6 ms·

The world’s poorest pay more than a day’s wages for a single plate of food

38 points by SQL2219 9y ago

sintaxi 9y ago
Yet fertility rate in South Sudan is a staggering 4.9 vs 1.8 in USA.
- chewz 9y ago
  I doubt anyone is raising children in NYC on beans and casava or rice.
  - beambot 9y ago
    What GP is trying to say: It's financially taxing to have 4+ children compared to 2 -- regardless of what type of food you have at your disposal.
    - tnzn 9y ago
      Except in that context you don't just feed children they also work with you at a young age so... There's also an economic advantage to having children
  - timthelion 9y ago
    Don't knock it, beans and rice is pretty tasty. I don't think many people in NYC eat quality food. If you actually look at the ingredients list for many of the expensive prepared foods, you'll find that they may well be worse and have cheaper ingredients than beans and rice.
  - ggggtez 9y ago
    Why would you even pretend you know how millions of people live?
  - huehehue 9y ago
    I kinda thought the same thing, until I moved there. Lived next to a family of (at least) 6 living in an extremely cramped one-bedroom apt in central Harlem. Thousands of poor people living blocks away from thousands of wealthy people.
- Retric 9y ago
  4.9 is not that high by historic standards. Not everyone lives long enough to have kids. The second half of this may be BS but the difference in Africa from 1950-2010 is staggering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File%3ATotal_Fertility_Rate%2C_1950_-_2100%2C_World_Population_Prospects_2015%2C_United_Nations.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/... PS: For comparison the baby boomers are from US fertility rates over 3.5 in the late 1950's. http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-popula...
- lukasb 9y ago
  You say "yet" but "and" would be more appropriate. The fertility rate is a symptom of, among other things, high child mortality and low access to birth control.
  - timthelion 9y ago
    and religion. We need to face the fact that religion, often religion exported by the west, is killing people in these countries. Almost all missionary religions forbid birth control.
    - umanwizard 9y ago
      Protestant Christianity typically doesn't forbid birth control, as far as I know.
      - timthelion 9y ago
        Evangelical protestant Christianity does. And the other forms of protestant Christianity rarely travel to Africa and other third world nations on mission trips.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  As others pointed out, population growth is highest when people are poor. Complex issue, but something where you can wait to have kids and have just one or two if you know that the kids will survive and thrive. A life that seems not only temporarily unstable but has no possibility of stability is one where people have lots of kids to hedge their bets that some will survive and be okay — plus the lack of health care, contraception, education (esp. women's education and career prospects)… http://www.gapminder.org/ http://www.gapminder.org/ for best perspectives on all this
norikki 9y ago
>By adjusting for purchasing power, we shine a stark light on inequalities in the affordability of food. So the actual problem here is low wages, not expensive food. That's funny because this article seems like an attempt at justifying massive international food subsidies which destroy local agricultural jobs and cause the massive inequality within these countries between the warlords and their violent militias who get to dish out the subsidies and the starving disenfranchised farmers who can't compete with the aid sold by the warlords, and so are dependent on it.
bko 9y ago
> “Unless we stop the conflicts, unless we stop the migration of people from their homelands into neighbouring states, unless people have the means to either grow their own food or be able to afford to buy it, people will continue going hungry.” That quote struck me as odd. What does the migration have to do with the price of food? If a meal really costs $320 in Sudan, I would imagine migration would be a much simpler solution to ending suffering. The migrant can just move to another country with better institutions and infrastructure where food is affordable. Migration may have other issues, but alleviating human suffering is one of the benefits. Also, I'm not convinced there is a link between the percentage of food imported into a country and the price of food. If anything, food imports and trade would help decrease the price through specialization and trade.
- swift 9y ago
  I’m probably making a mistake here by commenting before reading the article, but I’ve seen many cases where issues with food prices and food supply have been diagnosed as long term effects of food aid or cheap imported food. What can happen is that local farmers go out of business or stop growing staple crops because prices collapse. When conditions change and the food aid stops or the price of imported food rises, there aren’t enough local farmers left to feed everyone. That will obviously cause food prices to go through the roof. It’s always something that has to be considered when planning aid to a country.
  - Ramrade 9y ago
    By all media accounts, most of the migrants are from some of the most productive demographics (by age). So migration might be slashing poor countries productive workforces.
    - nanomoose 9y ago
      Western countries talking about the benefits of immigration and multiculturalism - but when those immigrants are educated or skilled the west is robbing the poor countries of their only hope. This is why visas are better than residency/citizenship - the poor country person spends a few years in the advanced country then returns to the poor country with improved skills and knowledge.
lovich 9y ago
Are people dieing en masse there or is more than half the food being provided as aid? I don't see how the title is possible without one of those as humans usually eat 3 times a day so they are earning <1/3rd of whats needed on average to just eat. You could eat less and still survive but that much of difference doesn't seem like someone could live through for very long
- jpatokal 9y ago
  The article uses local market prices for food, but in very poor countries, most people are subsistence farmers and grow what they eat. Also, yes, in South Sudan people are currently dying in masse, there's a vicious civil war in progress.
  - lovich 9y ago
    I understand they are using local prices. Local prices dont matter when you are comparing a day's wage though. That's how much money you earn in one day regardless of the number attached to it. If the amount of food you need in a day costs more than you can earn in a day I would assume this would quickly lead to starvation. I know about the civil war and deaths due to violence, I was curious if there was starvation happening as well
- tmnvix 9y ago
  > humans usually eat 3 times a day I have no contrary statistical evidence, but I suspect this assumption may be wrong - especially with regard to poverty-stricken countries. I count myself as a relatively privileged individual and for more than half of my lifetime (since being responsible for my own meals) I have mostly chosen to eat two meals per day. I know a lot of similar people. Three meals per day is more than is needed for sufficient nourishment.
  - lovich 9y ago
    right, like I said you could eat less. 3 meals isn't a hard and fast limit, its just common. Even if you got down to one meal a day though, the title is saying that it costs more than the income you make working that day. That is unsustainable
MaggieL 9y ago
"average daily budget derived from national GDP per capita figures" sounds...erm...almost meaningless.
csense 9y ago
So what's the root cause? When we drive a truck full of food for the poor over the border, is it stopped and relieved of its contents by men with guns who sell the food and the truck to non-poor people so they can buy more guns? Or is it because nobody wants to drive that truck full of food in the first place because the poor don't have anything worth trading for it?

