Is much of the criticism of cheap food actually class snobbery?

[dcheesi]

I don't understand how rural areas are so overpriced in the US? I would expect that the land and space are opportunities to grow yourself or other things that do well?

They're really not. Food is rather cheap all over the country, just not everything everywhere, and it requires not putting things blindly in the cart, and spending 10-20 minutes mixing things together and possibly heating them up.

The definition of a food desert is no grocery store within one mile. One mile! It's the new "I have big bones". Like all good rallying cries, it has a nugget of truth that there is a subset of the population for which obtaining food, for many reasons, isn't a walk in the park. It distracts from the elephant in the room, which is flat out poor habits.

I'm a mile from the nearest grocery store.  In college, I would often walk a mile to go grocery shopping.

I'd be hard-pressed to shop for a family of 4 on foot and walk that mile, and carry that amount of groceries.  For even 1-2 days of groceries.

So what's the suggested alternative? Walk to the convenience store for every meal?

By the way, I used the bike and bike trailer pretty religiously for a few years to get a week's worth of food for a family of 7 (doing so at up to 120 degrees F in the city that captures the crown for U.S. hottest: http://www.wxresearch.com/triv.htm).

That's great for you! But not everyone is in such great physical condition. My gf gets bad asthma if she tries to walk/bike in cold weather, so she wouldn't be able to do this for up to half the year where we live.

[GuitarStv]

I don't understand how rural areas are so overpriced in the US? I would expect that the land and space are opportunities to grow yourself or other things that do well?

They're really not. Food is rather cheap all over the country, just not everything everywhere, and it requires not putting things blindly in the cart, and spending 10-20 minutes mixing things together and possibly heating them up.

The definition of a food desert is no grocery store within one mile. One mile! It's the new "I have big bones". Like all good rallying cries, it has a nugget of truth that there is a subset of the population for which obtaining food, for many reasons, isn't a walk in the park. It distracts from the elephant in the room, which is flat out poor habits.

I'm a mile from the nearest grocery store.  In college, I would often walk a mile to go grocery shopping.

I'd be hard-pressed to shop for a family of 4 on foot and walk that mile, and carry that amount of groceries.  For even 1-2 days of groceries.

So what's the suggested alternative? Walk to the convenience store for every meal?

By the way, I used the bike and bike trailer pretty religiously for a few years to get a week's worth of food for a family of 7 (doing so at up to 120 degrees F in the city that captures the crown for U.S. hottest: http://www.wxresearch.com/triv.htm).

That's great for you! But not everyone is in such great physical condition. My gf gets bad asthma if she tries to walk/bike in cold weather, so she wouldn't be able to do this for up to half the year where we live.

There are solutions for most problems (cold weather asthma is triggered by gulping cold dry air . . . and can be largely avoided with a good facemask.  The mask traps a good amount of the warm humid air that you breath out next to your face).

Saying that someone isn't in great physical condition, so they can't exercise is weird.  It's like saying "I'm too poor to get a job."  Someone who isn't in great condition will reap the most benefits from exercise.  In fact, exercise is the only way that they will ever get into great physical condition.

Start with a regular routine of small but increasing distances.  As strength improves, increase the distances.  After a few months a bike ride to the grocery store will not be a big deal at all.

[Noodle]

One of the varieties of food snobbery/classism that hasn't really come up yet is the neglect of "everyday food" in the current media/internet climate.

What I mean by that is that 30 years ago, it was very easy to find inexpensive, fairly healthy, simple recipes in things like newspaper food columns that drew from a fairly basic pantry of staples and spices. The assumption was that there were a lot of people (ie, women) who needed to cook every day, didn't particularly want to be gourmets, and wanted to make the chore as straightforward as possible.

Now it seems like that niche has been taken over by prepared foods (grocery or takeout) and the resources for cooking tend to assume that people have the budget, time and interest to incorporate a lot of variety and international ingredients.  (Says the woman with a jar of kim chee I bought for one recipe, and now I have to figure out what to do with it.) For instance, I hardly ever see frozen vegetables listed as an ingredient, even in recipes where it would make a lot of sense (a soup that's going to be pureed, for instance). Or for instance, the New York Times found that frozen Brussels sprouts were more reliably tasty than buying fresh, but every recent recipe I have involving Brussels sprouts calls for fresh.

There are resources out there--"Good and Cheap" was already mentioned, and Budget Bytes is another--but you have to sort through a lot of noise to get there.

[Cool Friend]

One of the varieties of food snobbery/classism that hasn't really come up yet is the neglect of "everyday food" in the current media/internet climate.

What I mean by that is that 30 years ago, it was very easy to find inexpensive, fairly healthy, simple recipes in things like newspaper food columns that drew from a fairly basic pantry of staples and spices. The assumption was that there were a lot of people (ie, women) who needed to cook every day, didn't particularly want to be gourmets, and wanted to make the chore as straightforward as possible.

Now it seems like that niche has been taken over by prepared foods (grocery or takeout) and the resources for cooking tend to assume that people have the budget, time and interest to incorporate a lot of variety and international ingredients.  (Says the woman with a jar of kim chee I bought for one recipe, and now I have to figure out what to do with it.) For instance, I hardly ever see frozen vegetables listed as an ingredient, even in recipes where it would make a lot of sense (a soup that's going to be pureed, for instance). Or for instance, the New York Times found that frozen Brussels sprouts were more reliably tasty than buying fresh, but every recent recipe I have involving Brussels sprouts calls for fresh.

There are resources out there--"Good and Cheap" was already mentioned, and Budget Bytes is another--but you have to sort through a lot of noise to get there.

Agreed.  I think a lot people get intimidated by learning to cook with online recipes because they go out, buy all the ingredients, make the thing, and have a bunch of these leftover ingredients they don't know what to do with.  You can try to reuse the ingredients in other recipes you find online, but inevitably some of the ingredients you bought goes to waste, which is where people get the "cooking at home is just as expensive as eating out" conclusion.

But that's a relatively new concept about how cooking works.  It's a mentality that stems from restaurant eating.  If you eat out all the time, it's not crazy to have eggs and bacon in the morning, Thai curry for lunch, and borscht for dinner.  If you eat at home, such a thing isn't impossible, obviously, but it does require you to buy a lot of ingredients and spend a lot of time cooking, because you're treating each meal as an "island."

Our grandmothers and great-grandmothers didn't do it this way.  Efficient home cooking is about buying versatile, staple ingredients and knowing how to combine them and reuse them. If you roasted a chicken on Sunday night and served it with fresh white rice and sautéed spinach and mushrooms, the next day maybe you're folding leftover spinach and mushrooms into an omelette, maybe you're frying some of the chicken with leftover rice for lunch, maybe you're using the bones from chicken to make a stock for a soup or to boil pasta in.  Your meals stop being islands and start being a chain of meals connected to one another (sorry this metaphor has fallen apart).

There's a great book that taught me about this concept while teaching myself how to cook.  I should post it in the Recommended Reading subforum.

Update: posted if you're interested https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachian-book-club/an-everlasting-meal-cooking-with-economy-and-grace/

[Kyle Schuant]

Yeah, we do that sort of thing quite a bit. For example, each week I prepare a few kilograms of mirepoix - garlic, carrots, celery and onions. It's usually a whole head of garlic mixed with 1kg of each of the other three, so 3 and a bit kg in all.

