4 ms·

> For many people, the idea of cooking a meal has been elevated to a special occasion event, as a treat or a date night. This is partially due to the fact that

> For many people, the idea of cooking a meal has been elevated to a special occasion event, as a treat or a date night. This is partially due to the fact that boring, everyday meal recipes just aren't as flashy as a 15-ingredient, hour long recipe that results in a stunning picture for someone's blog or instagram. I think the root is that everyone's rents and other costs are way higher. Many folks are barely getting by. I don't think it's Instagram or vanity - I think that might reveal your personal privilege and position in society. That isn't meant in a demeaning or derogatory way, it's just that it surprises me how today people from different classes do not often 'meet' each other anymore, in their day to day lives. Propably due to rising inequity. I think a lot of working class people buy quick meals because they have so little time. > Everyone should learn how to cook some boring, staple meals using basic ingredients from the store. 100% agree. Shame we're still letting corporations brainwash the general population, not to mention kids.

bonoboTP 6y ago
Barely getting by in America means being rich for much of the world including many European countries. How is it that the economics works out so differently in, say, Eastern Europe where poor people's best choice is to buy staples in bulk and cook and can't afford packaged convenience food and eating out? It's because American people's time is priced much higher and they earn much more overall.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  When I was a kid, eating at McDonald's was considered to be like going to a restaurant. A moderately fancy one at that. The limiting factor was cost. It's not the case anymore. While McDonald's is still certainly more expensive than food people regularly eat, but the gap seems to be closing. People just aren't satisfied with eating basically potatoes and sometimes some meat. They make fancier meals, but this increases cost. At some point the cost isn't all that different from what fast food charges.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Seems like people are having more disposable income and higher standards for quality of experiences. That hardly matches the narrative that this is caused by people barely getting by and being poor.
    - Aerroon 6y ago
      >Seems like people are having more disposable income and higher standards for quality of experiences. I think so too, but that's just my perspective. I'm from a former Soviet Union country and grew up after its collapse. Perhaps the (relative to the US) poverty we had ended up being treated differently from the poverty that's in the US? Eg we were poor enough that fast food wasn't abundantly available. Maybe once we're as rich as the US is right now we will have the same problem as the US does with poverty and fast food. That being said, shen people are really poor they still get by. They will find a way. 200 years ago almost everyone (excluding nobility) lived on about $2-3 a day in 1990s money. That's like two coffees at a coffee shop. People just lived differently and usually worse lives. Also, coffee shops weren't really a thing here until about the last decade or so. You could buy coffee at gas stations, but there weren't these fancy coffee shops.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > Barely getting by in America means being rich for much of the world including many European countries. Barely getting by in America means incredible poverty, homelessness, an inability to get medical care, and visits to food banks. I'm curious to understand what you are basing your claims/arguments on - would you be willing to share any sources that have shaped your perspective on these issues? My own arguments are based on socialist organizers who are on the ground and organizing in the US, as well as the paper this thread is discussing. > How is it that the economics works out so differently in, say, Eastern Europe where poor people's best choice is to buy staples in bulk and cook and can't afford packaged convenience food and eating out? > It's because American people's time is priced much higher and they earn much more overall. I'm curious, have you been able to read the BMJ paper/article? This is absolutely not meant in a derogatory way. I am genuinely curious to understand where you are coming from or what your statement is based on. From my understanding the paper argues that people's perceptions of which foods are nutritional has been distorted and negatively manipulated by corporations. In other words, people have come to believe low-nutritional food (or even non-nutritional food) is somehow nutritional, when in fact it actively contributes to ill-health and chronic disease/conditions. From the first paragraph of this paper: "In 2015 the New York Times revealed that Coca Cola was covertly funding the Global Energy Balance Network based at the University of Colorado, a research network set up to promote the message that all calories are equal.1 The network’s aim was to show that sugar sweetened beverages are no more responsible for the rise in obesity levels than any other foods or a lack of physical activity.2 In doing so, Coca Cola was copying and adapting the corporate political activities and scientific strategies that have been pioneered and perfected by tobacco, alcohol, and drug companies to defend and promote their products.34 Corporate food and beverage companies such as Coca Cola have engaged in what I will refer to as “corporate scientific activities.” These activities are designed to produce and influence the scientific knowledge used to evaluate, promote, legitimise, and regulate their products. Such activities include funding and conducting in-house nutrition research related to their products; sponsoring scientific seminars and expert meetings; involvement in scientific standards and policy committees; publishing in scholarly journals; funding scientific front groups; and delivering nutrition education programmes.2" [1] [1] same as the link at the top of the page: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4601 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4601

