The Money Mustache Community

Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 09:12:08 AM

Title: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 09:12:08 AM
So there's this story about the Panera CEO going hungry on the food stamp budget for food.  The thing is his budget is a lot higher than many of the posters on this board.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/newser-panera-ceo-food-stamps/2826547/

I'm not sure where this $4.50/day challenge came from.  I think it's the average pay-out for food stamps.  The thing is, the maximum payout for food stamps, which is what should be used for the challenge in my opinion, is $6.50/day.  Sure $4.50 is the average payout, but that's partially because many food stamp recipients have jobs that pay part of their food bill.  It's also partially because some costs go down per person as number of people go up, so a 3 person household receives less per person than a single person.  Also, it should be fairly obvious that a family of 3 will have at least one child, and children need less food than adults.

In the end, I say not being able to survive on $200/month for food, or even $135/month, is decidedly anti-mustachian.  But I'm sure this is what happens when you're used to throwing down whatever money is needed for luxury products.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Mr.Macinstache on September 18, 2013, 09:25:43 AM
Sounds like a marketing gimmick to me.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: dragoncar on September 18, 2013, 10:46:26 AM
Sounds like a marketing gimmick to me.

Clearly, the government should give out panera sandwich certificates
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2013, 10:58:00 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kyleaaa on September 18, 2013, 11:40:18 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

These people can't go to Costco because there isn't one within walking/biking distance of a bus route and even if there was, they couldn't buy in bulk and get it all home without a car. They live in a different world than you. You couldn't eat well on $4.50 in their shoes, either.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 11:41:06 AM
Yea, I'm a little surprised that CEOs of any corporation would bite at this gimmick, since they want to keep everyone poor, right?

And yea, agreed about the week thing.  I have a bunch of stuff that's been in my pantry for months, not because I don't eat it, but because I bought it when it was in the clearance cart knowing I would eat it some day.  Or the costco flour I've had for a few months because my mom was in town and we went to costco.

If it was actually so difficult to live on $4.50/day, half our country would literally be starving to death.  However, I will say that vegetables and fruits can't be bought in bulk like grains and pastas.  Then again, he is the CEO of the St. Louis Bread Co. so I'm guessing he lives in St. Louis.  In that case, he could go to several markets, Soulard for one, and get cheap produce.  $1/lb mushrooms.  $.25 avocadoes.  $.10 ears of corn.  $.1 peppers.  These are deals he probably isn't even aware of because he's never really had to live on $4.50/day (and these wouldn't be his first choice because they aren't the shiniest of the crops).
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 11:46:05 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: TrulyStashin on September 18, 2013, 11:47:06 AM
children need less food than adults.


Hah!  Come to dinner at my house with my 16 year old son.  His nickname is "The Maw" and he has been a bottomless pit since he was about 12 with no end in sight.  He's 6'1" and 155 lbs of pure muscle.   

Whether children need less food than adults is very dependent on the child and the adult in question.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Rebecca Stapler on September 18, 2013, 11:51:49 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 11:57:48 AM
children children in a certain age range need less food than adults.


Hah!  Come to dinner at my house with my 16 year old son.  His nickname is "The Maw" and he has been a bottomless pit since he was about 12 with no end in sight.  He's 6'1" and 155 lbs of pure muscle.   

Whether children need less food than adults is very dependent on the child and the adult in question.

Fair enough.  Does the edit sound better?  Kids, especially males, in the teenage years, do need more food than adults.  On the other hand, they're practically adults anyway.

Too add to my earlier point - I'm a 23 year old 6'4, 205 pound male.  I can't imagine too many people needing to eat more than I do, and I manage to have a grocery budget of $290/month including $100 at restaurants and $80 on alcohol (both my biggest anti-mustachian areas).
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Mr.Macinstache on September 18, 2013, 12:00:12 PM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kudy on September 18, 2013, 12:01:35 PM
Quote
$.25 avocadoes

This sounds amazing. I would die of an avacado overdose if I could get them for 25 cents.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kudy on September 18, 2013, 12:02:49 PM
Quote
$.25 avocadoes

This sounds amazing. I would die of an avacado overdose if I could get them for 25 cents.

Quote
a legitimate grocery store is miles away.

how many miles? 3-4 miles on a bike isn't a huge deal.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 12:06:09 PM
Quote
$.25 avocadoes

This sounds amazing. I would die of an avacado overdose if I could get them for 25 cents.
I'm not sure they are always 25 cents, but I've seen them that cheap at times.  Never more than 75 cents.

Quote
Quote
a legitimate grocery store is miles away.

how many miles? 3-4 miles on a bike isn't a huge deal.

Could be difficult on San Francisco hills.

I didn't mean to suggest, as my earlier post did, that food deserts are a total joke/made up.  However, as far as fairly flat St. Louis is concerned, they don't exist around here unless you don't expect anyone to walk more than half a mile to a store.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kyleaaa on September 18, 2013, 12:13:08 PM

I didn't mean to suggest, as my earlier post did, that food deserts are a total joke/made up.  However, as far as fairly flat St. Louis is concerned, they don't exist around here unless you don't expect anyone to walk more than half a mile to a store.

In fact, there are quite a few food deserts in St Louis. They exist in pretty much every major city.

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/finding-fresh-food-solutions-beyond-food-deserts-st-louis

And if a person can barely afford food or housing, do you REALLY expect them to have access to a decent bicycle? And even if they did, how would they find 2 hours to go to a store 3 miles away after working a 14 hour day? Assuming they weren't passed out from exhaustion, who would watch the kids? This is a very, very serious problem and the solution isn't just to say "well, they're lazy. Let them walk for an hour."
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kyleaaa on September 18, 2013, 12:16:26 PM
So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

Right, poor people are ONLY poor because they make poor decisions and there's a magical bus on every street corner in every neighborhood delivering people to a half-price Whole Foods with  organic avocados on sale for $0.02 per pound.

Let me ask you this: after your 14 hour days (not exaggerating, some of these people actually consistently work 14 hour days EVERY DAY) how often do you drive 6 miles round-trip to buy groceries while somehow keeping three 5-year old children from getting into trouble? They aren't riding with you on your bike, that's for sure. And your neighbor is doing crack so they can't watch them. This is reality for millions.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Rebecca Stapler on September 18, 2013, 12:18:09 PM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

In the neighborhoods I'm thinking of, the Tenderloin and South of Market, public transit would involve taking a bus to the light rail, which would be a 45 minute endeavor each way.

Go ahead and flame away, but I honestly don't think riding a bike is very safe in those areas because it's an easy thing to get stolen. But that's just based on my spouse's repeated close calls with being bike-jacked, not something I have stats to prove.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 12:24:59 PM

I didn't mean to suggest, as my earlier post did, that food deserts are a total joke/made up.  However, as far as fairly flat St. Louis is concerned, they don't exist around here unless you don't expect anyone to walk more than half a mile to a store.

In fact, there are quite a few food deserts in St Louis. They exist in pretty much every major city.