Monday is chilli night. 1kg mirepoix fried up with 200g capsicum, 500g minced beef and 2 tins kidney beans, plus a big tin of tomatoes. Goes with rice in winter and tortillas in summer. Add some cheese, chopped lettuce and tomato if you're feeling energetic.
Every second Monday it's vegetarian chilli, just take out the beef and put in zucchini.

Tuesday is soup night.
Pumpkin? 1kg mirepoix fried, then add 1/2 a butternut pumpkin and a couple of potatoes, add chicken stock.
Leek? 1kg mirepoix fried, then add 3 chopped leeks and a couple of potatoes, chicken stock again too.
Onion? 1kg mirepoix, then 1kg onions and some beef stock. In winter we add some yoghurt to any of these.
Minestrone? 1kg mirepoix, then another 1kg of whatever other vegies or beans we have around, plus a tin of tomatoes.

Wednesday is pasta night.
Bolognese? Same as the chilli, just take out the capsicum and beans.
Tuna? Same as bolognese, just swap the beef for a big tin of tuna.
Vegie? Same as bolognese, just take out the beef and add some capsicum and mushrooms.


Friday we have a roast, and then Saturday lunch is sandwiches with the leftovers, or Saturday dinner is fried rice with the leftovers cut small, and of course we'll make chicken broth from bones, etc.

And so on and so forth. In this way, our food preparation is relatively simple and our grocery list relatively short. And those looking to gain or lose weight can just adjust the portions of the starchy stuff, the rice and pasta.

I focus on soups and sauces because I look after the children in the day and work in the afternoon and evening a few days a week. So my wife can come home from her (more or less) 9-5 job and just heat things up to get food on the table. But soups and sauces are also good for nutritious and relatively cheap cooking, providing you have access to cheap fresh fruit and vegies. I don't think it matters if they're frozen or tinned, that works too, but here the seasonal fresh stuff is cheaper than frozen stuff, so we just go for frozen or tinned for the non-seasonal stuff.


But again, this takes some time and skill, and we are well-off enough that I can do paid work part-time, and have time and mental energy to do this. I don't fault people who are poorer or have busier lives if they choose not to do this, I just note that it's a choice. I would like more people to have these skills, so that their choice is a free and informed choice.

[WhiteTrashCash]

My father came to visit us last weekend and I made him a dinner of homemade chicken a la king made with thawed-from-frozen green peas, a can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup, some milk, and some rice. He said it looked and tasted like a gourmet meal from a restaurant. Yeah, you can make good-tasting (and nutritious) food extremely cheaply.

[use2betrix]

I don't understand how rural areas are so overpriced in the US? I would expect that the land and space are opportunities to grow yourself or other things that do well?

They're really not. Food is rather cheap all over the country, just not everything everywhere, and it requires not putting things blindly in the cart, and spending 10-20 minutes mixing things together and possibly heating them up.

The definition of a food desert is no grocery store within one mile. One mile! It's the new "I have big bones". Like all good rallying cries, it has a nugget of truth that there is a subset of the population for which obtaining food, for many reasons, isn't a walk in the park. It distracts from the elephant in the room, which is flat out poor habits.

I'm a mile from the nearest grocery store.  In college, I would often walk a mile to go grocery shopping.

I'd be hard-pressed to shop for a family of 4 on foot and walk that mile, and carry that amount of groceries.  For even 1-2 days of groceries.

So what's the suggested alternative? Walk to the convenience store for every meal?

By the way, I used the bike and bike trailer pretty religiously for a few years to get a week's worth of food for a family of 7 (doing so at up to 120 degrees F in the city that captures the crown for U.S. hottest: http://www.wxresearch.com/triv.htm).

That's great for you! But not everyone is in such great physical condition. My gf gets bad asthma if she tries to walk/bike in cold weather, so she wouldn't be able to do this for up to half the year where we live.

I’ve had 3 hernia surgeries so I typically steer clear of deadlift and leg press any more, (but still squat 350lbs for 6 perfect reps)

I understand that due to my health condition I make accommodations.

That being said, I’m not going to go into a thread about weightlifting and tell everyone not to do deadlifts or leg press because “I” am prone to getting hernias.

What is wrong with people in this thread throwing out all these random exceptions to the “average” person and calling it the norm. It is absolutely absurd how ridiculous it sounds.

Like someone earlier in this thread mentioned, there’s even EASIER healthy things to eat, like Tuna! But of course, someone will come in here “What about people that don’t have the strength to use a can opener?” Ok, then buy the packages you tear open “I know someone prone to papercuts with anemia, they might get injured tearing open a package.”

[FreeBear]

Our grandmothers and great-grandmothers didn't do it this way.  Efficient home cooking is about buying versatile, staple ingredients and knowing how to combine them and reuse them. If you roasted a chicken on Sunday night and served it with fresh white rice and sautéed spinach and mushrooms, the next day maybe you're folding leftover spinach and mushrooms into an omelette, maybe you're frying some of the chicken with leftover rice for lunch, maybe you're using the bones from chicken to make a stock for a soup or to boil pasta in.  Your meals stop being islands and start being a chain of meals connected to one another (sorry this metaphor has fallen apart).

Cooking is a amazing Mustachian life skill that is often taken for granted if someone else, paid or otherwise, is doing the w*rk.  I cooked for myself and my family in the early days of my professional career and brought my own lunch to w*rk, either leftovers, a sandwich, or a cheap store-bought frozen microwave meal.  I just couldn't afford to do anything else with a new job, a new house mortgage, and a car loan. 

Half way through my career, after a couple of promotions, I started making good money and grew lazy and fat.  This resulted from eating out for dinner with my family, then I started eating lunch out every day.  I loved eating out, the apparent variety and the convenience.  This even continued when DW and I retired several years ago.  In fact our restaurant budget was one of the largest regular expenses, just below our mortgage!

A couple of weeks ago, DW and I committed to eating at home for most meals.  As MMM has posted and recommended, restaurants are used for occasional entertainment and our real food source is our kitchen.  This is a radical change for us, although, to be fair, we were good cooks in the past, just  out of habit and practice.

I agree that the big secret to cooking is keeping spices, vegetables, and meats on hand.  We rarely shop just for one meal; too much w*rk.  We buy the same stuff every week and troll the internet for interesting recipes that we can almost make with what we have.  We improvise the difference or if we especially want to use up something languishing in the fridge/freezer. 

Also, we cook giant portions (no leftover veggies going bad!), enough to feed two people 2-5 times; leftovers go into the fridge and freezer.  We typically have 2-3 dishes we can just "heat and eat" for some variety.  Obviously, this is best with soups, stews, and curries, which even improve upon reheating. 

[happyuk]

Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful responses. 

I think the point I was trying to get at was the fact calling something "junk" in the first place is a profoundly unscientific stance to take on any subject.

Think about it.  What is a hamburger, but two slices of bread with meat in between.  Fish and chips is seafood and potatoes.  Man has always eaten these things and always will.  What many people really mean when they call these foods "junk" is that they do not like the outlets in which these things are sold and the people that frequent them.  This I think has little to do with DIETETICS and everything to do with AESTHETICS.

For many of us the thought of eating blood is disgusting to us, but we don't mind ingesting it intravenously when needing a transfusion for example.  In the UK horse meat is considered unfit for human consumption whereas across the pond in France it is not, so basically it is tribal.  These are subtle yet important differences.

