5 ms·

There are two things that make eating out the most viable option for a whole meal when you're poor: The first is that when you have a refrigerator that's sub-p

by daeken 13y ago

There are two things that make eating out the most viable option for a whole meal when you're poor: The first is that when you have a refrigerator that's sub-par and don't have a freezer, you have to buy the smallest quantities of anything perishable; that means it's expensive as hell. There are things like rice that you can buy in bulk, but if you're in a place with bugs and rodents (like they are), you're screwed on that too, generally. The second is that if you're in a homeless shelter, you can't cook. At most, you can make a sandwich, but that goes back to point #1. Eating out isn't a convenience for them; it's survival.

amerika_blog 13y ago
This is nonsense. Refrigerators are easily found used for under $100 (just like the flat screen TV from someone else's example here). Eating out, at a minimum, is 2-3x ingredient cost. Besides, you're reading way more into my comment than was intended. Its substance was: "To save money, don't eat out." You're projecting.
- bluedino 13y ago
  The argument to this is that Chinese takeout tastes good (loaded with sugar and grease) and it's fast and readily available when the family comes in to $20. They live in a food desert and the mom never learned to cook. You can't blame the family in the article for falling for instant gratification or 'treating themselves' which is also the excuse for a lot of the other behavior in the article. The mom is drinking a beer on the bus, isn't she? I'm guessing that because it's in a brown paper bag.
- scarmig 13y ago
  I'm curious: if you found another engineer who was in a messy codebase doing something something seemingly crazy, would you 1) assume they're an idiot or 2) reserve judgment until you know more? I would hope 2). Because here's the thing: we can't extricate ourselves from our history, and the people closest to the problem have a lot more information about it than those moralizing from afar. There's a bunch of questions you don't bother to ask yourself: Was the container of Chinese food actually purchased or found? Who knows. Probably, but the parents don't seem to make a habit of it: the daughter makes her siblings PB&Js. And is it a crazy expense? Also who knows, but buying a couple containers of cooked white rice in NYC isn't going to be crazy expensive. Are there nearby grocery stores to buy actual food? Maybe, but more likely the nearest places will be liquor stores selling shitty food for outrageous prices. Does the facility they're in provide the means to cook raw ingredients? Probably not. Is the electricity supplied consistent enough to trust having more than a single meal in the fridge? Who knows. And perhaps the biggest thing: do the parents have the capability to plan to cook and to succeed in that endeavor? You might say that "these people deserve to suffer if they can't manage to cook rice and beans," but here's the thing: maybe they can't. Maybe they never picked up that skill, maybe drugs have destroyed their capabilities for planning more than a minute ahead. But regardless, they can't. In tech, we recognize that we have to build systems out of potentially faulty components. But when we're building a society, there's a strain of thought saying that you shouldn't design for fault, because if a component is faulty, it deserves to be dumped into a garbage bin. That's perverse.
  - amerika_blog 13y ago
    You're having a mental failure here: "I'm curious: if you found another engineer who was in a messy codebase doing something something seemingly crazy, would you 1) assume they're an idiot or 2) reserve judgment until you know more?" I might say: "Having a messy codebase is a way to keep having bugs." That's analogous to my original statement.
    - tinco 13y ago
      It's also as helpful and insightful as your original statement.
      - amerika_blog 13y ago
        My original statement is quite helpful, if you're trying to get yourself out of a financial hole. Restaurant eating is savagely expensive. I learned that the first time I had to loop a paycheck. It's not complete advice, meaning that not eating at restaurants alone won't lift you from poverty, but getting into the restaurant habit is a good way to stay broke.
        arthulia 13y ago
        I am not sure you understand just how poor they are. "In a good month, their combined efforts can bring in a few hundred dollars." They are in a situation where they cannot afford to save money in most conventional ways. Spending $100 on a fridge that they can't properly use (because they can't cook in a shelter) isn't a wise appropriation of a significant portion of their monthly income.
        amerika_blog 13y ago
        And spending $100 on Chinese food, instead of $40 on non-perishables, is?
        arthulia 13y ago
- beat 13y ago
  When you're poor, $100 is a tremendous amount of money. When you're poor, homeless, and don't own a car, moving refrigerators is not practical. When you're poor and living in a nightmare hole of a shelter, your nice new fridge might well be just taken from you.
- yardie 13y ago
  You can carry a flatscreen TV on the bus or subway. I see that all the time. I haven't seen anyone carry a $100 refridgerator (except the tiny ones) anywhere. A friend of mine recently, moved into social housing. I donated some of my furniture to him for free. I also paid 50 euros for a moving van and 20 to have some guys help me. The furniture cost $0 to him, a little bit to me.
scarmig 13y ago
Are you implying that some readers of Hacker News might not know much about the particular problems that homeless individuals are trying to solve, and their simplistic prescriptions that don't take into account actual lived circumstances might not be a cure-all for everyone on the planet? Blasphemy!
logfromblammo 13y ago
Also, article stated that the shelter guests are not allowed to bring in canned goods. In order to have food stored, it basically has to be packaged in plastic or glass. Peanut butter. Jelly. Bread. A jar of peanut butter is the perfect food for someone without fridge or pantry. It can be stored at room temperature, it is calorie-dense, it is cheap, and it actually has some nutritional value. If I am ever forced to live at poverty income without basic residential infrastructure, I would definitely walk to the nearest actual grocery store and carry back peanut butter. You can also keep eggs around a while, even in the US, if you can replace the cuticle (removed during processing) with wax. I'd probably cook them in their shells with an electric kettle, dip them in paraffin from plumbers' candles, and put them back into the container.
- amerika_blog 13y ago
  That's not a terrible idea at all. Around here, you can also get bean filling in jars, which is another good source of protein (and flatulence, but what isn't these days).

