7 ms·

Note the last part of his article: "Access may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient. Policies that are aimed at just eliminating food deserts may not work. Mor

by smtddr 12y ago

Note the last part of his article: "Access may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient. Policies that are aimed at just eliminating food deserts may not work. More needs to be done." There are a lot of reasons poor people don't eat healthier; supply is definitely part of it. But not just supply of food, supply of time as well. A poor person is probably working some physically taxing job and is just too tired to cook a healthy meal. Or too tired to get to the market selling healthy food, or... a million other things. It's not just "demand", it's not that they just don't want to eat healthy. Some don't even know fast food is unhealthy. Don't forget, we have people on HN defending fastfood hamburgers..... so imagine the potential confusion about nutrition in a poor & less educated community.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
But not just supply of food, supply of time as well. A poor person is probably working... This is a myth. Poor people mostly don't work at all, and those that do typically work only part time. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf Some don't even know fast food is unhealthy. Some evidence and context for this is sorely needed. Note: if lack of information were really the cause, then you'd expect plastering healthy eating information all over the NYC subway would fix the problem. Did it? The best explanation I can come up with is the following. People with low self discipline become poor. People with low self discipline become fat and eat badly. They also don't exercise much and engage in other fun but harmful behaviors (unprotected sex, drug use, drinking to excess). But that's a naughty explanation, even if it fits the data quite well.
- toehead2000 12y ago
  Typical victim blaming. Everyone knows poor people have no agency.
- smtddr 12y ago
  What is it that you have against underrepresented people? Every post about them you're there to say "Nope, it's their own fault.". I only give you the benefit of the doubt because tptacek has you listed in his HN profile. What did you experience/witness in your life that has caused you to hold these views? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7541664 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076550 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1214954 4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/31110324@N03/5370871466/ 5. http://www.datatau.com/item?id=3338 6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8255165 7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2129845
  - spindritf 12y ago
    From your first link, a comment by tptacek starts with I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. What if it's just that? What if what he says is simply true?
    - barrkel 12y ago
      It is true, almost to the point of truism, that most people who end up with bad outcomes got there by bad choices. But this omits far too much; good choices aren't made merely by moral character or some other characteristic that can let you condemn someone without further consideration. They're a product of a life's education, a learned way of living, and indeed, a learned helplessness in many cases. I would argue that moral character mostly doesn't exist. It's mostly just an artifact of what you stand to gain vs what you stand to lose if caught, and what your alternatives are. And when these patterns are iterated, the tradeoffs change. Once you have a criminal record, the fear of getting one is far less, and the opportunities to do well for yourself without one disappear. And so on. I find it disturbing when people dismiss a whole class of other people for decisions that are cast in a moral light, with the language of blame and hints of sins, and connotations of deserving some kind of punishment. It shows a deeply misguided and unempathetic understanding of humans. It's the kind of thinking that dehumanizes other people.
    - kefka 12y ago
      I also think that one needs to look at the underlying assertions and assumptions the federal government puts into its poverty report. As cited from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm -Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need; -It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance); -It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States; -It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and -Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children. There is also the fact that government handouts are tremendously regressive. During a time I had of joblessness and no income, I was on food stamps and other supplemental assistance. When I found a part time job (15 hours/wk), I took it! So.. I made $100 in the first full week. I really got $80, less taxes. And cost me $8 for gas, so my real effective pay was $73. So, SNAP takes out $100 from my food benefit.. ?! I only made $73, so I am in effect being punished $37 for working and trying to better myself. There are cases much more extreme, where every benefit goes down by X when income goes up by X. Those people end worse off working, unless they can get income that covers all of their losses. Any understanding of basic business 101 says that in their case with the regressive benefits system makes no sense to mildly make oneself better. Unfortunately, the bigger 'make oneself better' just never happens.
- barrkel 12y ago
  You need to spend more time walking in other people's shoes before you leap to judgement.
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  Your quest to fit the data is admirable; the data available to me suggests that you either have some axe to grind, and are hiding your axe behind the veil of the reasoning process on display, or else you suffer a breathtaking lack of introspection, since every human being alive has experienced a variety of pathological effects, like poor decision making and poor impulse control, as a result of some temporary stressor. You're hungry, you yell at your wife; you get chewed out by your boss, you kick the dog; you get fired and you buy a bottle of vodka and a pepperoni pizza and spread out on the couch. It takes minimal imagination to extend these common experiences to a world where one is not momentarily hungry, or momentarily stressed, or momentarily taking shit from someone in power, but is rather subject to a constant onsalught of stressors due to poverty or systematic racism, and to imagine the consequences that such circumstances might produce. And yet you're not alone in your failure to do this minimal amount of mental work. So as an aid to you in explaining the variance in the data, since your own life's experiences have seemingly left you with your current best explanation that a wide swathe of humanity is demonstrably and inherently inferior to the swathe of humanity that is currently winning, this book might serve as a useful meta-analysis covering the relevant issues: http://us.macmillan.com/scarcity/ http://us.macmillan.com/scarcity/ References inside.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    I was responding to this: But not just supply of food, supply of time as well. A poor person is probably working... Many people have done all sorts of stupid things, me included. For example, a few months back I was moping about a woman in London and not getting any work done, nor was I exercising. Suppose someone comes along and asks why I'm not getting any exercise. The following is an incorrect reason: "...supply of time...probably working hard..." The correct reason: I was sleeping until 2PM and hitting up the old monk before 6pm. I was banging a Rwandan pimpstress, a Ukrainian who got turned on by eve teasing and assorted other odd characters. Ganja played a role in this story as well. None of this is work. It would be wrong to say I didn't exercise because I was working hard. Someone who says "chris wasn't working hard" does not have an axe to grind. They are simply correctly pointing out that enjoying ganja and unhappily married women [1] is not work. [1] Tip: In India any woman over 26 should be presumed married. Learn from my mistakes.