I follow a simple diet that involves occasional consumption of so-called "convenience" foods while taking care not to overeat at any time.  I would be willing to bet a large amount of money (very un-Mustachian I know) that I am neither significantly more or less healthy than those following a strict macrobiotic regime.

[Gin1984]

I don't understand how rural areas are so overpriced in the US? I would expect that the land and space are opportunities to grow yourself or other things that do well?

They're really not. Food is rather cheap all over the country, just not everything everywhere, and it requires not putting things blindly in the cart, and spending 10-20 minutes mixing things together and possibly heating them up.

The definition of a food desert is no grocery store within one mile. One mile! It's the new "I have big bones". Like all good rallying cries, it has a nugget of truth that there is a subset of the population for which obtaining food, for many reasons, isn't a walk in the park. It distracts from the elephant in the room, which is flat out poor habits.

I'm a mile from the nearest grocery store.  In college, I would often walk a mile to go grocery shopping.

I'd be hard-pressed to shop for a family of 4 on foot and walk that mile, and carry that amount of groceries.  For even 1-2 days of groceries.

So what's the suggested alternative? Walk to the convenience store for every meal?

By the way, I used the bike and bike trailer pretty religiously for a few years to get a week's worth of food for a family of 7 (doing so at up to 120 degrees F in the city that captures the crown for U.S. hottest: http://www.wxresearch.com/triv.htm).

That's great for you! But not everyone is in such great physical condition. My gf gets bad asthma if she tries to walk/bike in cold weather, so she wouldn't be able to do this for up to half the year where we live.

There are solutions for most problems (cold weather asthma is triggered by gulping cold dry air . . . and can be largely avoided with a good facemask.  The mask traps a good amount of the warm humid air that you breath out next to your face).

Saying that someone isn't in great physical condition, so they can't exercise is weird.  It's like saying "I'm too poor to get a job."  Someone who isn't in great condition will reap the most benefits from exercise.  In fact, exercise is the only way that they will ever get into great physical condition.

Start with a regular routine of small but increasing distances.  As strength improves, increase the distances.  After a few months a bike ride to the grocery store will not be a big deal at all.

I tore a part of knee, so I can't exercise in that way. Not everyone can exercise in ways that allow for biking/walking a mile.

[horsepoor]

Cooking is a amazing Mustachian life skill that is often taken for granted if someone else, paid or otherwise, is doing the w*rk. 

I feel like cooking skill is oddly, simultaneously put up on a pedestal as difficult and unattainable, and also looked down upon as drudgery.  In the middle-upper class, cooking new recipes with exotic ingredients, baking impressive looking cakes and so on, is viewed as desirable.  However, in the economic tiers that financially need to be cooking from scratch and not going out, out-sourcing the cooking might seem like "leveling up" a notch and escaping drudgery, so learning how to cook beans and rice, and then doing it day in and day out, feels like "leveling down" and giving in to a lifetime of drudgery.  I have in-laws who basically don't cook.  When they visit, and I cook (a basic roast chicken, veggies/salad usually because they aren't very adventurous), they act like I just split the atom.  They're perfectly smart, and have all the resources needed to learn to cook, and do so regularly, but I think that snobbery kicks in, and they see that daily grind of cooking as drudgery that they shouldn't have to engage in, and that was even the case when they were in dire financial straits.

[WynnDuffy73]

Society considers fast food to be poison and to be avoided at all costs but those same people think they are eating healthier by going to the Olive Garden or Red Lobster. 

That’s where the snobbery part comes in.  McDonald’s is garbage as they shovel in their 3000 calorie Tour of Italy entree and breadsticks from Olive Garden.

[horsepoor]

Society considers fast food to be poison and to be avoided at all costs but those same people think they are eating healthier by going to the Olive Garden or Red Lobster. 

That’s where the snobbery part comes in.  McDonald’s is garbage as they shovel in their 3000 calorie Tour of Italy entree and breadsticks from Olive Garden.

I guess we're another level of snob, because we eat out so rarely any more, and grow lots of our own vegetables and eggs, so most regular restaurant food tastes like crap too.  It's funny how much people will pay for a plate of cheap ass pasta with a little sauce on it. 

[afox]

I didnt read all the posts and I ignore 99% of food fads.

I think there is food class snobbery, its gotten so bad that its hard for me as a mustachian to eat with non-mustachian friends with more expensive (but not healthier) food requirements. Its gotten difficult to plan trips with friends due to all the wacko food fad diets people are on. all very frustrating.

[Cranky]

Food snobbery certainly reaches down to Olive Garden and Red Lobster, btw.

There are about a million “how to cook” videos on YouTube. I’m surprised how I never hear how people can’t figure out how to play video games - cooking is not harder to figure out.

Also, I don’t drive and for many years I lugged home groceries for a family of 5 using some combo of stroller, little cart, and backpack. Free exercise! Now I’m old and recovering from knee surgery and happy to find that for $5, the grocery store delivers.

[undercover]

Like someone earlier in this thread mentioned, there’s even EASIER healthy things to eat, like Tuna! But of course, someone will come in here “What about people that don’t have the strength to use a can opener?” Ok, then buy the packages you tear open “I know someone prone to papercuts with anemia, they might get injured tearing open a package.”

Dude, I get PTSD every time I crack an egg.

[Paul der Krake]

Food snobbery certainly reaches down to Olive Garden and Red Lobster, btw.

As a snobby coastal elite, I can confirm that Olive Garden is something that gets brought up in jokes. I've never set foot in one.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Olive Garden is not something I would ever pay actual cash to eat, especially since I can make anything they would offer much less expensively and more nutritiously than they can make it, but it's very easy to get free gift cards for Olive Garden from American Express. That would be Mustachian.

[Johnez]

I don’t understand people can claim it’s too expensive to eat healthy when it’s actually often more expensive to eat junk.

Our chicken is $2/lb. rice is cheap, oatmeal is cheap. Eggs are cheap.

Fast food is way more expensive than cheap healthy food. A frozen pizza is like $5. You could get two lbs of chicken and a lb of rice for the same cost.

A lot of people really just have no self control and they would rather lie to themselves and others that it costs too much to eat healthy instead of taking responsibility.

Not only this, even with junk food there’s no actual excuse to be overweight. Weight is determined by calories in vs calories out. A person can stay just as skinny on fast food burgers and shakes as they can on chicken and rice.

This. Healthy food is really cheap. And it's not all that time consuming when you think about it. Driving to get "fast"  food is a giant waste of time, especially since there aren't likely to be left overs so good luck with tomorrow's lunch or dinner. Make roast with veggies and there are at least a couple of days worth of lunches and dinners that take 2 minutes to microwave.

I honestly don't see that much criticism for cheap food. Where I've worked in the past, people have admired where I bring in the home cooked lunches. Maybe what some of the snobbery comes from are that food, just like phones, cars and other luxury items are actually signaling to others how wealthy we are, and to snobbishly put down things is a way to elevate ourselves. Sounds simple and dumb, but we live in a society that can't stand the idea of carrying a phone that's more than a year old.

