3 ms·

then why are 1 in 7 people food insecure in the US?

Cthulhu_ 9y ago
And why do 12-14% live under the poverty line? https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... There were articles a few years ago where people had to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet - if at all. Nowadays they still do, but the jobs no longer exist and they're being replaced with gigs. At least the jobs had some guarantee of number of hours people could work. And I mean look at me - I'm already claiming the previous shitty situation of 16 hour work days was better! It really isn't. A 40 hour work week should be possible and enough to live above the poverty line for everyone. Preferably put them comfortably in the middle class.
- troupe 9y ago
  As someone who grew up well below the poverty line, I suggest you look into what is actually considered poverty in the United States. It is an extremely high threshold in terms of absolute poverty and reflects an ever-increasing dollar amount rather than a standard of living. If you look at the number of people today who have a standard of living at or below what was considered poverty in 1918 I think you'll find the percentage has steadily decreased over time. As people get further and further from real poverty we just raise the standard. I'm not saying that is necessarily bad, but most people who talk about the poverty line don't really think about how much the standard of living at that level has improved over the past 100 years or so.
troupe 9y ago
Have you actually talked to some of these people who are food insecure? I have yet to find any that are going hungry because of total lack of resources. I've talked to one family who said they never have enough to eat with their $400 per month SNAP benefits. I showed them how they could make sure they had food for every meal with a fraction of their budget and then use the rest for variety and to take advantage of what happens to be on sale. They said, "Yeah but my family doesn't like to eat rice or beans or oatmeal. The stuff we will eat costs about $300 per week." Other families send their kids to school hungry, but yet have money to spend on lots of other recreational uses (both legal and non-legal). I personally know a family that didn't have enough money for food because they had just spent hundreds of dollars on a new dog and dog food. If you give people the right to spend their resources as they see fit, some people will spend those resources in ways that prioritize purchases other than food. In other words, if everyone is food secure then it means at least some people are not deciding how to spend their resources for themselves. If you think people should be able to make their own decisions, then you have to accept that some people are going to run out of money for food from time to time. That isn't to say that there isn't anyone in the US with hard situations that are out of their control, but I have yet to find a family who consistently has no food where it isn't directly related to how they are prioritizing what they do have. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are a very very small fraction of the numbers you are citing.

And why do 12-14% live under the poverty line? https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... There were articles a few years ago where people had to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet - if at all. Nowadays they still do, but the jobs no longer exist and they're being replaced with gigs. At least the jobs had some guarantee of number of hours people could work. And I mean look at me - I'm already claiming the previous shitty situation of 16 hour work days was better! It really isn't. A 40 hour work week should be possible and enough to live above the poverty line for everyone. Preferably put them comfortably in the middle class.

troupe 9y ago
As someone who grew up well below the poverty line, I suggest you look into what is actually considered poverty in the United States. It is an extremely high threshold in terms of absolute poverty and reflects an ever-increasing dollar amount rather than a standard of living. If you look at the number of people today who have a standard of living at or below what was considered poverty in 1918 I think you'll find the percentage has steadily decreased over time. As people get further and further from real poverty we just raise the standard. I'm not saying that is necessarily bad, but most people who talk about the poverty line don't really think about how much the standard of living at that level has improved over the past 100 years or so.

troupe 9y ago

Have you actually talked to some of these people who are food insecure? I have yet to find any that are going hungry because of total lack of resources. I've talked to one family who said they never have enough to eat with their $400 per month SNAP benefits. I showed them how they could make sure they had food for every meal with a fraction of their budget and then use the rest for variety and to take advantage of what happens to be on sale. They said, "Yeah but my family doesn't like to eat rice or beans or oatmeal. The stuff we will eat costs about $300 per week." Other families send their kids to school hungry, but yet have money to spend on lots of other recreational uses (both legal and non-legal). I personally know a family that didn't have enough money for food because they had just spent hundreds of dollars on a new dog and dog food. If you give people the right to spend their resources as they see fit, some people will spend those resources in ways that prioritize purchases other than food. In other words, if everyone is food secure then it means at least some people are not deciding how to spend their resources for themselves. If you think people should be able to make their own decisions, then you have to accept that some people are going to run out of money for food from time to time. That isn't to say that there isn't anyone in the US with hard situations that are out of their control, but I have yet to find a family who consistently has no food where it isn't directly related to how they are prioritizing what they do have. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are a very very small fraction of the numbers you are citing.