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/finding-fresh-food-solutions-beyond-food-deserts-st-louis

And if a person can barely afford food or housing, do you REALLY expect them to have access to a decent bicycle? And even if they did, how would they find 2 hours to go to a store 3 miles away after working a 14 hour day? Assuming they weren't passed out from exhaustion, who would watch the kids? This is a very, very serious problem and the solution isn't just to say "well, they're lazy. Let them walk for an hour."

Are you familiar with St. Louis?  Do you live in the area you linked me?  That area is the exact reason why I'm skeptical of this food desert idea.  There are multiple options within less than a mile of that area, so 2 hours to go to a store is make-believe. 

FYI, decent bicycles that are good for 2-3 miles trips can be had for less than $20.

Edit - someone working 14 hours a day would make a minimum of $40K/year.  I have a hard time believing people are working 14 hours a day, every day, but I'm sure there are a few rare examples.  But in the end, life can be tough.  It's what you do to improve yourself that makes a difference, not the government telling you that you live in a food desert (even though it's rarely true).
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2013, 12:53:36 PM
In the neighborhoods I'm thinking of, the Tenderloin and South of Market, public transit would involve taking a bus to the light rail, which would be a 45 minute endeavor each way.

I did a Google Earth search for "Safeway" (which I hear is a reasonable grocery store -- we don't have them in Georgia) and the farthest point away from them in those neighborhoods, which I eyeballed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Golden Gate Avenue and Market Street, is still within 1.2 miles. Admittedly, it'd be nice if they put another Safeway right near that intersection, and I'm sure there are hills to deal with, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. (And that's just Safeways; there might be other closer grocery stores that I don't know about.)

The centroid of my neighborhood has large grocery stores two miles away to the north, south and east, but I consider them to be an easy bike ride (or bus ride) away. Plus we have a one-day-per-week local farmer's market that gives you a 50% discount if you're paying with food stamps.

Also in my city, the closest thing we had to a food desert just got a Wal-Mart (http://www.ajc.com/news/business/new-wal-mart-is-hiring-and-welcomed-in-atlantas-vi/nSdWD/) stuck in the middle of it.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kyleaaa on September 18, 2013, 01:21:17 PM

Also in my city, the closest thing we had to a food desert just got a Wal-Mart (http://www.ajc.com/news/business/new-wal-mart-is-hiring-and-welcomed-in-atlantas-vi/nSdWD/) stuck in the middle of it.

Are you referring to Atlanta? A full 30% of Fulton country residents live in a food desert. They are all over the place. I think people who think this isn't a huge problem just haven't ever lived in such an area. Nobody is going to walk or ride a bike for 1.2 miles in these areas, ESPECIALLY after dark. Not if you want to live.

http://www.arkfab.gatech.edu/content/atlanta%E2%80%99s-food-deserts
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: kyleaaa on September 18, 2013, 01:27:13 PM
Edit - someone working 14 hours a day would make a minimum of $40K/year.  I have a hard time believing people are working 14 hours a day, every day, but I'm sure there are a few rare examples.  But in the end, life can be tough.  It's what you do to improve yourself that makes a difference, not the government telling you that you live in a food desert (even though it's rarely true).

Are you familiar with St. Louis?  Do you live in the area you linked me?  That area is the exact reason why I'm skeptical of this food desert idea.  There are multiple options within less than a mile of that area, so 2 hours to go to a store is make-believe. 

FYI, decent bicycles that are good for 2-3 miles trips can be had for less than $20.


Right, because the mountains of data compiled by the people who work on this kind of thing for a living are wrong and you are right: these places rarely actually exist! Also, you're assuming all these people make minimum wage when you calculate the $40k per year number. I assure you, many, many people don't. When I was in high school, I used to work part time unloading trucks at a distribution center. Practically nobody there earned minimum wage. I'm not even sure some of them knew there was such a thing as a minimum wage and even if they did, they were in no position to complain to anybody about it.

You can be skeptical all you want, but people who ACTUALLY do this kind of thing for a living say you have no idea what you're talking about. I agree with you that life is hard, but the reason life is hard isn't because these people are lazy or incompetent, it's because of people like you constantly telling them there's not a problem (and blocking actual solutions) when there very clearly is. This is exactly what people mean when they say racism is still rampant. The system is stacked against certain people and many not in that group adamantly pretend there isn't a problem. Who is going to ride a bike 3 miles through the ghetto without their kids just to get some vegetables? Nobody who values living, that's for sure. Have you ever lived in these communities? Judging by your responses, I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  You don't have to travel to the third world to see squalor and poverty. It's here and it always has been. It's in your city.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 18, 2013, 01:45:20 PM
Edit - someone working 14 hours a day would make a minimum of $40K/year.  I have a hard time believing people are working 14 hours a day, every day, but I'm sure there are a few rare examples.  But in the end, life can be tough.  It's what you do to improve yourself that makes a difference, not the government telling you that you live in a food desert (even though it's rarely true).

Are you familiar with St. Louis?  Do you live in the area you linked me?  That area is the exact reason why I'm skeptical of this food desert idea.  There are multiple options within less than a mile of that area, so 2 hours to go to a store is make-believe. 

FYI, decent bicycles that are good for 2-3 miles trips can be had for less than $20.


Right, because the mountains of data compiled by the people who work on this kind of thing for a living are wrong and you are right: these places rarely actually exist! Also, you're assuming all these people make minimum wage when you calculate the $40k per year number. I assure you, many, many people don't. When I was in high school, I used to work part time unloading trucks at a distribution center. Practically nobody there earned minimum wage. I'm not even sure some of them knew there was such a thing as a minimum wage and even if they did, they were in no position to complain to anybody about it.
Exactly my point.  I am right about the data being wrong.  That's the problem with compiling data with no care for the local situation.  Legitimate grocery stores were not counted as grocery stores in the study. 
Quote
You can be skeptical all you want, but people who ACTUALLY do this kind of thing for a living say you have no idea what you're talking about. I agree with you that life is hard, but the reason life is hard isn't because these people are lazy or incompetent, it's because of people like you constantly telling them there's not a problem (and blocking actual solutions) when there very clearly is. This is exactly what people mean when they say racism is still rampant. The system is stacked against certain people and many not in that group adamantly pretend there isn't a problem. Who is going to ride a bike 3 miles through the ghetto without their kids just to get some vegetables? Nobody who values living, that's for sure. Have you ever lived in these communities? Judging by your responses, I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  You don't have to travel to the third world to see squalor and poverty. It's here and it always has been. It's in your city.
Did you not read the reason I'm skeptical?  I looked up the food deserts in St. Louis and they all have grocery stores within reasonable distances.  I haven't even mentioned riding a bike 3 miles through the ghetto.  And guess what, for the people who live in the so-called ghettos, that's what they've always known so they don't even think of it as being a bad place.

Judging by your responses, you've never even seen these communities.  I like how your argument has devolved to "you haven't been to these areas so you can't comment."  In fact, I have.  I've done work with the very community you've linked to, and it's actually a very nice community.  Honestly, your insistence on calling it a ghetto is incredibly offensive.   I run a blog and on-the-ground organization that tries to attack the corrupt politicians of the areas so the neighborhoods can actually have a voice.  But of course, that makes your "who is going to ride a bike ..." argument completely illegitimate.