[FreeBear]

I feel like cooking skill is oddly, simultaneously put up on a pedestal as difficult and unattainable, and also looked down upon as drudgery.  In the middle-upper class, cooking new recipes with exotic ingredients, baking impressive looking cakes and so on, is viewed as desirable.  However, in the economic tiers that financially need to be cooking from scratch and not going out, out-sourcing the cooking might seem like "leveling up" a notch and escaping drudgery, so learning how to cook beans and rice, and then doing it day in and day out, feels like "leveling down" and giving in to a lifetime of drudgery.  I have in-laws who basically don't cook.  When they visit, and I cook (a basic roast chicken, veggies/salad usually because they aren't very adventurous), they act like I just split the atom.  They're perfectly smart, and have all the resources needed to learn to cook, and do so regularly, but I think that snobbery kicks in, and they see that daily grind of cooking as drudgery that they shouldn't have to engage in, and that was even the case when they were in dire financial straits.

Honestly, for much of my life I saw cooking and cleaning as drudgery and preferred to just go to my office job and pay for someone to cook for me.  Money made me lazy.  Recently, after several years in retirement, I'm getting back into cooking as a Mustachian Badassed discipline.  On the surface, it looks like the same thing, endless grocery shopping, recipe-hunting, food preparation, and cleanup.  In many ways it's tougher than my old j*b. I'm growing to enjoy the challenge preparing new, tasty food, and feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment when a dish w*rks out. 

Cooking in retirement is a lot more fun when we're not harried and pressed for time.  I'm beginning to enjoy time alone in a kitchen preparing something magical!  For me, it's a wonderful, previously hidden, gift of retirement.  I have a huge respect for anyone who cooks most meals, especially while also holding down another j*b. 

[APowers]

Honestly, for much of my life I saw cooking and cleaning as drudgery and preferred to just go to my office job and pay for someone to cook for me.  Money made me lazy.  Recently, after several years in retirement, I'm getting back into cooking as a Mustachian Badassed discipline.  On the surface, it looks like the same thing, endless grocery shopping, recipe-hunting, food preparation, and cleanup.  In many ways it's tougher than my old j*b. I'm growing to enjoy the challenge preparing new, tasty food, and feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment when a dish w*rks out. 

Cooking in retirement is a lot more fun when we're not harried and pressed for time.  I'm beginning to enjoy time alone in a kitchen preparing something magical!  For me, it's a wonderful, previously hidden, gift of retirement.  I have a huge respect for anyone who cooks most meals, especially while also holding down another j*b.

What's the saying? Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.

[Kyle Schuant]

I think the point I was trying to get at was the fact calling something "junk" in the first place is a profoundly unscientific stance to take on any subject.

Not really. Most people intuitively understand that it means, "food which is energy-dense but micronutrient-poor."

I would argue for an inclusive rather than exclusive use of the term. Your $20 fettuccine carbonara is just more expensive junk than your $2 squashy burger.

For those who are interested in digging deeper into this subject, an article on a new academic study that includes, among other things, an analysis of how low income families actually deal with feeding their families:

https://psmag.com/magazine/the-limits-of-home-cooking

Interesting and relevant, thankyou. And this is why I have said several times that our household is fortunate in that we are financially well-off enough to have me work part-time so I can make lots of home-cooked meals with fresh ingredients. Others will have less money, and/or less time. Nonetheless it would be good for more people to have the skill, so that given the money and/or the time they can do it. I'm trying to teach my children, but again we're well-off, not everyone can do this. Schools used to teach home economics...

[Linea_Norway]

DH and I were visiting a grocery store together last week. DH saw large bags of pre-cut stir fry vegetables for little money. The bags contained pretty much what we ourselves tend to use in stir fry meals, for a lower price. We should have bought a bag, but couldn't. Because the bags were very large and our freezer drawers have just been stuffed full after DH shopped a lot of cheap meat in Sweden last week. We will have to empty the freezer a bit, and next time, I will buy such a bag. I think it is a good combination of saving time and money. How often do you see that?

[GuitarStv]

I don't understand how rural areas are so overpriced in the US? I would expect that the land and space are opportunities to grow yourself or other things that do well?

They're really not. Food is rather cheap all over the country, just not everything everywhere, and it requires not putting things blindly in the cart, and spending 10-20 minutes mixing things together and possibly heating them up.

The definition of a food desert is no grocery store within one mile. One mile! It's the new "I have big bones". Like all good rallying cries, it has a nugget of truth that there is a subset of the population for which obtaining food, for many reasons, isn't a walk in the park. It distracts from the elephant in the room, which is flat out poor habits.

I'm a mile from the nearest grocery store.  In college, I would often walk a mile to go grocery shopping.

I'd be hard-pressed to shop for a family of 4 on foot and walk that mile, and carry that amount of groceries.  For even 1-2 days of groceries.

So what's the suggested alternative? Walk to the convenience store for every meal?

By the way, I used the bike and bike trailer pretty religiously for a few years to get a week's worth of food for a family of 7 (doing so at up to 120 degrees F in the city that captures the crown for U.S. hottest: http://www.wxresearch.com/triv.htm).

That's great for you! But not everyone is in such great physical condition. My gf gets bad asthma if she tries to walk/bike in cold weather, so she wouldn't be able to do this for up to half the year where we live.

There are solutions for most problems (cold weather asthma is triggered by gulping cold dry air . . . and can be largely avoided with a good facemask.  The mask traps a good amount of the warm humid air that you breath out next to your face).

Saying that someone isn't in great physical condition, so they can't exercise is weird.  It's like saying "I'm too poor to get a job."  Someone who isn't in great condition will reap the most benefits from exercise.  In fact, exercise is the only way that they will ever get into great physical condition.

Start with a regular routine of small but increasing distances.  As strength improves, increase the distances.  After a few months a bike ride to the grocery store will not be a big deal at all.

I tore a part of knee, so I can't exercise in that way. Not everyone can exercise in ways that allow for biking/walking a mile.

There exist certain injuries that will prevent you from ever being mobile again.  If you have suffered one of these, I feel for you.  That not only complicates exercise, but can make your whole life kinda miserable.

That said, it's pretty rare that an injury can't be rehabilitated so that you can get good functional use of basic body movement again.  In fact, nearly all injuries will respond better to slight use and then a period of building up/strengthening the injured area.  This is an instance where spending money on a physiotherapist for a while is absolutely worth it because of the improvements you'll see in quality of life.

Doctors took off my father's right leg in a motorcycle accident when I was four years old.  He currently runs a small farm (doing all the physical work himself) and walks a couple miles in a day, including in the winter.  Although running or cycling are both pretty much out of the picture for him, if after the accident he had given up on (the extremely long and difficult path to) re-learning to walk his quality of life would have suffered tremendously.  Given the bad heart condition that runs in our family, it's likely that he would not be here today if he hadn't made this choice.

[nereo]

Food snobbery certainly reaches down to Olive Garden and Red Lobster, btw.

As a snobby coastal elite, I can confirm that Olive Garden is something that gets brought up in jokes. I've never set foot in one.

Growing up we ate our a few times a month, and almost always at some local ethnic places.  As a consequence, I've never been inside an Olive Garden, Applebee's, Red Lobster, Denny's or countless other common chain restaurants.  Now that I'm an 'adult' along the coast these restaurants occasionally come up in conversations with friends - usually about how they went their as kids but would 'never go back' (snobbery), or when comparing some local/independent place (e.g. "it's about the same price as an Olive Garden, but way better" (more snobbery)).   Since I have no frame of reference I feel kinda left out.  Sometimes I think I should visit these large chain restaurants at least once, but no one seems too keen on going there amongst my circle of friends. It doesnt' help that the closest one is 40 minutes away.  Of course now I have an infant so I don't really eat out at all anymore.