38 points by SQL2219 9y ago

sintaxi 9y ago

Yet fertility rate in South Sudan is a staggering 4.9 vs 1.8 in USA.

chewz 9y ago
I doubt anyone is raising children in NYC on beans and casava or rice.
- beambot 9y ago
  What GP is trying to say: It's financially taxing to have 4+ children compared to 2 -- regardless of what type of food you have at your disposal.
  - tnzn 9y ago
    Except in that context you don't just feed children they also work with you at a young age so... There's also an economic advantage to having children
- timthelion 9y ago
  Don't knock it, beans and rice is pretty tasty. I don't think many people in NYC eat quality food. If you actually look at the ingredients list for many of the expensive prepared foods, you'll find that they may well be worse and have cheaper ingredients than beans and rice.
- ggggtez 9y ago
  Why would you even pretend you know how millions of people live?
- huehehue 9y ago
  I kinda thought the same thing, until I moved there. Lived next to a family of (at least) 6 living in an extremely cramped one-bedroom apt in central Harlem. Thousands of poor people living blocks away from thousands of wealthy people.
Retric 9y ago
4.9 is not that high by historic standards. Not everyone lives long enough to have kids. The second half of this may be BS but the difference in Africa from 1950-2010 is staggering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File%3ATotal_Fertility_Rate%2C_1950_-_2100%2C_World_Population_Prospects_2015%2C_United_Nations.gif https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/... PS: For comparison the baby boomers are from US fertility rates over 3.5 in the late 1950's. http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-popula...
lukasb 9y ago
You say "yet" but "and" would be more appropriate. The fertility rate is a symptom of, among other things, high child mortality and low access to birth control.
- timthelion 9y ago
  and religion. We need to face the fact that religion, often religion exported by the west, is killing people in these countries. Almost all missionary religions forbid birth control.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    Protestant Christianity typically doesn't forbid birth control, as far as I know.
    - timthelion 9y ago
      Evangelical protestant Christianity does. And the other forms of protestant Christianity rarely travel to Africa and other third world nations on mission trips.
quadrangle 9y ago
As others pointed out, population growth is highest when people are poor. Complex issue, but something where you can wait to have kids and have just one or two if you know that the kids will survive and thrive. A life that seems not only temporarily unstable but has no possibility of stability is one where people have lots of kids to hedge their bets that some will survive and be okay — plus the lack of health care, contraception, education (esp. women's education and career prospects)… http://www.gapminder.org/ http://www.gapminder.org/ for best perspectives on all this

