7 ms·

Poor people, which is a large majority of the United States, can only afford processed food. You neoliberals in your whole foods crap make me nauseous.

by podgaj 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago
Poor people are a large majority? Like, 2/3? 3/4? Median family income is 80K in 2021. The median HH income for 2021 will come out soon, but it will be north of 70K.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > Poor people are a large majority? Like, 2/3? 3/4? Over the last generation, indications are far over half experienced regular struggles. 2019 - nearly 70 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 stashed away https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/ https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/ 2021 - Firehosing cash directly to the public helped some: 25% had no emergency savings, 26% say they have some emergency savings https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/51percent-of-americans-have-less-than-3-months-worth-of-emergency-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/51percent-of-americans-have-...
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > Over the last generation, indications are far over half experienced regular struggles. Most people experience "regular struggles", by definition. Life is a struggle. But we have a way of defining who is poor and who isn't in terms of income, and it's good to use the same language as everyone else. The "large majority" of the U.S. is not poor. That's just obviously true from the income data I cited. If that data is not enough, look at SCF wealth data here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table/#series:Net_Worth;demographic:nwcat;population:all;units:median https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table... Median Household networth of 50-75 percentile - what you call "large majority" - is $240K. That's not poor. Median Household networth of 25-49.9 percentile is $58K. Also not not poor. Median (50th percentile) networth is $121K. I really encourage more of a reality-based approach to throwing around phrases like "the large majority of Americans are poor".
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      > Most people experience "regular struggles", by definition. Life is a struggle. This seems obtuse. The entire thread is focused on finances. It should be self-evident my post is referring to financial struggles. > But we have a way of defining who is poor and who isn't in terms of income, and it's good to use the same language as everyone else. Different metrics aren't a different language. > The "large majority" of the U.S. is not poor. A narrowly crafted a declaration makes it easier to find metrics that fit. With that comes a weird assumption that those metrics are the same ones that matter to poor Americans. For actual people - the meaningful measures of financial health are the long term security of food, housing, medicine and the resources needed to maintain them (eg:savings,transportation). For actual people - when those things become unobtainable, a state of poverty is in play. If preferred metrics aren't reflecting long-term or recurring conditions of poverty, maybe we should pivot to metrics that do.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        > Different metrics aren't a different language. You aren't citing a "different metric". You are citing an unscientific internet poll by Bankrate.com, whose results were released as a PR announcement meant to encourage people to open savings accounts. The "no savings" means "no money in a savings account" by those who answer the poll. You know nothing about whether these people were even in the labor force, how old they were, what money they had in checking accounts or 401Ks or money market mutual funds, and whether they were a representative sample (N=hundreds). Because an internet poll is not a study, and a marketing campaign is not scientific data. This is clickbait. If you have a quality study not published by bankrate.com, then please cite it. And also explain why you are ignoring the US Census and the SCF, which is what everyone who studies household wealth uses. I am citing the gold-standard academic study of household finances -- the survey of consumer finances, and the gold standard study of income as determined by the Census. This is not a situation of "different metrics", this is a situation of bad data versus good data leading to bad conclusions versus accurate conclusions. Please look to the Census and academic studies to form your worldview of the state of US household finances rather than Bankrate.com's marketing department.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Most of the US is not NYC, SF Chicago, and Seattle you know. I'd be shocked if household incomes near me in the Midwest were greater than $55k yet. There are tons of people who make less than $15/hr still.
m0llusk 5y ago
As a housecleaner I live in the SF Bay Area on between $15-20k/year. The cost of my dietary staples which are primarily vegetables, leafy greens, dairy products, and eggs has hardly budged. Anyone who has access to a kitchen can with practice use minimal time and effort produce meals that are competitive with processed options from frozen foods, grocery store chickens, and of course fast food joints. Though cuts of meat have gone way up in price, whole chickens are still reasonably priced for those who can process a bird which is not really that hard.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  I agree with this as well even as a Midwesterner. People balked at me when I told them I have gone by paying only $100/mo in food before(everything including out to eat). People don't realize that you can live without red meat. And chicken is a cheaper, healthier alternative.