[Cranky]

And you know - if you like pasta, Olive Garden is nothing fancy but it’s pretty tasty. You get as much salad as you can eat, too! I am not a fan of eating out if eating at home is an option - and I actually like to cook - but when we’re traveling, Olive Garden is a place where everyone in my family, including the vegetarian, can find something for dinner.

[nereo]

And you know - if you like pasta, Olive Garden is nothing fancy but it’s pretty tasty. You get as much salad as you can eat, too! I am not a fan of eating out if eating at home is an option - and I actually like to cook - but when we’re traveling, Olive Garden is a place where everyone in my family, including the vegetarian, can find something for dinner.

Is the 'all you can eat' thing really an important selling point?  Or is it about having a large amount of choices?  It's exceedingly rare for me to have a meal at a restaurant in the US where I think "I wish I had been served more food".  I know some people love to eat humungous portions, but every Italian restaurant I've ever been to serves almost comically large pasta dishes.

[GuitarStv]

I don't understand why anyone would be wowed by all you can eat pasta.  That's like being wowed by all you can eat rice.  What does ten plates of pasta cost the restaurant . . . like 2$?

[ysette9]

I don't understand why anyone would be wowed by all you can eat pasta.  That's like being wowed by all you can eat rice.  What does ten plates of pasta cost the restaurant . . . like 2$?

Right. It is about the cheapest food there is in the US because of wheat subsidies. Being so refined it isn’t even good for you. You aren’t that much better off than just eating stretchy sugar.

[vern]

This question was addressed in Tom Naughton' s great documentary Fat Head.

IIRC he said most dietitians and health experts felt that "poor people are stupid."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp8pnpqhxzw

[Linea_Norway]

This question was addressed in Tom Naughton' s great documentary Fat Head.

IIRC he said most dietitians and health experts felt that "poor people are stupid."

That is probably not the case. Bad food like processed wheat is often cheaper than healthy food like vegetables and fruit. Good quality meat also costs more than cheap sausages.

[GuitarStv]

This question was addressed in Tom Naughton' s great documentary Fat Head.

IIRC he said most dietitians and health experts felt that "poor people are stupid."

That is probably not the case. Bad food like processed wheat is often cheaper than healthy food like vegetables and fruit. Good quality meat also costs more than cheap sausages.

Each person only has so much bandwidth in a day to deal with bad stuff.  I suspect that your average poor person has more pressing concerns than nutrition and food quality.  While this may lead to poor food decisions, I'm not sure that it implies anything about the intelligence of the people who are just trying to get by each day.

[Cranky]

And you know - if you like pasta, Olive Garden is nothing fancy but it’s pretty tasty. You get as much salad as you can eat, too! I am not a fan of eating out if eating at home is an option - and I actually like to cook - but when we’re traveling, Olive Garden is a place where everyone in my family, including the vegetarian, can find something for dinner.

Is the 'all you can eat' thing really an important selling point?  Or is it about having a large amount of choices?  It's exceedingly rare for me to have a meal at a restaurant in the US where I think "I wish I had been served more food".  I know some people love to eat humungous portions, but every Italian restaurant I've ever been to serves almost comically large pasta dishes.

It's all you can eat salad, not pasta. I don't know about you, but when I'm traveling, which is about the only time we eat out, there are never enough vegetables for me. I'm pretty exciting about the endless salad bowl. We fight over who gets the olives and the peppers, too. ;-)

[Linea_Norway]

It's all you can eat salad, not pasta. I don't know about you, but when I'm traveling, which is about the only time we eat out, there are never enough vegetables for me. I'm pretty exciting about the endless salad bowl. We fight over who gets the olives and the peppers, too. ;-)

Ever been to Crete? They have dishes that exist of only vegetables, with or without potato. I love good, Greek food.

[AlexMar]

This question was addressed in Tom Naughton' s great documentary Fat Head.

IIRC he said most dietitians and health experts felt that "poor people are stupid."

That is probably not the case. Bad food like processed wheat is often cheaper than healthy food like vegetables and fruit. Good quality meat also costs more than cheap sausages.

Each person only has so much bandwidth in a day to deal with bad stuff.  I suspect that your average poor person has more pressing concerns than nutrition and food quality.  While this may lead to poor food decisions, I'm not sure that it implies anything about the intelligence of the people who are just trying to get by each day.

You obviously haven't been around poor people very much.  No offense.  While there are poor people who work their butts off and are trying to do better, or just victims of circumstances, usually people are poor because they are NOT working their butts off and have plenty of time and energy to put towards nutrition.  They just don't care or aren't educated enough, and really aren't that interested in being educated about it.  I spent nearly a decade in the "ghetto" - and "not having the time or energy" is not in any way how I would describe the situation of the people there.  They are more in a state of "I've given up," which is sad in it's own way.

[AlexMar]

Honestly, for much of my life I saw cooking and cleaning as drudgery and preferred to just go to my office job and pay for someone to cook for me.  Money made me lazy.  Recently, after several years in retirement, I'm getting back into cooking as a Mustachian Badassed discipline.  On the surface, it looks like the same thing, endless grocery shopping, recipe-hunting, food preparation, and cleanup.  In many ways it's tougher than my old j*b. I'm growing to enjoy the challenge preparing new, tasty food, and feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment when a dish w*rks out. 

Cooking in retirement is a lot more fun when we're not harried and pressed for time.  I'm beginning to enjoy time alone in a kitchen preparing something magical!  For me, it's a wonderful, previously hidden, gift of retirement.  I have a huge respect for anyone who cooks most meals, especially while also holding down another j*b.

Love your post!  I used to cook a ton, then stopped as I made a lot of money - it made me lazy, too.  And now I'm finally coming full circle where I come home and truly feel accomplished cooking.  I turned it in to a hobby as opposed to sinking in to the couch watching TV every evening.  It occurred to me just how many hours I waste watching TV, and cooking in the evenings is a nice way to actually "do something" productive.  Plus we are saving about $1000/mo!  Even on a long day I enjoy coming home and cooking.  It's a state of mind.  If it's a chore, you'll hate it.  But if it's a hobby, you may love it.  And once you get good at it, making a really nice meal is easy to do in less than 30 minutes.

[nereo]

You obviously haven't been around poor people very much.  No offense.  While there are poor people who work their butts off and are trying to do better, or just victims of circumstances, usually people are poor because they are NOT working their butts off and have plenty of time and energy to put towards nutrition.  They just don't care or aren't educated enough, and really aren't that interested in being educated about it.  I spent nearly a decade in the "ghetto" - and "not having the time or energy" is not in any way how I would describe the situation of the people there.  They are more in a state of "I've given up," which is sad in it's own way.

This is essentially the belief that 'poverty is a moral failing'. However, the idea that poor people remain poor because they are unwilling to work isn't well supported by the data, and excluding personal anecdotes I'm not sure how you one could support the claim that poor people 'aren't interested in being educated about [how to improve their lives]. Despite all the hype of this being the land of opportunity, we have very low income mobility in the US, and income remains tightly correlated to parental income. I applaud you for pulling yourself up out of poverty into the world of high earners, but I refute the idea that most poor people are poor because they are lazy, and that they don't wish to learn how to better their situations (be it diet or otherwise). 

[Paul der Krake]

It's all you can eat salad, not pasta. I don't know about you, but when I'm traveling, which is about the only time we eat out, there are never enough vegetables for me. I'm pretty exciting about the endless salad bowl. We fight over who gets the olives and the peppers, too. ;-)

Ever been to Crete? They have dishes that exist of only vegetables, with or without potato. I love good, Greek food.