by daeken 13y ago

amerika_blog 13y ago

This is nonsense. Refrigerators are easily found used for under $100 (just like the flat screen TV from someone else's example here). Eating out, at a minimum, is 2-3x ingredient cost. Besides, you're reading way more into my comment than was intended. Its substance was: "To save money, don't eat out." You're projecting.

bluedino 13y ago
The argument to this is that Chinese takeout tastes good (loaded with sugar and grease) and it's fast and readily available when the family comes in to $20. They live in a food desert and the mom never learned to cook. You can't blame the family in the article for falling for instant gratification or 'treating themselves' which is also the excuse for a lot of the other behavior in the article. The mom is drinking a beer on the bus, isn't she? I'm guessing that because it's in a brown paper bag.
scarmig 13y ago
I'm curious: if you found another engineer who was in a messy codebase doing something something seemingly crazy, would you 1) assume they're an idiot or 2) reserve judgment until you know more? I would hope 2). Because here's the thing: we can't extricate ourselves from our history, and the people closest to the problem have a lot more information about it than those moralizing from afar. There's a bunch of questions you don't bother to ask yourself: Was the container of Chinese food actually purchased or found? Who knows. Probably, but the parents don't seem to make a habit of it: the daughter makes her siblings PB&Js. And is it a crazy expense? Also who knows, but buying a couple containers of cooked white rice in NYC isn't going to be crazy expensive. Are there nearby grocery stores to buy actual food? Maybe, but more likely the nearest places will be liquor stores selling shitty food for outrageous prices. Does the facility they're in provide the means to cook raw ingredients? Probably not. Is the electricity supplied consistent enough to trust having more than a single meal in the fridge? Who knows. And perhaps the biggest thing: do the parents have the capability to plan to cook and to succeed in that endeavor? You might say that "these people deserve to suffer if they can't manage to cook rice and beans," but here's the thing: maybe they can't. Maybe they never picked up that skill, maybe drugs have destroyed their capabilities for planning more than a minute ahead. But regardless, they can't. In tech, we recognize that we have to build systems out of potentially faulty components. But when we're building a society, there's a strain of thought saying that you shouldn't design for fault, because if a component is faulty, it deserves to be dumped into a garbage bin. That's perverse.
- amerika_blog 13y ago
  You're having a mental failure here: "I'm curious: if you found another engineer who was in a messy codebase doing something something seemingly crazy, would you 1) assume they're an idiot or 2) reserve judgment until you know more?" I might say: "Having a messy codebase is a way to keep having bugs." That's analogous to my original statement.
  - tinco 13y ago
    It's also as helpful and insightful as your original statement.
    - amerika_blog 13y ago
      My original statement is quite helpful, if you're trying to get yourself out of a financial hole. Restaurant eating is savagely expensive. I learned that the first time I had to loop a paycheck. It's not complete advice, meaning that not eating at restaurants alone won't lift you from poverty, but getting into the restaurant habit is a good way to stay broke.
      - arthulia 13y ago
        I am not sure you understand just how poor they are. "In a good month, their combined efforts can bring in a few hundred dollars." They are in a situation where they cannot afford to save money in most conventional ways. Spending $100 on a fridge that they can't properly use (because they can't cook in a shelter) isn't a wise appropriation of a significant portion of their monthly income.
        amerika_blog 13y ago
        And spending $100 on Chinese food, instead of $40 on non-perishables, is?
        arthulia 13y ago
beat 13y ago
When you're poor, $100 is a tremendous amount of money. When you're poor, homeless, and don't own a car, moving refrigerators is not practical. When you're poor and living in a nightmare hole of a shelter, your nice new fridge might well be just taken from you.
yardie 13y ago
You can carry a flatscreen TV on the bus or subway. I see that all the time. I haven't seen anyone carry a $100 refridgerator (except the tiny ones) anywhere. A friend of mine recently, moved into social housing. I donated some of my furniture to him for free. I also paid 50 euros for a moving van and 20 to have some guys help me. The furniture cost $0 to him, a little bit to me.

scarmig 13y ago

Are you implying that some readers of Hacker News might not know much about the particular problems that homeless individuals are trying to solve, and their simplistic prescriptions that don't take into account actual lived circumstances might not be a cure-all for everyone on the planet? Blasphemy!

logfromblammo 13y ago

Also, article stated that the shelter guests are not allowed to bring in canned goods. In order to have food stored, it basically has to be packaged in plastic or glass. Peanut butter. Jelly. Bread. A jar of peanut butter is the perfect food for someone without fridge or pantry. It can be stored at room temperature, it is calorie-dense, it is cheap, and it actually has some nutritional value. If I am ever forced to live at poverty income without basic residential infrastructure, I would definitely walk to the nearest actual grocery store and carry back peanut butter. You can also keep eggs around a while, even in the US, if you can replace the cuticle (removed during processing) with wax. I'd probably cook them in their shells with an electric kettle, dip them in paraffin from plumbers' candles, and put them back into the container.

amerika_blog 13y ago
That's not a terrible idea at all. Around here, you can also get bean filling in jars, which is another good source of protein (and flatulence, but what isn't these days).