To recap -
There are grocery stores much less than 3 miles away from these areas in St. Louis (try 1 mile).
The data is in fact wrong in many cases because it leaves out local markets as legitimate food sources.
People who work 14 hours a day do make minimum wage.  Anyone who has a strong enough work ethic to actually work 14 hours a day has the ability to be hired by legitimate employers who pay minimum wage.
Yes, a problem exists, but the problem is not lack of access to food (in St. Louis).
Your entire argument hinges on attacking the person (and your attacks aren't even valid).
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: LalsConstant on September 18, 2013, 02:03:30 PM
I remember the food desert issue came up locally some time ago.  Supposedly my city was full of them.

The problem was the data USDA used to determine that only counted food stores that had sales above a certain threshold and it left out local stores and small chains.  So Walmart and HEB got counted but some family owned local markets and some farmer's markets and other legitimate grocery sources like a local organic discount store did not get included in the analysis.

I do think there's on part of town that legitimately might have this problem but it wasn't the all over shortage they made it out to be.  Lots of alternatives exist between a stop and rob and a full on supermarket.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Albert on September 18, 2013, 02:13:01 PM
Ok, I admit straight away that I have no experience with those kind of areas. I don't think there are any here and I was always fortunate enough to be able to choose a good area to live while in US. Still I'm trying to understand why it is that no businessman wants to open a "proper" grocery store in one of those areas. Is it because the prevailing opinion is that the local population wouldn't buy regular products anyway and thus the store wouldn't be profitable?
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Joshin on September 18, 2013, 02:21:28 PM
I'm chiming in as someone who was on food stamps once upon a time.

First: More rural people are on food stamps than urban. These people are used to making long trips to the nearest town to shop. Rural areas would be a true food desert, IMHO. Urban areas just suffer from inconvenient locations or high price markups.

Second: Minimum wage in my state is over $9 per hours. Working 14 hour days -- even at two jobs so overtime doesn't come into play -- would make most people ineligible for benefits. Many food stamp recipients are actually underemployed, which means they likely aren't working full time hours.

Third: The amount my family received on food stamps was more than twice our normal budget. When we no longer qualified, I had more than $700 still on my card. I allowed it to go back to the state fund because we were no longer unemployed and could pay for our own groceries.

Finally, not everyone but plenty of people are ridiculously dumb about food shopping, independent of food stamp usage. Not a huge deal if you have the cash, but it becomes a problem when you don't.  Can't cook or too busy? You could feed a family of four on frozen vegetables and precooked chicken for a month for minimal cost. Most people instead depend on hot pockets, frozen pizzas, "cold" deli foods (uncooked foods allowed by Snap), take n bake pizzas or Subway (cold, thus allowed), and other expensive convenience options.

Many have never learned to use a food budget. The monthly payout for Snap encourages a culture of spend it until it's gone. It shocked me, because many government programs, for example WIC and welfare, require recipients to take at least one class. Food stamps would benefit from requiring at least one class on managing a food budget and how to make a few quick, inexpensive meals. We can raise the amount to $1000 a person, but it won't be enough to feed someone a healthy meal for a month if they don't know the first thing about managing that amount of money. Don't feed me crap about not having time. When you're poor, all you have is time.

So, my belief as someone that has been there, done that? These CEOs need to do it as a month-long challenge so they can see the real problem lies in education and not just the amount. After the education part is implemented, then we can revisit the amount provided.

Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Mr.Macinstache on September 18, 2013, 02:31:30 PM
Heh, a week long challenge. That's mighty big of him.

I live in rural county that has it's share of poverty. Let me tell you about a food desert.

Here's the OATS bus transportation... a private, non for profit company providing transportation. I love it when a system works for needy people w/o depending on the bureaucracy of central services.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2013, 02:50:17 PM

Also in my city, the closest thing we had to a food desert just got a Wal-Mart (http://www.ajc.com/news/business/new-wal-mart-is-hiring-and-welcomed-in-atlantas-vi/nSdWD/) stuck in the middle of it.

Are you referring to Atlanta? A full 30% of Fulton country residents live in a food desert. They are all over the place. I think people who think this isn't a huge problem just haven't ever lived in such an area. Nobody is going to walk or ride a bike for 1.2 miles in these areas, ESPECIALLY after dark. Not if you want to live.

http://www.arkfab.gatech.edu/content/atlanta%E2%80%99s-food-deserts

That map is a huge load of BS (despite the fact that it was cited by my alma mater). You know what most of those pink areas are? They're industrial areas where nobody lives. The one right above the "Atlanta" text is a big cemetery. The one southeast of downtown next to the I-285 freeway label encompasses the Metro State Prison (it's even labeled!), the old prison farm (abandoned natural area) and a few landfills. Most of the diamond-shaped one on the west site of the map is Six Flags. Several others are military bases.

Not to mention, at least some of it is flat-out wrong, probably because it looks like they aggregated everything by census tract. Apparently, if the grocery store isn't within the right boundary it doesn't count, even when it's (literally!) across the street.

I've attached a version of that map with selected Kroger locations superimposed on it (shown as blue dots). It is neither a complete accounting of the Krogers, nor does it include any other legitimate supermarkets (let alone things like the temporary farmer's markets I mentioned).

(http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/panera-ceo-and-food-stamps/?action=dlattach;attach=1915)
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mlipps on September 18, 2013, 03:21:19 PM
I am so fucking sick of these stupid food stamp challenges. (Can I say the f word here still? Hope so.) I spent 4 years in college working with homeless & low income community members in Chicago to find jobs, housing, public benefits, etc. etc. etc. I know their stories, I saw their problems and obstacles first hand. Do you know why people keep doing these stupid challenges? Because they ARE A DISTRACTION FROM REAL ISSUES. We can sit here and argue to death about whether or not the food stamp benefit is sufficient. I would say it is in some circumstances, but maybe not in others, like if you're homeless or living in an SRO and don't have access to a kitchen.

But really, there are so many more important issues that relate to poverty. Education is a huge one, as I'm sure you can all agree, no matter what you think the solution is. It's getting harder and harder for people to pull themselves out of poverty. And of course, there are all the complex issues that have always existed, like wage, housing access, and the general inequality that exists in the United States. I'm not saying we all have to agree on the root cause or the solutions to these issues, but I am so tired of hearing about lazy politicians crying woe me over food stamps when we could be making progress on something actually matters.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: AtlantaBob on September 18, 2013, 07:33:07 PM
As an Atlanta native (and fellow GT Alum), I have to say that the tracts located in the Atlanta map seem questionable to me.

Admittedly, the areas that are highlighted have some questionable areas, but, many of these areas also have the best (most accessible) public transportation--which, unlike a lot of cities, is a flat rate from one spot on the system to another. If nothing else, individuals* could ride from any of these tracts within 285 to a Publix Supermarket on Spring Street for about $5.00 round trip. Publix isn't the cheapest supermarket, but that's just off the top of my head. As Jack stated, a lot of the highlighted areas are industrial, and appear to ignore shopping centers that are just across the census line.

That isn't to say that it's easy to get to these locations from any place in Atlanta -- it's not. But I think that a fairer test would be for someone to provide a (legitimate) residential address, and for someone else to provide a link to the nearest grocery store (including the time and money to get there round trip). It's hard to debate these things when it comes to generalities; the tricky details become clearer when you look at actual examples.