Oh man, I'm not a foodie AT ALL. But never have I ever been so content as that one time a Greek friend's family fed us in that village tucked away in the mountains in Crete. Incredible food and culture, 10/10.

[AlexMar]

You obviously haven't been around poor people very much.  No offense.  While there are poor people who work their butts off and are trying to do better, or just victims of circumstances, usually people are poor because they are NOT working their butts off and have plenty of time and energy to put towards nutrition.  They just don't care or aren't educated enough, and really aren't that interested in being educated about it.  I spent nearly a decade in the "ghetto" - and "not having the time or energy" is not in any way how I would describe the situation of the people there.  They are more in a state of "I've given up," which is sad in it's own way.

This is essentially the belief that 'poverty is a moral failing'. However, the idea that poor people remain poor because they are unwilling to work isn't well supported by the data, and excluding personal anecdotes I'm not sure how you one could support the claim that poor people 'aren't interested in being educated about [how to improve their lives]. Despite all the hype of this being the land of opportunity, we have very low income mobility in the US, and income remains tightly correlated to parental income. I applaud you for pulling yourself up out of poverty into the world of high earners, but I refute the idea that most poor people are poor because they are lazy, and that they don't wish to learn how to better their situations (be it diet or otherwise).

I respect your opinion, I just view it differently.  I am from the belief that being simply mediocre (read: not poor) in the US is pretty darn easy with not a whole lot of effort.  I spent a lot of time in a VERY poor neighborhood with drugs, crime, etc.  Sorry to repeat myself...  You can call it anecdotal, that's fine.  But to me it's so obvious it's indisputable.  These people weren't walking door to door in the commercial district asking for applications.  They weren't spending their time educating themselves via the immense amount of free information on the internet.  I did.  I taught myself sales, web development, and marketing by reading like crazy and practically begging every place I could find in the industry for a job.  And that's why my story is a lot different than theirs.  If you think the majority of people in those neighborhoods are spending every waking moment trying to get themselves out of that situation, then I don't even know what to say - other than that would be total fiction.  And to reiterate, I'm not lumping EVERYONE in to the same box. Some people are mentally ill, victims of circumstances, you name it, and they deserve every bit of help from society as we are able to reasonably give them.  But it is simply not that hard to pull yourself up in this country and live comfortably.  I don't think "lazy" is an accurate description, which is why I used the term "giving up."  It's easy to get stuck and just give up and accept your place in life, WAY too easy.

Your comment about "the idea that poor people remain poor because they are unwilling to work isn't well supported by the data" - I totally agree.  But that's misleading.  They are unwilling to get out of their comfort zone.  I think "hard work" describing labor is how we are all brought up to think.  But the reality is the labor is the easy part.  The mental aspect is the hard part.  How many people refuse to do sales because they are uncomfortable cold calling? "Oh, I don't do that."  Of course poor people are willing to work.  If you just give them a job, here ya go... people are always willing to do labor.  That's the easy part.  Kind of like when I wanted to start a business with a friend long ago.  My friend suggested 50/50 and he would do the labor if I bring in the jobs.  And I'm thinking... dude... getting people to give you money is the hard part.  Anyone can push a lawn mower around.  But having to get out of your comfort zone to do MORE is the hard part.  Which is why people who are willing to work and often do work, remain poor.  That's the easy and comfortable decision.

[GuitarStv]

There is some research that shows your brain actually operates differently (sub-optimally) when under the stresses of poverty.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-how-poverty-can-drive-down-intelligence



Is it possible for a poor person to improve his or her life?  In most cases, yes.  Is it very difficult?  Again, in most cases, yes.

There are a plethora of factors involved in poverty.  Blaming it on laziness is an overly broad and unfair characterization, and dismissing the hardships and difficulties in extricating ones self from that situation is a hindrance rather than help to people who are trying to work their way out.

I regularly volunteer at a soup kitchen as well as a community outreach center that does drug rehabilitation programs, am currently live in a low income area, and grew up in a very small Northern Ontario town and native reserve, both of which were poverty stricken.  This may not equal your own personal experience of 'a decade in the ghetto', but I have certainly been "around poor people" in my life.

[AlexMar]

There is some research that shows your brain actually operates differently (sub-optimally) when under the stresses of poverty.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-how-poverty-can-drive-down-intelligence



Is it possible for a poor person to improve his or her life?  In most cases, yes.  Is it very difficult?  Again, in most cases, yes.

There are a plethora of factors involved in poverty.  Blaming it on laziness is an overly broad and unfair characterization, and dismissing the hardships and difficulties in extricating ones self from that situation is a hindrance rather than help to people who are trying to work their way out.

I regularly volunteer at a soup kitchen as well as a community outreach center that does drug rehabilitation programs, am currently live in a low income area, and grew up in a very small Northern Ontario town and native reserve, both of which were poverty stricken.  This may not equal your own personal experience of 'a decade in the ghetto', but I have certainly been "around poor people" in my life.

I clearly said I wouldn't use the term "lazy" - so please don't accuse me of that.  I would say we probably very much agree for the most part - it's the minor details we may see differently.  I don't think I dismissed the hardships, I even elaborated that the hardest part is getting out of your comfort zone, which is hard - while at the same time quite easy because simple "effort" is a solution. I'm not a great writer so I don't know how to explain it better.  Mental issues and feeling trapped can be very difficult to overcome - I also know that from personal experience with pretty severe ADD.  But it's not "complicated" to do so.  Kind of like addiction.  It's easy to quit smoking, right?  Just literally don't smoke.  While at the same time being very difficult and hard.  That's how I would describe the people who often remain poor.  And my comment was in response to someone saying poor people don't have the time to focus on nutrition, and I pointed out that's not really the issue at all.  This is way too complicated of a subject, lol, and no matter what I say it's misrepresented as heartless, even though I would describe empathy as my superpower.  I just view the solutions differently than others.  So anyways.

[nereo]

There is some research that shows your brain actually operates differently (sub-optimally) when under the stresses of poverty.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-how-poverty-can-drive-down-intelligence



Is it possible for a poor person to improve his or her life?  In most cases, yes.  Is it very difficult?  Again, in most cases, yes.

There are a plethora of factors involved in poverty.  Blaming it on laziness is an overly broad and unfair characterization, and dismissing the hardships and difficulties in extricating ones self from that situation is a hindrance rather than help to people who are trying to work their way out.

I regularly volunteer at a soup kitchen as well as a community outreach center that does drug rehabilitation programs, am currently live in a low income area, and grew up in a very small Northern Ontario town and native reserve, both of which were poverty stricken.  This may not equal your own personal experience of 'a decade in the ghetto', but I have certainly been "around poor people" in my life.

I clearly said I wouldn't use the term "lazy" - so please don't accuse me of that.  I would say we probably very much agree for the most part - it's the minor details we may see differently.  I don't think I dismissed the hardships, I even elaborated that the hardest part is getting out of your comfort zone, which is hard - while at the same time quite easy because simple "effort" is a solution. I'm not a great writer so I don't know how to explain it better.  Mental issues and feeling trapped can be very difficult to overcome - I also know that from personal experience with pretty severe ADD.  But it's not "complicated" to do so.  Kind of like addiction.  It's easy to quit smoking, right?  Just literally don't smoke.  While at the same time being very difficult and hard.  That's how I would describe the people who often remain poor.  And my comment was in response to someone saying poor people don't have the time to focus on nutrition, and I pointed out that's not really the issue at all.  This is way too complicated of a subject, lol, and no matter what I say it's misrepresented as heartless, even though I would describe empathy as my superpower.  I just view the solutions differently than others.  So anyways.