norikki 9y ago

>By adjusting for purchasing power, we shine a stark light on inequalities in the affordability of food. So the actual problem here is low wages, not expensive food. That's funny because this article seems like an attempt at justifying massive international food subsidies which destroy local agricultural jobs and cause the massive inequality within these countries between the warlords and their violent militias who get to dish out the subsidies and the starving disenfranchised farmers who can't compete with the aid sold by the warlords, and so are dependent on it.

bko 9y ago

> “Unless we stop the conflicts, unless we stop the migration of people from their homelands into neighbouring states, unless people have the means to either grow their own food or be able to afford to buy it, people will continue going hungry.” That quote struck me as odd. What does the migration have to do with the price of food? If a meal really costs $320 in Sudan, I would imagine migration would be a much simpler solution to ending suffering. The migrant can just move to another country with better institutions and infrastructure where food is affordable. Migration may have other issues, but alleviating human suffering is one of the benefits. Also, I'm not convinced there is a link between the percentage of food imported into a country and the price of food. If anything, food imports and trade would help decrease the price through specialization and trade.

swift 9y ago
I’m probably making a mistake here by commenting before reading the article, but I’ve seen many cases where issues with food prices and food supply have been diagnosed as long term effects of food aid or cheap imported food. What can happen is that local farmers go out of business or stop growing staple crops because prices collapse. When conditions change and the food aid stops or the price of imported food rises, there aren’t enough local farmers left to feed everyone. That will obviously cause food prices to go through the roof. It’s always something that has to be considered when planning aid to a country.
- Ramrade 9y ago
  By all media accounts, most of the migrants are from some of the most productive demographics (by age). So migration might be slashing poor countries productive workforces.
  - nanomoose 9y ago
    Western countries talking about the benefits of immigration and multiculturalism - but when those immigrants are educated or skilled the west is robbing the poor countries of their only hope. This is why visas are better than residency/citizenship - the poor country person spends a few years in the advanced country then returns to the poor country with improved skills and knowledge.

lovich 9y ago

Are people dieing en masse there or is more than half the food being provided as aid? I don't see how the title is possible without one of those as humans usually eat 3 times a day so they are earning <1/3rd of whats needed on average to just eat. You could eat less and still survive but that much of difference doesn't seem like someone could live through for very long

jpatokal 9y ago
The article uses local market prices for food, but in very poor countries, most people are subsistence farmers and grow what they eat. Also, yes, in South Sudan people are currently dying in masse, there's a vicious civil war in progress.
- lovich 9y ago
  I understand they are using local prices. Local prices dont matter when you are comparing a day's wage though. That's how much money you earn in one day regardless of the number attached to it. If the amount of food you need in a day costs more than you can earn in a day I would assume this would quickly lead to starvation. I know about the civil war and deaths due to violence, I was curious if there was starvation happening as well
tmnvix 9y ago
> humans usually eat 3 times a day I have no contrary statistical evidence, but I suspect this assumption may be wrong - especially with regard to poverty-stricken countries. I count myself as a relatively privileged individual and for more than half of my lifetime (since being responsible for my own meals) I have mostly chosen to eat two meals per day. I know a lot of similar people. Three meals per day is more than is needed for sufficient nourishment.
- lovich 9y ago
  right, like I said you could eat less. 3 meals isn't a hard and fast limit, its just common. Even if you got down to one meal a day though, the title is saying that it costs more than the income you make working that day. That is unsustainable

MaggieL 9y ago

"average daily budget derived from national GDP per capita figures" sounds...erm...almost meaningless.

csense 9y ago

So what's the root cause? When we drive a truck full of food for the poor over the border, is it stopped and relieved of its contents by men with guns who sell the food and the truck to non-poor people so they can buy more guns? Or is it because nobody wants to drive that truck full of food in the first place because the poor don't have anything worth trading for it?