5 ms·
I actually hope we get there :-) but it would mean that people would have to spend a higher share of their income on food. When it comes to stripping people of
by pygy_ 9y ago
I actually hope we get there :-) but it would mean that people would have to spend a higher share of their income on food.
When it comes to stripping people of their cash, the competition is fierce, and we humans are usually not very good at long term thinking.
Guilt- and shame-based marketing is not very effective (boasting health/societal benefits is indirectly guilt tripping people), less than hey look at this shiny $product that would make you sooo cool among your peers. Shiny! Buy now! And don't get me started on addiction-based products, like junk food (or screen-based products, be them games or serial TV shows).
- richardknop 9y agoI mean government would need to subsidize food for poor people. Large parts of population today rely on cheap food (prepackaged meals or fast food) because they can't really afford higher quality more expensive food. So government would need to subsidize healthy food similar to the way it is subsidizing green energy (electric cars for example). And probably tax fast food so that kind of business becomes unprofitable.