Interesting discussion.
What stands out to me is that the expectation of effort is not uniform across people of different socio-economic backgrounds.  In plain english, what you seem to be saying is that a poor person needs to work their butt off in order to bring themselves out of poverty, and many simply lack the initiative to do so and are resigned to staying poor.  That may be true.  But the flip-side to this (which you kindof alluded to) is that someone who grows up solidly middle-class can continue to be middle class without a whole lot of effort; whereas the poor person has to bust their hump, get out of their comfort zone, pound every door and take advantage of every opportunity the kid from a middle class background can just coast - and they'll likely end up at about the same level, financially.

It's different ways of viewing the same phenomenon.  My open question is basically 'why should the poor be expected to work harder to achieve the same amount?'  It certainly sounds like this is the path that got you to where you are today - doesn't there seem to be some inherent unfairness when you compare your struggles to those of your peers who grew up in upper-middleclass homes?

[AlexMar]

There is some research that shows your brain actually operates differently (sub-optimally) when under the stresses of poverty.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-how-poverty-can-drive-down-intelligence



Is it possible for a poor person to improve his or her life?  In most cases, yes.  Is it very difficult?  Again, in most cases, yes.

There are a plethora of factors involved in poverty.  Blaming it on laziness is an overly broad and unfair characterization, and dismissing the hardships and difficulties in extricating ones self from that situation is a hindrance rather than help to people who are trying to work their way out.

I regularly volunteer at a soup kitchen as well as a community outreach center that does drug rehabilitation programs, am currently live in a low income area, and grew up in a very small Northern Ontario town and native reserve, both of which were poverty stricken.  This may not equal your own personal experience of 'a decade in the ghetto', but I have certainly been "around poor people" in my life.

I clearly said I wouldn't use the term "lazy" - so please don't accuse me of that.  I would say we probably very much agree for the most part - it's the minor details we may see differently.  I don't think I dismissed the hardships, I even elaborated that the hardest part is getting out of your comfort zone, which is hard - while at the same time quite easy because simple "effort" is a solution. I'm not a great writer so I don't know how to explain it better.  Mental issues and feeling trapped can be very difficult to overcome - I also know that from personal experience with pretty severe ADD.  But it's not "complicated" to do so.  Kind of like addiction.  It's easy to quit smoking, right?  Just literally don't smoke.  While at the same time being very difficult and hard.  That's how I would describe the people who often remain poor.  And my comment was in response to someone saying poor people don't have the time to focus on nutrition, and I pointed out that's not really the issue at all.  This is way too complicated of a subject, lol, and no matter what I say it's misrepresented as heartless, even though I would describe empathy as my superpower.  I just view the solutions differently than others.  So anyways.

Interesting discussion.
What stands out to me is that the expectation of effort is not uniform across people of different socio-economic backgrounds.  In plain english, what you seem to be saying is that a poor person needs to work their butt off in order to bring themselves out of poverty, and many simply lack the initiative to do so and are resigned to staying poor.  That may be true.  But the flip-side to this (which you kindof alluded to) is that someone who grows up solidly middle-class can continue to be middle class without a whole lot of effort; whereas the poor person has to bust their hump, get out of their comfort zone, pound every door and take advantage of every opportunity the kid from a middle class background can just coast - and they'll likely end up at about the same level, financially.

It's different ways of viewing the same phenomenon.  My open question is basically 'why should the poor be expected to work harder to achieve the same amount?'  It certainly sounds like this is the path that got you to where you are today - doesn't there seem to be some inherent unfairness when you compare your struggles to those of your peers who grew up in upper-middleclass homes?

I am a firm believer in land of equal opportunity, not equal results.  If you start poor, oh well.  At least you are alive.  The gift of life makes everyone rich.  And in the USA, you have the opportunity to do anything you want.  I think that's a healthy mindset.  And it really is true.  So I don't view things in terms of fairness, I never have.  I think when you get caught in the trap of convincing yourself things aren't fair, is pretty much the same mindset that causes you to give up.  I don't care if I have struggles and others don't.  For me, that's meaningless.  "Why should the poor be expected to work harder to achieve the same amount?" - Because they have to.  That would be my answer.

Look at it a different way.  Let's say I have $5M.  Is it fair that I have to work so much harder to have $100M or $1B?  I see the logic the same way when comparing poor and middle class.

Your question of fairness is why countries like Denmark have a different system.  Enough people saw things a different way and decided to do something differently.  Whether it is good or bad, well, that would require a much deeper discussion.  Is it worth bringing down the upper middle class in order to bring up the bottom?  Would you want to give up on some FIRE goals, work more years, have less things that you desire, less access to things you want to do, all to help bring up others?  Do you believe they require this help?  Would you feel you are working harder so others could work less and have the same life style?  (the opposite of your question, by the way).  Is THAT fair?  Would you want to force that on EVERYONE?  Is that moral?  It's a much, much deeper discussion.

But I would say, if you want to work and work in a white/blue collar job until typical retirement age.  Have a strong safety net, healthcare, employment assistance, you name it.  You want a lifestyle that is, by American standards, barely middle class.  But still a really solid, nice life - where you work until your 60's and live comfortable and without a lot of stress.  Then a country like Denmark is about as perfect a place as can be.  Very, very "fair".  Relating to FIRE, I'd be careful what you wish for :)

[former player]

There is some research that shows your brain actually operates differently (sub-optimally) when under the stresses of poverty.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-how-poverty-can-drive-down-intelligence



Is it possible for a poor person to improve his or her life?  In most cases, yes.  Is it very difficult?  Again, in most cases, yes.

There are a plethora of factors involved in poverty.  Blaming it on laziness is an overly broad and unfair characterization, and dismissing the hardships and difficulties in extricating ones self from that situation is a hindrance rather than help to people who are trying to work their way out.

I regularly volunteer at a soup kitchen as well as a community outreach center that does drug rehabilitation programs, am currently live in a low income area, and grew up in a very small Northern Ontario town and native reserve, both of which were poverty stricken.  This may not equal your own personal experience of 'a decade in the ghetto', but I have certainly been "around poor people" in my life.

I clearly said I wouldn't use the term "lazy" - so please don't accuse me of that.  I would say we probably very much agree for the most part - it's the minor details we may see differently.  I don't think I dismissed the hardships, I even elaborated that the hardest part is getting out of your comfort zone, which is hard - while at the same time quite easy because simple "effort" is a solution. I'm not a great writer so I don't know how to explain it better.  Mental issues and feeling trapped can be very difficult to overcome - I also know that from personal experience with pretty severe ADD.  But it's not "complicated" to do so.  Kind of like addiction.  It's easy to quit smoking, right?  Just literally don't smoke.  While at the same time being very difficult and hard.  That's how I would describe the people who often remain poor.  And my comment was in response to someone saying poor people don't have the time to focus on nutrition, and I pointed out that's not really the issue at all.  This is way too complicated of a subject, lol, and no matter what I say it's misrepresented as heartless, even though I would describe empathy as my superpower.  I just view the solutions differently than others.  So anyways.