*assuming they have childcare, which is a *significant* assumption.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2013, 07:57:10 PM
That isn't to say that it's easy to get to these locations from any place in Atlanta -- it's not. But I think that a fairer test would be for someone to provide a (legitimate) residential address, and for someone else to provide a link to the nearest grocery store (including the time and money to get there round trip). It's hard to debate these things when it comes to generalities; the tricky details become clearer when you look at actual examples.

IMO, the best way to make this kind of map would have been to get a big list of all the grocery stores, and then draw circles in a N-mile radius around them. Transit planning uses that kind of map; it would look kind of like this (http://clatl.com/imager/b/magnum/2269460/1703/Streetcar-Map-with-attractions2.jpg) except showing grocery stores instead of transit stops. (Even this methodology has flaws; namely, it assumes you can travel as the crow flies when you really can't.) Or, you could make a Voronoi diagram with the regions shaded in a gradient to make a sort of distance-to-grocery-store heatmap.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: expatartist on September 18, 2013, 08:24:33 PM
A Girl Called Jack (UK) often talks about how the problem of food for low-income households is an education problem, not just a financial one: http://AGirlCalledJack.com
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: hybrid on September 18, 2013, 09:17:23 PM
I work in downtown Richmond and my commute home to the county line is about 7-9 miles, depending on the route I take.  Been doing it for over five years.  I would love to stop by a grocery store that is on the way home on occasion.  The reality is there are very few on the southside until you get to the county line, and none near the routes I take (you can Google Maps Broad Rock Road and/or Hopkins Road for an idea of Southside Richmond, zip code is 23224).  There is a Family Dollar and a Dollar General and a 7-11 here and there, but most of the supermarkets don't want to locate in poor areas where the profit margin is barely worth the effort, if at all.  That to me is what a food desert looks like.  Crappy selection, high prices, and difficult to get to compared to what the rest of us in the city/suburbs enjoy.

To the folks that say it is doable, yeah, it is doable.  But most wouldn't want to do it. 
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on September 18, 2013, 09:23:19 PM
You don't have to travel to the third world to see squalor and poverty. It's here and it always has been. It's in your city.

You make the false assumption that I live in a city :-)

You also have what seems like a pretty circular argument here: living in the "ghetto" makes it dangerous to travel to inexpensive food sources, but why is it dangerous?  Because of the sort of people who choose to live there?  And why is food so expensive there, because of the dangers that the stores will be robbed or vandalized?  Don't we see, in practically every urban riot (or floods, hurricanes, etc), pictures of stores being looted & burned?

I wonder how much looting &c has happened in the current Colorado flooding?
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 19, 2013, 07:16:41 AM
I work in downtown Richmond and my commute home to the county line is about 7-9 miles, depending on the route I take.  Been doing it for over five years.  I would love to stop by a grocery store that is on the way home on occasion.  The reality is there are very few on the southside until you get to the county line, and none near the routes I take (you can Google Maps Broad Rock Road and/or Hopkins Road for an idea of Southside Richmond, zip code is 23224).  There is a Family Dollar and a Dollar General and a 7-11 here and there, but most of the supermarkets don't want to locate in poor areas where the profit margin is barely worth the effort, if at all.  That to me is what a food desert looks like.  Crappy selection, high prices, and difficult to get to compared to what the rest of us in the city/suburbs enjoy.

To the folks that say it is doable, yeah, it is doable.  But most wouldn't want to do it.

I could see this being true in many cities.  I know it's not in St. Louis.  The brand name stores don't open in the 'ghetto', but the Save-a-Lots, Shop-n-Saves, etc. are.  These are stores that will open anywhere and operate on razor margins, so they simply use the same business model in the ghetto.  Even the more expensive lines have one or two stores in those areas.
Also, I haven't bothered to ever check if individuals can actually purchase there, but Produce Row which is the entry point for something like 99% of fresh produce to St. Louis is located in the 'ghetto'.

I think I could buy into the idea of rural areas being food deserts.  However, I can only see this in dryer desert states.  Rural Missourians tend to have low incomes, but drive down the local roads and what do you see at every house?   Thriving household gardens, chicken coops, and sometimes even home-raised farm animals.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 19, 2013, 07:28:45 AM
I do think the 14 hour days problem exists in certain cities.  St. Louis should not be one of them.  Housing is cheap enough; you can find a 1 BR apartment for $300/month.  Government welfare benefits are pretty high, though they have become harder to obtain with everyone crossing thresholds during the recession.

No one is in this situation in St. Louis - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/nyregion/in-new-york-having-a-job-or-2-doesnt-mean-having-a-home.html?pagewanted=1&src=recg
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: avonlea on September 19, 2013, 07:35:26 AM
I'm chiming in as someone who was on food stamps once upon a time.

First: More rural people are on food stamps than urban. These people are used to making long trips to the nearest town to shop. Rural areas would be a true food desert, IMHO. Urban areas just suffer from inconvenient locations or high price markups.

Second: Minimum wage in my state is over $9 per hours. Working 14 hour days -- even at two jobs so overtime doesn't come into play -- would make most people ineligible for benefits. Many food stamp recipients are actually underemployed, which means they likely aren't working full time hours.

Third: The amount my family received on food stamps was more than twice our normal budget. When we no longer qualified, I had more than $700 still on my card. I allowed it to go back to the state fund because we were no longer unemployed and could pay for our own groceries.

Finally, not everyone but plenty of people are ridiculously dumb about food shopping, independent of food stamp usage. Not a huge deal if you have the cash, but it becomes a problem when you don't.  Can't cook or too busy? You could feed a family of four on frozen vegetables and precooked chicken for a month for minimal cost. Most people instead depend on hot pockets, frozen pizzas, "cold" deli foods (uncooked foods allowed by Snap), take n bake pizzas or Subway (cold, thus allowed), and other expensive convenience options.

Many have never learned to use a food budget. The monthly payout for Snap encourages a culture of spend it until it's gone. It shocked me, because many government programs, for example WIC and welfare, require recipients to take at least one class. Food stamps would benefit from requiring at least one class on managing a food budget and how to make a few quick, inexpensive meals. We can raise the amount to $1000 a person, but it won't be enough to feed someone a healthy meal for a month if they don't know the first thing about managing that amount of money. Don't feed me crap about not having time. When you're poor, all you have is time.

So, my belief as someone that has been there, done that? These CEOs need to do it as a month-long challenge so they can see the real problem lies in education and not just the amount. After the education part is implemented, then we can revisit the amount provided.

I always love to hear from the voice of experience.  Thanks for sharing that, Joshin!
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 07:44:36 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

These people can't go to Costco because there isn't one within walking/biking distance of a bus route and even if there was, they couldn't buy in bulk and get it all home without a car. They live in a different world than you. You couldn't eat well on $4.50 in their shoes, either.

+1

Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 07:45:36 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

These people can't go to Costco because there isn't one within walking/biking distance of a bus route and even if there was, they couldn't buy in bulk and get it all home without a car. They live in a different world than you. You couldn't eat well on $4.50 in their shoes, either.

