3 ms·

The poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-eats-how-america-spends-money-o

The poor in America spend a small percentage of their income on food. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-eats-how-america-spends-money-on-food/273811/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-ea...

dchest 13y ago
Thanks! I haven't yet read the article you linked to, so maybe the answer is already there, but does this chart include food stamps for poor? I mean, is it (stamps + 16.1% of income)?
smtddr 13y ago
So, because of this article you conclude that the OP is wrong to say poor people are "unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages."? Maybe they spend less because they simply can't afford to spend more? I spend less on private-jets & high-end cars than rich people do, is it because I simply don't want those items or because I can't afford it? Actually, this article appears to be saying the opposite of what you think it's saying: FTA: The short answer is that relative food costs are low and falling fast for everybody -- but they're not falling for the poor. In 1984, the poorest Americans spent 16 percent of their income to eat. The median-income family also spent 16 percent of its (slightly higher) income on food. And the rich spent the least. In the last three decades, food's share of the family budget has fallen for all but the poorest families, where it's stayed the same. So... poor people are spending _more_ on food than the rich? Whatever way one interprets this article, I don't think it can be used to to prove anything in regards to affordability of food for the poor and what else they may have sacrificed to pay for food.
- qwerty989 13y ago
  Yes, he is wrong. The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than starving.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    Ah, here we go. So overweight because why? Eating 99-cent menu items from fast-food menus 4 times a day and filling their homes with the cheapest industrial-processed food ever. Liters of soda, microwave-TV-dinners, huge bags of cheetos, etc. That junk isn't food, IMHO. If a low-income person wants to give their family something better, they can't afford it. Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money...
    - qwerty989 13y ago
      This is so wrong. I'm not sure why this argument is always made when it's obviously incorrect. Beans, rice, cabbage, tomatoes, chicken, pasta, bread, potatoes, bananas, yogurt, eggs, vegetables, etc. are cheap. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-nutritious-foods-about-2-dollars http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-... http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-healthy-eating-tips http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-health... http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-healthy-foods http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-he...
      - smtddr 13y ago
        Don't forget the last part of my comment: Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money... _____ways that go beyond money____ stressful-job(s) = not enough motivation/energy to cook. Multiple jobs probably means get home, just in time to take a 3 hour nap, take shower and head out to the next job. Forget about any meaningful attendance at the local gym. Assuming it's even safe enough to be at said gym during after-work hours in a low-income area. low education = Not knowing just how damaging junk food really is.
        qwerty989 13y ago

dchest 13y ago

Thanks! I haven't yet read the article you linked to, so maybe the answer is already there, but does this chart include food stamps for poor? I mean, is it (stamps + 16.1% of income)?

smtddr 13y ago

So, because of this article you conclude that the OP is wrong to say poor people are "unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages."? Maybe they spend less because they simply can't afford to spend more? I spend less on private-jets & high-end cars than rich people do, is it because I simply don't want those items or because I can't afford it? Actually, this article appears to be saying the opposite of what you think it's saying: FTA: The short answer is that relative food costs are low and falling fast for everybody -- but they're not falling for the poor. In 1984, the poorest Americans spent 16 percent of their income to eat. The median-income family also spent 16 percent of its (slightly higher) income on food. And the rich spent the least. In the last three decades, food's share of the family budget has fallen for all but the poorest families, where it's stayed the same. So... poor people are spending _more_ on food than the rich? Whatever way one interprets this article, I don't think it can be used to to prove anything in regards to affordability of food for the poor and what else they may have sacrificed to pay for food.

qwerty989 13y ago
Yes, he is wrong. The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than starving.
- smtddr 13y ago
  Ah, here we go. So overweight because why? Eating 99-cent menu items from fast-food menus 4 times a day and filling their homes with the cheapest industrial-processed food ever. Liters of soda, microwave-TV-dinners, huge bags of cheetos, etc. That junk isn't food, IMHO. If a low-income person wants to give their family something better, they can't afford it. Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money...
  - qwerty989 13y ago
    This is so wrong. I'm not sure why this argument is always made when it's obviously incorrect. Beans, rice, cabbage, tomatoes, chicken, pasta, bread, potatoes, bananas, yogurt, eggs, vegetables, etc. are cheap. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-nutritious-foods-about-2-dollars http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/cheap-healthy-15-... http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-healthy-eating-tips http://www.workingmother.com/food-nutrition/cheap-and-health... http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-healthy-foods http://www.fitbie.com/slideshow/20-ridiculously-cheap-and-he...
    - smtddr 13y ago
      Don't forget the last part of my comment: Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money... _____ways that go beyond money____ stressful-job(s) = not enough motivation/energy to cook. Multiple jobs probably means get home, just in time to take a 3 hour nap, take shower and head out to the next job. Forget about any meaningful attendance at the local gym. Assuming it's even safe enough to be at said gym during after-work hours in a low-income area. low education = Not knowing just how damaging junk food really is.
      - qwerty989 13y ago