Interesting discussion.
What stands out to me is that the expectation of effort is not uniform across people of different socio-economic backgrounds.  In plain english, what you seem to be saying is that a poor person needs to work their butt off in order to bring themselves out of poverty, and many simply lack the initiative to do so and are resigned to staying poor.  That may be true.  But the flip-side to this (which you kindof alluded to) is that someone who grows up solidly middle-class can continue to be middle class without a whole lot of effort; whereas the poor person has to bust their hump, get out of their comfort zone, pound every door and take advantage of every opportunity the kid from a middle class background can just coast - and they'll likely end up at about the same level, financially.

It's different ways of viewing the same phenomenon.  My open question is basically 'why should the poor be expected to work harder to achieve the same amount?'  It certainly sounds like this is the path that got you to where you are today - doesn't there seem to be some inherent unfairness when you compare your struggles to those of your peers who grew up in upper-middleclass homes?

Moving up economically is also not just about working hard, it's about being willing to leave behind the way you grew up, the people you grew up with and possibly the place you grew up in, or at least to say to yourself that what was good enough for all the people you grew up with isn't good enough for you.  That is socially and emotionally a hard thing to do, and something that people from more prosperous economic backgrounds don't even have to think about as being a brake on what they do in life.  The other thing is that someone growing up poor quite probably doesn't have either the role models or the practical help with professional work contacts that someone growing up more prosperously probably has.  None of which says that it can't be done, just that it takes a certain desire or ability to move away from one's social milieu that not everyone has - we are a social, family and group-oriented species.

[GuitarStv]

I am a firm believer in land of equal opportunity, not equal results.  If you start poor, oh well.

Do you believe that the opportunity for a rich kid born in the lap of luxury is equal to the opportunity for a poor kid born to a single working mom?

There are vanishingly few people (certainly I wouldn't count myself among them) who believe that all people deserve equal results for different efforts in life.  Yet, you appear to be arguing that the poor should have to work harder to achieve equal results.  If the poor kid has to work harder than the rich kid to get the same result, how is their opportunity the same?

Look at it a different way.  Let's say I have $5M.  Is it fair that I have to work so much harder to have $100M or $1B?  I see the logic the same way when comparing poor and middle class.

There's little difference between being rich and being super rich.  There's a huge difference between being food insecure and middle class.  I'm not sure that the comparison you're making here is valid for this reason.

[Boofinator]

I am going to agree with pretty much everything AlexMar has said up to this point (and be less eloquent about it at the same time). Yes, many aspects of being poor suck*, but that's the capitalist society we live in. The surest way to climb the class ladder is to add value to the lives of others (and conversely the quickest way to climb down is to suck value). The alternative lies with Marxism and a society that values fairness and equality of outcome, and the result is everyone suffers (except the "leaders").  As AlexMar says, life has never been nor never will be "fair". (But as I said earlier, we don't want life to be fair even from the get-go, as then there is no incentive for parents to work hard to provide an unfair advantage for their children.)

A different but related set of questions are whether we should do more or less to provide for class mobility (I think more), what (if anything) should be done to help accomplish this, and whether we would be willing to reduce overall standard of living to improve class mobility (this last question being the crux that doomed Marxism and the classless societies).

*Note that many aspects of being rich suck too. In order for us (Mustachians) to get rich, we've had to generally work hard and delay gratification. Additionally, the universal advice I've received from every single well-off person is to work hard. The people who are not well off, but started from the same station, almost invariably desired the outcome but didn't study, respect, or implement the process to get there.

[Boofinator]

Do you believe that the opportunity for a rich kid born in the lap of luxury is equal to the opportunity for a poor kid born to a single working mom?

There are vanishingly few people (certainly I wouldn't count myself among them) who believe that all people deserve equal results for different efforts in life.  Yet, you appear to be arguing that the poor should have to work harder to achieve equal results.  If the poor kid has to work harder than the rich kid to get the same result, how is their opportunity the same?

This wasn't directed at me, but I say yes. The poor kid has the opportunity to be just as happy as the rich kid, and in fact has more opportunity to climb the social class ladder than the rich kid (because the latter has nowhere left to go but down). Granted, the poor kid will have to work much harder, but that is life.

There are countless examples of people rising from utter desolate poverty to the heights of success. I happen to be reading a biography on Andrew Jackson, and he fits the bill:

His destitute parents moved from Ireland (Scots-Irish) a few years before his birth. Dad died while mom was pregnant with Andrew, mom had to move in with relatives. Mother and both brothers died during the Revolutionary War, making him an orphan at 14. Acquired various parasites prevalent in the south that made him skinny and haggard. Was shot twice (once in a duel and once in a skuffle), and suffered significantly from these. How did he fare? Lawyer, judge, representative, senator, plantation owner (granted slavery is an immoral institution), general, governor, president, $20 man.

So I have to say, yes, equal opportunity exists for those willing to take those risks. As former player mentions, you might have to leave things behind if you want to be successful, but again that is life and we are lucky we get to choose whether we want material wealth, power, or closeness to family.

[nereo]

Andrew Jackson was born in 1757, died in 1845.  His experience doesn't seem relevant to the issue of economic mobility in the 21st century.

It is not equal opportunity if it's only available to those willing to take risks.

[GuitarStv]

Do you believe that the opportunity for a rich kid born in the lap of luxury is equal to the opportunity for a poor kid born to a single working mom?

This wasn't directed at me, but I say yes. The poor kid has the opportunity to be just as happy as the rich kid, and in fact has more opportunity to climb the social class ladder than the rich kid (because the latter has nowhere left to go but down).

I had to look up opportunity to make sure my understanding of the word was correct:

Opportunity - a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.

If two people have the same opportunity, then they have the same set of circumstances that make it possible to do something.  In our case that means that if they both work roughly as hard, they will both get roughly the same chances to succeed in life.

Granted, the poor kid will have to work much harder, but that is life.

This is where you're losing me.  If the poor kid has to work harder, then by definition he does not have the same opportunity.  He has a worse opportunity than the rich kid.

Maybe an example will illustrate what I'm talking about.


Let's say I'm three feet tall and uncoordinated.  I work with a man who is eight feet tall and a natural athlete.  My employer has decided that the winner of a game of basketball between me and my coworker is who raises will be handed out this year at work.

While it's possible for me to succeed if I learn the rules of the game, practice every night, start lifting weights, do hand/eye coordination exercises, etc., the deck is stacked against me.  With even a modicum of effort, my coworker will beat me.  While we do both have a chance, we certainly do not have equal opportunity to get the raise.



Why is this important?

Capitalism works by competition.  The best in a field tend to rise to the top.  This motivates people to strive harder, and rewards the best ideas that society has.  When people start from incredibly unequal places though, the best don't always rise to the top.  Sometimes the better idea doesn't make it to market, and we as a society lose out.  By providing services that help minimize this inequality, we can help capitalism to work more efficiently.  Everyone benefits from this.

[Boofinator]

Andrew Jackson was born in 1757, died in 1845.  His experience doesn't seem relevant to the issue of economic mobility in the 21st century.

It is not equal opportunity if it's only available to those willing to take risks.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

1) There are various standards for success, but to meet your criteria, I googled billionaires raised in poverty: https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-who-came-from-nothing-2013-12?op=1#born-into-poverty-oprah-winfrey-became-the-first-african-american-tv-correspondent-in-nashville-6.

2) "Fortune favors the bold." Everyone must take risks in life.