I buy in bulk and get it home without a car (or a bike) monthly, as do hundreds of my neighbors.

Do you live in a city where, say, 19 gunshots might be fired at a gas station? I do.

Let's take DC as an example. You are poor and live in a food desert. The upwardly mobile have moved into your neighborhood, which has attracted a Whole Foods store and some other "farm food" sorts of stories with high prices. You can't bike to a Walmart. You can't bike to a Costco.

Sure. You might say they should move to the suburbs, but they were on the list for section 8 housing for 5 years. That low income housing is disappearing as developers build more and more luxury condos. (I have seen the poor pushed out of their housing with nowhere to go.)

So, let's say they did move to the suburbs. Shoot. That neighbor they traded with to watch their kid is no longer their neighbor. Now, they have to pay for childcare. That is hard to do at their 7-dollar-an-hour security job. But, wait. They used to be able to walk to their security job b/c they lived in the city. However, now they are in a suburb. I guess they can just bike 40 miles. But, how do they get money for a bike when they have rent due and only earn $7/hour?

Some questions to consider...

Also, if you have a bike, why not buy a bike for a poor person who can't get to a market with low prices? That would be a good charitable act.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 07:54:11 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

Is the "poor people make poor choices" meant to rankle or flame? I am surprised you would express a view like that if I understand it correctly. Are you saying poor people are at fault for being poor?

The person said "miles" and not "one mile." A food desert means there is nowhere to buy food anywhere near where you live. There are food deserts in DC. The only "food" is liquor and whatever junk food is sold--as a previous poster pointed out.

In the article below, you can see how the wealthy areas have many more groceries than the poor areas.

You might find this article useful in terms of information on the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/doing-away-with-food-deserts-in-the-district/2013/05/17/f3e7e2d2-bf1b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_blog.html
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2013, 08:19:55 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

The person said "miles" and not "one mile." You may not be familiar with food deserts. It means there is nowhere to buy food anywhere near where you live. There are food deserts in DC. The only "food" is liquor and whatever junk food is sold. Sometimes, there is a McD's.

Sure, the person said "miles" but he was wrong. You must have missed my earlier post where I pointed out that, even in the bad neighborhoods he cited, there's still a Safeway barely more than a mile in pretty much any direction.

I've already debunked the idea of food deserts in San Francisco and Atlanta; considering the flawed assumptions and poor methodology in the USDA maps I don't believe they actually exist in DC either!
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: hybrid on September 19, 2013, 08:32:50 AM
I work in downtown Richmond and my commute home to the county line is about 7-9 miles, depending on the route I take.  Been doing it for over five years.  I would love to stop by a grocery store that is on the way home on occasion.  The reality is there are very few on the southside until you get to the county line, and none near the routes I take (you can Google Maps Broad Rock Road and/or Hopkins Road for an idea of Southside Richmond, zip code is 23224).  There is a Family Dollar and a Dollar General and a 7-11 here and there, but most of the supermarkets don't want to locate in poor areas where the profit margin is barely worth the effort, if at all.  That to me is what a food desert looks like.  Crappy selection, high prices, and difficult to get to compared to what the rest of us in the city/suburbs enjoy.

To the folks that say it is doable, yeah, it is doable.  But most wouldn't want to do it.

I could see this being true in many cities.  I know it's not in St. Louis.  The brand name stores don't open in the 'ghetto', but the Save-a-Lots, Shop-n-Saves, etc. are.  These are stores that will open anywhere and operate on razor margins, so they simply use the same business model in the ghetto.  Even the more expensive lines have one or two stores in those areas.
Also, I haven't bothered to ever check if individuals can actually purchase there, but Produce Row which is the entry point for something like 99% of fresh produce to St. Louis is located in the 'ghetto'.

I should note one other thing about my commute through the south side.  It's not through a ghetto, it's through working class neighborhoods mostly.  Not nice neighborhoods, but not really bad either.  I can think of a local housing project on the north side that is actually pretty close to a grocery store because a nice part of town and the project are separated by bridges and railroad tracks (giving literal meaning to being on the wrong side fo the tracks).  Regardless, the condition definitely exists in my city.  By and large the supermarkets (and the Walmarts too) completely shy away from poorer areas, presumably for business reasons.  If you are in a poor area in Richmond you hope you are close to a better area if you want to get to a supermarket.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: JR on September 19, 2013, 09:31:05 AM
Why do the people doing these food stamp stunts feel like they can only spend what their monthly food stamp allowance would be? The first word of the program is supplemental after all. Food stamps are not meant to be a family's only source of grocery money.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: dragoncar on September 19, 2013, 09:46:32 AM
In the neighborhoods I'm thinking of, the Tenderloin and South of Market, public transit would involve taking a bus to the light rail, which would be a 45 minute endeavor each way.

I did a Google Earth search for "Safeway" (which I hear is a reasonable grocery store -- we don't have them in Georgia) and the farthest point away from them in those neighborhoods, which I eyeballed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Golden Gate Avenue and Market Street, is still within 1.2 miles. Admittedly, it'd be nice if they put another Safeway right near that intersection, and I'm sure there are hills to deal with, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. (And that's just Safeways; there might be other closer grocery stores that I don't know about.)

The centroid of my neighborhood has large grocery stores two miles away to the north, south and east, but I consider them to be an easy bike ride (or bus ride) away. Plus we have a one-day-per-week local farmer's market that gives you a 50% discount if you're paying with food stamps.

Also in my city, the closest thing we had to a food desert just got a Wal-Mart (http://www.ajc.com/news/business/new-wal-mart-is-hiring-and-welcomed-in-atlantas-vi/nSdWD/) stuck in the middle of it.

Yeah there's also a trader joes .6 miles from civic center and other options.  The tenderloin is actually a terrible example because it's amazingly walkable for almost anything.  There's also the civic center farmers market.

I'm sure real food deserts exist, but probably not in the volume they are claimed
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Mega on September 19, 2013, 09:57:24 AM
Honestly, as an outsider looking at USA, the food stamps program, and a couple of other programs, just don't make sense to me.

Why, if you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, does the government provide money for food? Isn't this just an indirect government subsidy for the businesses paying people minimum wage? Ditto for all of the other government subsidies (housing, medicare (?), etc).

Why not set the minimum wage to a reasonable level, and set it to automatically adjust with inflation?

Isn't the 1950s minimum wage something like $15 and hour, adjusted for inflation?
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 10:34:14 AM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

The person said "miles" and not "one mile." You may not be familiar with food deserts. It means there is nowhere to buy food anywhere near where you live. There are food deserts in DC. The only "food" is liquor and whatever junk food is sold. Sometimes, there is a McD's.

Sure, the person said "miles" but he was wrong. You must have missed my earlier post where I pointed out that, even in the bad neighborhoods he cited, there's still a Safeway barely more than a mile in pretty much any direction.

I've already debunked the idea of food deserts in San Francisco and Atlanta; considering the flawed assumptions and poor methodology in the USDA maps I don't believe they actually exist in DC either!