bonoboTP 6y ago

Barely getting by in America means being rich for much of the world including many European countries. How is it that the economics works out so differently in, say, Eastern Europe where poor people's best choice is to buy staples in bulk and cook and can't afford packaged convenience food and eating out? It's because American people's time is priced much higher and they earn much more overall.

Aerroon 6y ago
When I was a kid, eating at McDonald's was considered to be like going to a restaurant. A moderately fancy one at that. The limiting factor was cost. It's not the case anymore. While McDonald's is still certainly more expensive than food people regularly eat, but the gap seems to be closing. People just aren't satisfied with eating basically potatoes and sometimes some meat. They make fancier meals, but this increases cost. At some point the cost isn't all that different from what fast food charges.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Seems like people are having more disposable income and higher standards for quality of experiences. That hardly matches the narrative that this is caused by people barely getting by and being poor.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    >Seems like people are having more disposable income and higher standards for quality of experiences. I think so too, but that's just my perspective. I'm from a former Soviet Union country and grew up after its collapse. Perhaps the (relative to the US) poverty we had ended up being treated differently from the poverty that's in the US? Eg we were poor enough that fast food wasn't abundantly available. Maybe once we're as rich as the US is right now we will have the same problem as the US does with poverty and fast food. That being said, shen people are really poor they still get by. They will find a way. 200 years ago almost everyone (excluding nobility) lived on about $2-3 a day in 1990s money. That's like two coffees at a coffee shop. People just lived differently and usually worse lives. Also, coffee shops weren't really a thing here until about the last decade or so. You could buy coffee at gas stations, but there weren't these fancy coffee shops.
bergstromm466 6y ago
> Barely getting by in America means being rich for much of the world including many European countries. Barely getting by in America means incredible poverty, homelessness, an inability to get medical care, and visits to food banks. I'm curious to understand what you are basing your claims/arguments on - would you be willing to share any sources that have shaped your perspective on these issues? My own arguments are based on socialist organizers who are on the ground and organizing in the US, as well as the paper this thread is discussing. > How is it that the economics works out so differently in, say, Eastern Europe where poor people's best choice is to buy staples in bulk and cook and can't afford packaged convenience food and eating out? > It's because American people's time is priced much higher and they earn much more overall. I'm curious, have you been able to read the BMJ paper/article? This is absolutely not meant in a derogatory way. I am genuinely curious to understand where you are coming from or what your statement is based on. From my understanding the paper argues that people's perceptions of which foods are nutritional has been distorted and negatively manipulated by corporations. In other words, people have come to believe low-nutritional food (or even non-nutritional food) is somehow nutritional, when in fact it actively contributes to ill-health and chronic disease/conditions. From the first paragraph of this paper: "In 2015 the New York Times revealed that Coca Cola was covertly funding the Global Energy Balance Network based at the University of Colorado, a research network set up to promote the message that all calories are equal.1 The network’s aim was to show that sugar sweetened beverages are no more responsible for the rise in obesity levels than any other foods or a lack of physical activity.2 In doing so, Coca Cola was copying and adapting the corporate political activities and scientific strategies that have been pioneered and perfected by tobacco, alcohol, and drug companies to defend and promote their products.34 Corporate food and beverage companies such as Coca Cola have engaged in what I will refer to as “corporate scientific activities.” These activities are designed to produce and influence the scientific knowledge used to evaluate, promote, legitimise, and regulate their products. Such activities include funding and conducting in-house nutrition research related to their products; sponsoring scientific seminars and expert meetings; involvement in scientific standards and policy committees; publishing in scholarly journals; funding scientific front groups; and delivering nutrition education programmes.2" [1] [1] same as the link at the top of the page: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4601 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4601