by smtddr 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

But not just supply of food, supply of time as well. A poor person is probably working... This is a myth. Poor people mostly don't work at all, and those that do typically work only part time. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf Some don't even know fast food is unhealthy. Some evidence and context for this is sorely needed. Note: if lack of information were really the cause, then you'd expect plastering healthy eating information all over the NYC subway would fix the problem. Did it? The best explanation I can come up with is the following. People with low self discipline become poor. People with low self discipline become fat and eat badly. They also don't exercise much and engage in other fun but harmful behaviors (unprotected sex, drug use, drinking to excess). But that's a naughty explanation, even if it fits the data quite well.

toehead2000 12y ago
Typical victim blaming. Everyone knows poor people have no agency.
smtddr 12y ago
What is it that you have against underrepresented people? Every post about them you're there to say "Nope, it's their own fault.". I only give you the benefit of the doubt because tptacek has you listed in his HN profile. What did you experience/witness in your life that has caused you to hold these views? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7541664 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076550 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1214954 4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/31110324@N03/5370871466/ 5. http://www.datatau.com/item?id=3338 6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8255165 7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2129845
- spindritf 12y ago
  From your first link, a comment by tptacek starts with I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. What if it's just that? What if what he says is simply true?
  - barrkel 12y ago
    It is true, almost to the point of truism, that most people who end up with bad outcomes got there by bad choices. But this omits far too much; good choices aren't made merely by moral character or some other characteristic that can let you condemn someone without further consideration. They're a product of a life's education, a learned way of living, and indeed, a learned helplessness in many cases. I would argue that moral character mostly doesn't exist. It's mostly just an artifact of what you stand to gain vs what you stand to lose if caught, and what your alternatives are. And when these patterns are iterated, the tradeoffs change. Once you have a criminal record, the fear of getting one is far less, and the opportunities to do well for yourself without one disappear. And so on. I find it disturbing when people dismiss a whole class of other people for decisions that are cast in a moral light, with the language of blame and hints of sins, and connotations of deserving some kind of punishment. It shows a deeply misguided and unempathetic understanding of humans. It's the kind of thinking that dehumanizes other people.
  - kefka 12y ago
    I also think that one needs to look at the underlying assertions and assumptions the federal government puts into its poverty report. As cited from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm -Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need; -It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance); -It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States; -It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and -Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children. There is also the fact that government handouts are tremendously regressive. During a time I had of joblessness and no income, I was on food stamps and other supplemental assistance. When I found a part time job (15 hours/wk), I took it! So.. I made $100 in the first full week. I really got $80, less taxes. And cost me $8 for gas, so my real effective pay was $73. So, SNAP takes out $100 from my food benefit.. ?! I only made $73, so I am in effect being punished $37 for working and trying to better myself. There are cases much more extreme, where every benefit goes down by X when income goes up by X. Those people end worse off working, unless they can get income that covers all of their losses. Any understanding of basic business 101 says that in their case with the regressive benefits system makes no sense to mildly make oneself better. Unfortunately, the bigger 'make oneself better' just never happens.
barrkel 12y ago
You need to spend more time walking in other people's shoes before you leap to judgement.
shanusmagnus 12y ago
Your quest to fit the data is admirable; the data available to me suggests that you either have some axe to grind, and are hiding your axe behind the veil of the reasoning process on display, or else you suffer a breathtaking lack of introspection, since every human being alive has experienced a variety of pathological effects, like poor decision making and poor impulse control, as a result of some temporary stressor. You're hungry, you yell at your wife; you get chewed out by your boss, you kick the dog; you get fired and you buy a bottle of vodka and a pepperoni pizza and spread out on the couch. It takes minimal imagination to extend these common experiences to a world where one is not momentarily hungry, or momentarily stressed, or momentarily taking shit from someone in power, but is rather subject to a constant onsalught of stressors due to poverty or systematic racism, and to imagine the consequences that such circumstances might produce. And yet you're not alone in your failure to do this minimal amount of mental work. So as an aid to you in explaining the variance in the data, since your own life's experiences have seemingly left you with your current best explanation that a wide swathe of humanity is demonstrably and inherently inferior to the swathe of humanity that is currently winning, this book might serve as a useful meta-analysis covering the relevant issues: http://us.macmillan.com/scarcity/ http://us.macmillan.com/scarcity/ References inside.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  I was responding to this: But not just supply of food, supply of time as well. A poor person is probably working... Many people have done all sorts of stupid things, me included. For example, a few months back I was moping about a woman in London and not getting any work done, nor was I exercising. Suppose someone comes along and asks why I'm not getting any exercise. The following is an incorrect reason: "...supply of time...probably working hard..." The correct reason: I was sleeping until 2PM and hitting up the old monk before 6pm. I was banging a Rwandan pimpstress, a Ukrainian who got turned on by eve teasing and assorted other odd characters. Ganja played a role in this story as well. None of this is work. It would be wrong to say I didn't exercise because I was working hard. Someone who says "chris wasn't working hard" does not have an axe to grind. They are simply correctly pointing out that enjoying ganja and unhappily married women [1] is not work. [1] Tip: In India any woman over 26 should be presumed married. Learn from my mistakes.