The Washington Post disagrees with you that there are no food deserts in DC. And so do I.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/doing-away-with-food-deserts-in-the-district/2013/05/17/f3e7e2d2-bf1b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_blog.html

Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Undecided on September 19, 2013, 10:47:15 AM
Holy cow. Some of you are really sheltered. Have you been in a house without running water in the US? Have you been to a poor person's house or, worse, a unit inside the projects? Have you tried walking through a crappy neighborhood with guns going pop pop around you?

I am thinking a conversation with a buncha middle-to-upper-class folks talking about what the poor should do is both comical and sad.

Let them eat cake!

Yep. But I think it's
Let them eat from their organic community garden!"
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 19, 2013, 11:34:03 AM
Holy cow. Some of you are really sheltered. Have you been in a house without running water in the US? Have you been to a poor person's house or, worse, a unit inside the projects? Have you tried walking through a crappy neighborhood with guns going pop pop around you?

I am thinking a conversation with a buncha middle-to-upper-class folks talking about what the poor should do is both comical and sad.

Let them eat cake!

Yep. But I think it's
Let them eat from their organic community garden!"

I doubt there's an area in the nation that you can go where there will, as you say, be "guns going pop pop around you?"

That's a common misconception of people who are from the suburbs that going to the 'ghetto' will automatically result in being shot or shot at.  Despite ample time spent in these areas, including much time after dark, I've never seen anyone shoot a gun.  I've only heard what could have been gun shots on one or two occasions.
I think there are people on this board saying whoever lives in the 'ghetto' would not be able to walk to a store because it's not safe.  That's mostly bullshit from my experience.  It's driven by the fear of low-income neighborhoods that exists for anyone who lives in the suburbs.

I can answer yes to oldtoyotas other questions.  I've ridden my bike through this neighborhood (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mo/st-louis/delmar-euclid/) (GASP!  How dangerous!) and I even stopped to take pictures, talk to the locals, etc.

Edit - that neighborhood is number 12  - http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods/
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on September 19, 2013, 12:00:45 PM
Do you live in a city where, say, 19 gunshots might be fired at a gas station? I do.

No, I live in the country, where it's not unheard of to have bears rummaging through people's trash cans, or eating windfall fruit from our gardens :-)  And where most if not all of my near neighbors have guns, in some cases sizeable arsenals, and yet somehow everybody manages not to shoot anyone else.  (Dunno about gas stations, as the nearest is at least miles away.  Though one acquaintance, the cop now known as "Bob of the Nine Fingers" did manage an accidental discharge while cleaning his service weapon :-))

So the question is, why do you keep on living in a place that is so dangerous?  (Or conversely, why is the place you live so dangerous?)  I have lived in cities on occasion, when it was unavoidable, and not in the upscale neighborhoods, yet somehow managed to avoid being shot at.  Are there no neighborhoods where people don't shoot at each other?

Quote
Holy cow. Some of you are really sheltered. Have you been in a house without running water in the US? Have you been to a poor person's house or, worse, a unit inside the projects?

Yes, I've lived in housing without running water.  (Ever been a migrant farm worker?)  And while I've avoided "the projects" (not being an urbanite), I was a poor person for the first half of my life.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Brad_H on September 19, 2013, 12:02:36 PM
Someone above wanted an actual address to check out: Kansas City decided it had a food desert and has been trying to talk a grocery store into opening at 39th and Prospect (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/30/4377354/aldi-grocery-at-39th-and-prospect.html#storylink=cpy) since 2004.

So I put that corner into Walkscore.com, since thats what I always use to check the areas I'm thinking of moving into, and it turned up a Walkscore of 38 (http://www.walkscore.com/score/loc/lat=39.055350984188955/lng=-94.55357551574707) with a Leon's Thriftway due east 1.17 miles along one of our actually very good bus routes ($1.50 with free transfers within 2 hours / 75 cents on ozone days).  That as it turns out is better than my house just south of there which got a Walkscore of 25 (http://www.walkscore.com/score/loc/lat=38.98903569862982/lng=-94.56636428833008).  But the best is where I grew up with a Walk score of 0 (http://www.walkscore.com/score/940-road-23-hugoton-ks-67951)!

I really, really like your work with that Kroger map!
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: ace1224 on September 19, 2013, 12:31:57 PM
Do you live in a city where, say, 19 gunshots might be fired at a gas station? I do.

No, I live in the country, where it's not unheard of to have bears rummaging through people's trash cans, or eating windfall fruit from our gardens :-)  And where most if not all of my near neighbors have guns, in some cases sizeable arsenals, and yet somehow everybody manages not to shoot anyone else.  (Dunno about gas stations, as the nearest is at least miles away.  Though one acquaintance, the cop now known as "Bob of the Nine Fingers" did manage an accidental discharge while cleaning his service weapon :-))

So the question is, why do you keep on living in a place that is so dangerous?  (Or conversely, why is the place you live so dangerous?)  I have lived in cities on occasion, when it was unavoidable, and not in the upscale neighborhoods, yet somehow managed to avoid being shot at.  Are there no neighborhoods where people don't shoot at each other?

Quote
Holy cow. Some of you are really sheltered. Have you been in a house without running water in the US? Have you been to a poor person's house or, worse, a unit inside the projects?

Yes, I've lived in housing without running water.  (Ever been a migrant farm worker?)  And while I've avoided "the projects" (not being an urbanite), I was a poor person for the first half of my life.
my grandmothers house sounds like yours.  her nearest neighbor is close to 1 mile away, and going "into town" to grocery shop is done like 2 times a month.  everyone has several guns and they haven't shot each other either, not even when drunk on moonshine.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 02:19:38 PM
Do you live in a city where, say, 19 gunshots might be fired at a gas station? I do.

No, I live in the country, where it's not unheard of to have bears rummaging through people's trash cans, or eating windfall fruit from our gardens :-)  And where most if not all of my near neighbors have guns, in some cases sizeable arsenals, and yet somehow everybody manages not to shoot anyone else.  (Dunno about gas stations, as the nearest is at least miles away.  Though one acquaintance, the cop now known as "Bob of the Nine Fingers" did manage an accidental discharge while cleaning his service weapon :-))

So the question is, why do you keep on living in a place that is so dangerous?  (Or conversely, why is the place you live so dangerous?)  I have lived in cities on occasion, when it was unavoidable, and not in the upscale neighborhoods, yet somehow managed to avoid being shot at.  Are there no neighborhoods where people don't shoot at each other?

Quote
Holy cow. Some of you are really sheltered. Have you been in a house without running water in the US? Have you been to a poor person's house or, worse, a unit inside the projects?

Yes, I've lived in housing without running water.  (Ever been a migrant farm worker?)  And while I've avoided "the projects" (not being an urbanite), I was a poor person for the first half of my life.

My point was not to divert from the topic of the poor. I probably was not that clear. My point was that poor people have a lot of issues made worse by being poor (or perhaps even causing the poverty in the first place!). It's such a complicated issue. At the same time, I think it's unfeeling to suggest--as one prev poster did--that poor people make poor choices. I think that is no more true of poor people than of any other class.

Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: EMP on September 19, 2013, 02:28:53 PM
Quote from: Mega link=topic=8931.msg139707#msg139707 date=

Why, if you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, does the government provide money for food? Isn't this just an indirect government subsidy for the businesses paying people minimum wage? Ditto for all of the other government subsidies (housing, medicare (?), etc).


