What America does need, however, is to educate the public about food and nutrition - how to choose healthy and inexpensive foods, how to prepare such foods, how to manage and store food so that it lasts, how to make the most of leftovers, how to control quantities, portions, calories, and how to live on a budget.
Even the poor in America have enough food and money to eat. But they don't know to manage what they have.
The government run schools used to teach such skills - to girls at least - but no more. They have failed for decades now to teach basic life skills such as home economics and household finances.
Many mothers no longer have skills to pass on to their children, and fathers in the past were left out of such training, although some learned through Boy Scouts, from parents etc. High income taxes force families to rely on two incomes and eliminate the stay at home parent as an educator and life-skill trainer for the children. The more programs the socialists cram down our throats, the worse things will get.
Part of the solution to this long-term problem includes the repeal of all taxes on income and property and privatization of the failed government schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/editorial/2009/11/18/11784856-sun.html
| Quote: |
Canada's hidden poverty shame
The record surge in visits to the country's food banks during the worst recession in decades masks the broader reality of deprivation in Canada.
Yes, it's shocking that there was an 18% jump in the number of people using food banks in March -- the largest year-over-year increase on record.
Of the 800,000 people who needed extra help to put food on the table, almost 10% used a food bank for the first time, according to survey results released by officials yesterday.
Even once-swaggering Alberta has fallen on hard times, experiencing a whopping 61% increase in food bank usage between March 2008 and March 2009, the largest jump in the country.
Such is the inevitable consequence of a downturn in a province whose economy depends on the health of the oilpatch. (Nova Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba also experienced a dramatic rise in the number of food bank clients.)
Tellingly, 19% of those in households that resort to food banks each month are employed, or were until just recently. Canada's secret shame is that the extent of poverty in this wealthy country is much larger than people imagine.
Sure, only 5% of Canadian workers earn minimum wage, but 21% of them toiled for less than $12 an hour last year. That's three million Canadians stuck in low-wage jobs. (The median hourly wage in 2008 was just under $19 an hour.)
All across the country, people are struggling to pay the bills, feed the kids and keep a roof over their heads on a salary of less than $25,000 a year. Try doing that month after month without dipping into the food bank. As Statistics Canada pointed out earlier this year, Canada has one of the highest proportions of low-paid workers in the industrialized world.
The U.S. has similarly high rates of low-wage workers. In contrast, a much smaller proportion of employees in many European countries are poorly paid.
Depending on where you stand on the ideological spectrum, some might argue that Canada's laissez-faire approach to the economy is preferable to the more socialist systems in Europe because our unemployment rates are lower.
Nevertheless, Canada isn't as compassionate as it pretends to be. Just ask the working poor lined up at our food banks. |
Canada is in denial right now. The economy is melting down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
