4 ms·

This is a shallow analysis. You can’t just look at the price tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the ROI). A $10 coffee can be too expe

This is a shallow analysis. You can’t just look at the price tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the ROI). A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is really cheap. I’m not making any particular claims about the free school meals program, just noting that this argument doesn’t hold water as it stands. Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here.

thereare5lights 4y ago
> Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here. You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't on the value of feeding children that would go hungry otherwise. This is why saying > This is a shallow analysis. rings hollow. The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not because the poor are viewed as expendable.
- californical 4y ago
  Poor children are still eligible? Nobody is going hungry
  - toolz 4y ago
    so many "think of the children" arguments without even addressing the fact that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability (mental issues can and do lead to starvation though, unfortunately). I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. That is not their expertise, not their domain and they don't need any temptations or distractions to use their funding or powers on schools. I want the federal government focused on federal issues. It seems quite reasonable that schools should serve the local community and be largely funded and ran by locals.
    - thereare5lights 4y ago
      > that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... The metric of whether or not someone literally dies of starvation is a pathetic metric.
      - toolz 4y ago
        did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric? It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition. The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules. We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
        sofixa 4y ago
        > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships" And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
        toolz 4y ago
        if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.
  - thereare5lights 4y ago
    If you've ever had to jump through the hoops of these programs like my parents had to, you would know that simply being eligible does not mean that you'll actually gain access to the program nor are you actually eligible if you're poor. The income requirements often times are far too high especially if you're in gentrifying areas due to cost of living.
- listenman 4y ago
  The next generation of Americans will grow up hungry if we cede the security of the very item at the heart of all of our infrastructure. The next generation won't have any equivalent electronic equipment from the post-WWII era, whilst living in a world that is based exclusively on semiconductors (consider the usage of semiconductors in medical equipment as well). This is certain death, and this kind of short-sighted belly aching is a problematic position to take when we're staring down the prospect of losing the entirety of our ability to sustain the infrastructure needed to keep anyone alive in the first place.
vanjajaja1 4y ago
I agree here, and I think a good way to think of it is not as government handouts but government incentives. $x for chips in USA incentivizes industry to move to USA which creates jobs and reduces a dependency on external companies. $y for feeding poor school children incentivizes what exactly?

thereare5lights 4y ago

> Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here. You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't on the value of feeding children that would go hungry otherwise. This is why saying > This is a shallow analysis. rings hollow. The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not because the poor are viewed as expendable.

californical 4y ago
Poor children are still eligible? Nobody is going hungry
- toolz 4y ago
  so many "think of the children" arguments without even addressing the fact that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability (mental issues can and do lead to starvation though, unfortunately). I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. That is not their expertise, not their domain and they don't need any temptations or distractions to use their funding or powers on schools. I want the federal government focused on federal issues. It seems quite reasonable that schools should serve the local community and be largely funded and ran by locals.
  - thereare5lights 4y ago
    > that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... The metric of whether or not someone literally dies of starvation is a pathetic metric.
    - toolz 4y ago
      did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric? It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition. The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules. We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships" And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
        toolz 4y ago
        if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  If you've ever had to jump through the hoops of these programs like my parents had to, you would know that simply being eligible does not mean that you'll actually gain access to the program nor are you actually eligible if you're poor. The income requirements often times are far too high especially if you're in gentrifying areas due to cost of living.
listenman 4y ago
The next generation of Americans will grow up hungry if we cede the security of the very item at the heart of all of our infrastructure. The next generation won't have any equivalent electronic equipment from the post-WWII era, whilst living in a world that is based exclusively on semiconductors (consider the usage of semiconductors in medical equipment as well). This is certain death, and this kind of short-sighted belly aching is a problematic position to take when we're staring down the prospect of losing the entirety of our ability to sustain the infrastructure needed to keep anyone alive in the first place.

vanjajaja1 4y ago

I agree here, and I think a good way to think of it is not as government handouts but government incentives. $x for chips in USA incentivizes industry to move to USA which creates jobs and reduces a dependency on external companies. $y for feeding poor school children incentivizes what exactly?