A-fuckin'-men
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: NumberJohnny5 on September 19, 2013, 03:22:51 PM
For the heck of it, I checked our address in Tennessee. Nearest grocery store is 5 miles away, it's a Sav-A-Lot. For staples, I'd say it's ok on most things (bread a bit expensive, bananas cheap, flour and sugar should be virtually the same everywhere, processed foods seemed more unhealthy than "usual"). The next step up in grocery stores is a Piggly Wiggly 6 miles away. I don't consider these roads safe for biking; we almost got sideswiped by a car in our lane (very curvy roads), though there is usually a nice big ditch on either side of the road, I guess that's a positive.

The closest Walmart is 17 miles away (google maps insists it's longer, it appears to not want to route us on the road with a one-lane bridge). It is a supercenter, but it's about as small as those come (only one entrance). For most shopping, you'd head north about 40 miles (several Walmarts and other grocery stores, competition drives prices down a good bit). I've definitely noticed higher prices at Walmarts with little/no competition.

I'm not sure how that factors into the discussion, but just seemed odd to me that people were complaining about no grocery stores within a couple miles.

Where we're staying now, it's 1.4 miles to the nearest grocery store. I consider that walking distance (we generally take the car to do our weekly grocery run, but I've definitely walked further for other things).
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Rebecca Stapler on September 19, 2013, 03:31:18 PM
In the neighborhoods I'm thinking of, the Tenderloin and South of Market, public transit would involve taking a bus to the light rail, which would be a 45 minute endeavor each way.

I did a Google Earth search for "Safeway" (which I hear is a reasonable grocery store -- we don't have them in Georgia) and the farthest point away from them in those neighborhoods, which I eyeballed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Golden Gate Avenue and Market Street, is still within 1.2 miles. Admittedly, it'd be nice if they put another Safeway right near that intersection, and I'm sure there are hills to deal with, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. (And that's just Safeways; there might be other closer grocery stores that I don't know about.)


IDK what's up with Google Earth, but that Safeway is not on Googlemaps and I know for a fact that there was no Safeway at Golden Gate and Market when I lived there in 2007. There was one at Market and Castro St., which is where I went.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Rebecca Stapler on September 19, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

The person said "miles" and not "one mile." You may not be familiar with food deserts. It means there is nowhere to buy food anywhere near where you live. There are food deserts in DC. The only "food" is liquor and whatever junk food is sold. Sometimes, there is a McD's.

Sure, the person said "miles" but he was wrong. You must have missed my earlier post where I pointed out that, even in the bad neighborhoods he cited, there's still a Safeway barely more than a mile in pretty much any direction.

I've already debunked the idea of food deserts in San Francisco and Atlanta; considering the flawed assumptions and poor methodology in the USDA maps I don't believe they actually exist in DC either!

Dude, there is no Safeway at Golden Gate and Market, unless it was built in the last few years.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: Mega link=topic=8931.msg139707#msg139707 date=

Why, if you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, does the government provide money for food? Isn't this just an indirect government subsidy for the businesses paying people minimum wage? Ditto for all of the other government subsidies (housing, medicare (?), etc).


A-fuckin'-men

Exactly.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 05:16:05 PM
Do you live in a city where, say, 19 gunshots might be fired at a gas station? I do.

No, I live in the country, where it's not unheard of to have bears rummaging through people's trash cans, or eating windfall fruit from our gardens :-)  And where most if not all of my near neighbors have guns, in some cases sizeable arsenals, and yet somehow everybody manages not to shoot anyone else.  (Dunno about gas stations, as the nearest is at least miles away.  Though one acquaintance, the cop now known as "Bob of the Nine Fingers" did manage an accidental discharge while cleaning his service weapon :-))

So the question is, why do you keep on living in a place that is so dangerous?  (Or conversely, why is the place you live so dangerous?)  I have lived in cities on occasion, when it was unavoidable, and not in the upscale neighborhoods, yet somehow managed to avoid being shot at.  Are there no neighborhoods where people don't shoot at each other?

Quote
Holy cow. Some of you are really sheltered. Have you been in a house without running water in the US? Have you been to a poor person's house or, worse, a unit inside the projects?

Yes, I've lived in housing without running water.  (Ever been a migrant farm worker?)  And while I've avoided "the projects" (not being an urbanite), I was a poor person for the first half of my life.

I'd say where I live is dangerous because guns are easy to get.

I think the question is not why do I live in a place with a lot of guns, but why are there a lot of guns where I live?
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Zikoris on September 19, 2013, 05:20:09 PM
Home grocery delivery is widely available in DC, both from major stores and independent companies.

I've been told there are food deserts in Vancouver, believe it or not. What a load of horseshit.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Constance Noring on September 19, 2013, 06:25:38 PM
Why, if you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, does the government provide money for food?

Nobody's working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. Forty hours a week means overtime. It means access to paid time off, to sick leave, to benefits. No company that runs its business model by paying the bare minimum (and most American companies do these days) wants to invest like that in their workers.

So you find yourself scheduled just shy of full time, and if you get any sort of raise, you may find your hours cut to offset the additional increase to payroll. One week you work 30 hours and the next you work 10. Those decisions are made for you, by the bottom-line watchers at corporate. So why put up with it? Because you're easily replaceable and you're operating on such a razor thin margin that you can't afford even a second's hiccup in the flow of incoming and outgoing money or the whole house of cards comes down.

Quote
Why not set the minimum wage to a reasonable level, and set it to automatically adjust with inflation?

Because that would require businesses to cut into their profit margins in order to offset the payroll increase, and goodness me, we can't ask that of job creators!
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Daleth on September 19, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

That's a very convenient conclusion if your goal is to reinforce your sense of being superior to them and/or your sense that being poor is their fault so we have zero moral obligation to help them. Unfortunately it has no bearing on the reality of buying food when you're poor in America.

I'm not going to reveal what city I'm in, but there are several food deserts in my city--neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is 2 miles or more away and the nearest bulk place (Costco etc.) may be 8+ miles away--and our public transportation system is both inadequate and expensive (nice combo!). By that I mean that our bus schedules have no relationship to the times buses actually arrive, which makes it very difficult to plan any trip that involves transferring from one bus to another, particularly for the half a year or more that it's either snowing, sleeting, raining or just freezing cold. That makes shopping at a normal grocery store (much less a Costco type place), for those in food deserts, a complete pain in the ass even for able-bodied childless people, and close to impossible for anyone who either is raising kids alone, has disabilities or is old and frail.

And unfortunately, raising kids alone, having a disability and being old and frail are all more common among the poor than in the general population. What are you supposed to do, spend half an hour on the bus with your kids, then half an hour with bags of groceries and kids waiting at a bus stop in the rain, then another however long on the bus that actually goes near your house, and then walk from the bus stop to your house (easily 1/4-1/2 mile in some places) with your kids and bags of groceries through the rain? And for this privilege you pay $8-$10 in bus fare on top of your food costs, and lose 2-3 hours of your day?