Poor people, which is a large majority of the United States, can only afford processed food. You neoliberals in your whole foods crap make me nauseous.

by podgaj 5y ago

Poor people, which is a large majority of the United States, can only afford processed food. You neoliberals in your whole foods crap make me nauseous.

rsj_hn 5y ago

Poor people are a large majority? Like, 2/3? 3/4? Median family income is 80K in 2021. The median HH income for 2021 will come out soon, but it will be north of 70K.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> Poor people are a large majority? Like, 2/3? 3/4? Over the last generation, indications are far over half experienced regular struggles. 2019 - nearly 70 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 stashed away https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/ https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/ 2021 - Firehosing cash directly to the public helped some: 25% had no emergency savings, 26% say they have some emergency savings https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/51percent-of-americans-have-less-than-3-months-worth-of-emergency-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/51percent-of-americans-have-...
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > Over the last generation, indications are far over half experienced regular struggles. Most people experience "regular struggles", by definition. Life is a struggle. But we have a way of defining who is poor and who isn't in terms of income, and it's good to use the same language as everyone else. The "large majority" of the U.S. is not poor. That's just obviously true from the income data I cited. If that data is not enough, look at SCF wealth data here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table/#series:Net_Worth;demographic:nwcat;population:all;units:median https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table... Median Household networth of 50-75 percentile - what you call "large majority" - is $240K. That's not poor. Median Household networth of 25-49.9 percentile is $58K. Also not not poor. Median (50th percentile) networth is $121K. I really encourage more of a reality-based approach to throwing around phrases like "the large majority of Americans are poor".
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > Most people experience "regular struggles", by definition. Life is a struggle. This seems obtuse. The entire thread is focused on finances. It should be self-evident my post is referring to financial struggles. > But we have a way of defining who is poor and who isn't in terms of income, and it's good to use the same language as everyone else. Different metrics aren't a different language. > The "large majority" of the U.S. is not poor. A narrowly crafted a declaration makes it easier to find metrics that fit. With that comes a weird assumption that those metrics are the same ones that matter to poor Americans. For actual people - the meaningful measures of financial health are the long term security of food, housing, medicine and the resources needed to maintain them (eg:savings,transportation). For actual people - when those things become unobtainable, a state of poverty is in play. If preferred metrics aren't reflecting long-term or recurring conditions of poverty, maybe we should pivot to metrics that do.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > Different metrics aren't a different language. You aren't citing a "different metric". You are citing an unscientific internet poll by Bankrate.com, whose results were released as a PR announcement meant to encourage people to open savings accounts. The "no savings" means "no money in a savings account" by those who answer the poll. You know nothing about whether these people were even in the labor force, how old they were, what money they had in checking accounts or 401Ks or money market mutual funds, and whether they were a representative sample (N=hundreds). Because an internet poll is not a study, and a marketing campaign is not scientific data. This is clickbait. If you have a quality study not published by bankrate.com, then please cite it. And also explain why you are ignoring the US Census and the SCF, which is what everyone who studies household wealth uses. I am citing the gold-standard academic study of household finances -- the survey of consumer finances, and the gold standard study of income as determined by the Census. This is not a situation of "different metrics", this is a situation of bad data versus good data leading to bad conclusions versus accurate conclusions. Please look to the Census and academic studies to form your worldview of the state of US household finances rather than Bankrate.com's marketing department.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Most of the US is not NYC, SF Chicago, and Seattle you know. I'd be shocked if household incomes near me in the Midwest were greater than $55k yet. There are tons of people who make less than $15/hr still.

m0llusk 5y ago

As a housecleaner I live in the SF Bay Area on between $15-20k/year. The cost of my dietary staples which are primarily vegetables, leafy greens, dairy products, and eggs has hardly budged. Anyone who has access to a kitchen can with practice use minimal time and effort produce meals that are competitive with processed options from frozen foods, grocery store chickens, and of course fast food joints. Though cuts of meat have gone way up in price, whole chickens are still reasonably priced for those who can process a bird which is not really that hard.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
I agree with this as well even as a Midwesterner. People balked at me when I told them I have gone by paying only $100/mo in food before(everything including out to eat). People don't realize that you can live without red meat. And chicken is a cheaper, healthier alternative.