Given that as their only other option, a lot of people just buy canned food and frozen meals at the 7-11 in their neighborhood. I personally can't blame them.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 19, 2013, 06:46:36 PM
Honestly, as an outsider looking at USA, the food stamps program, and a couple of other programs, just don't make sense to me.

Why, if you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, does the government provide money for food? Isn't this just an indirect government subsidy for the businesses paying people minimum wage? Ditto for all of the other government subsidies (housing, medicare (?), etc).

Why not set the minimum wage to a reasonable level, and set it to automatically adjust with inflation?

Isn't the 1950s minimum wage something like $15 and hour, adjusted for inflation?

It's pretty simple. The minimum wage was never intended to guarantee a sufficient income for a family of four. Teens and young adults who live with their parents don't need as much money to survive as single people living on their own do. Single people living on their own need less money to survive than working parents do. Some people have a spouse or other family members who bring in enough cash to meet the family's basic needs, while others do not. Some people have found jobs that can pay for a full 40-hour schedule (or more), while others have not. Other people have already saved enough money to retire and are working less for a paycheck and more because they enjoy it. Given the fact that everyone's financial situation is different, the minimum wage is set at a relatively low level that's the same for everyone regardless of family situation or other factors. Programs like food stamps exist to fill in the gaps for families whose overall income ends up being too low (in the government's estimate) to purchase basic necessities.

A low minimum wage helps people who don't have many skills break into the workforce so that they have a chance at someday moving up to higher-value employment. Imagine if the minimum wage was $20/hr. This would be great for some people who are currently making less, but whose employers could afford to pay them more. Lots of businesses run on lower margins than that, and simply could not afford to pay their lowest-skilled workers that much. All the people whose skills are not worth $20/hr to any employer would never have a chance to have any employment and would be a permanent drain on social welfare programs.

You can choose to view the low minimum wage (and food stamps) as a subsidy for low-paying employers, or you can view the existence of the low-wage employment as a way to minimize the number of people who need to resort to programs like food stamps in the first place. In a system that has as many moving parts as the economy, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 06:46:46 PM
Home grocery delivery is widely available in DC, both from major stores and independent companies.

I've been told there are food deserts in Vancouver, believe it or not. What a load of horseshit.

Have you tried to get home grocery delivery to Anacostia in SW DC? Do they deliver to the projects?

How would people order? Would they have to pay for an internet connection or walk to a library? I can assure you there won't be a cafe with free wifi if there are no grocery stores.

Looks like someone could pay around $12.95 to have groceries delivered. Not sure that is sustainable for poor folks.

"Somewhat pricey though.  More likely because it's the only decent and safe grocery store to go to where you won't have to be afraid of getting shot at in DC. Not a bad place to shop. Make sure to get your Safeway card though. It actually does save you a lot of money."

And here is another review of the same Safeway. You can see it sucks before the white people move in and then gets better once they do:

"A year and a half ago when I lived in SW, I traveled across the bridge to Arlington to do my grocery shopping. Oh! There was a Safeway at this location at the time, but it was so vile, so abhorant, so make-your-skin-crawl-and-pull-your-hair-out-by-­the-roots-while-screaming-like-a-white-woman-in-­church ridiculous that shopping here was likened to rummaging through the dumpster behind a Yum's or something. It was very much like that show Fear Factor...I mean, without any of the prizes or incentives for compromising your health or dignity.

I've since moved and hadn't had the interest or inclination to venture back to that Safeway...until recently. Since I still work in the SW area, I figured I'd drive by the old stomping grounds to check out the renovations that were supposed to revitalize and transform the area. OMG! WTF! SMH! LOL! MILF! No, wait...not that one. But LORD! I did NOT recognize not only the Safeway, but the area altogether. When you guys say "gentrification," you muthafricken mean it!"
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 06:50:18 PM
The problem with all these dumbass "challenges" is that trying to do this sort of thing a week at a time just sets themselves up for failure. The absolute crucial strategy for keeping food costs low enough is to buy in bulk, which the self-imposed rules of these things automatically eliminate.

I bet they do it on purpose, too, since their agenda is invariably "See? It's impossible; we need to raise the food stamp amount/minimum wage/whatever!"

I think you're missing the point. Most people actually on food stamps live in areas where they CAN'T buy in bulk. Many live in food deserts, meaning there aren't any grocery stores AT ALL. And many don't even have a car to drive to a nicer neighborhood for food. They get their food at the local market, which isn't very cost-effective.

Do you mean like local corner store/7-11 market or like local farmers market?  Local farmers markets can sometimes be cheaper depending on their setup.

The food desert seems to be a joke as well.  Maybe some cities really have them, but I am yet to see one in St. Louis.  Oh, I hear about them, but there isn't an area I've seen in the city that isn't within a mile (absolute max 1.5 miles) of a decent grocery store.

The food desert is real. In some parts of San Francisco, a legitimate grocery store is miles away. But there is no shortage of convenience and liquor stores.

So they can't use the bus to ride a mile to the store?

I think the problem is poor people are making poor choices. The path of least resistance is to go to the corner store and get the inflated priced food off the shelf.

That's a very convenient conclusion if your goal is to reinforce your sense of being superior to them and/or your sense that being poor is their fault so we have zero moral obligation to help them. Unfortunately it has no bearing on the reality of buying food when you're poor in America.

I'm not going to reveal what city I'm in, but there are several food deserts in my city--neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is 2 miles or more away and the nearest bulk place (Costco etc.) may be 8+ miles away--and our public transportation system is both inadequate and expensive (nice combo!). By that I mean that our bus schedules have no relationship to the times buses actually arrive, which makes it very difficult to plan any trip that involves transferring from one bus to another, particularly for the half a year or more that it's either snowing, sleeting, raining or just freezing cold. That makes shopping at a normal grocery store (much less a Costco type place), for those in food deserts, a complete pain in the ass even for able-bodied childless people, and close to impossible for anyone who either is raising kids alone, has disabilities or is old and frail.

And unfortunately, raising kids alone, having a disability and being old and frail are all more common among the poor than in the general population. What are you supposed to do, spend half an hour on the bus with your kids, then half an hour with bags of groceries and kids waiting at a bus stop in the rain, then another however long on the bus that actually goes near your house, and then walk from the bus stop to your house (easily 1/4-1/2 mile in some places) with your kids and bags of groceries through the rain? And for this privilege you pay $8-$10 in bus fare on top of your food costs, and lose 2-3 hours of your day?

Given that as their only other option, a lot of people just buy canned food and frozen meals at the 7-11 in their neighborhood. I personally can't blame them.

+1
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Joshin on September 19, 2013, 06:56:04 PM
Actually, the whole "Poor People Make Poor Decisions" is exactly what we collectively need to look at. People in every financial class make poor decisions, but when you are already walking a fine line, a couple poor decisions can spiral you out of control and sentence you to a lifetime of poverty. Throw in a dose of ignorance, so you don't even know the decision is bad, and the situation escalates into generational poverty. So, why do people make poor decisions and what tools can help people make better decisions in a tough situation?

It's perfectly okay to point out a bad decision made by a relatively middle class person, but it's not PC to point out the same bad decision made by a poor person? Give me a break. As for our case (which I know does not mirror that of every single poor person), we had a couple of things out of our control happen, then we made a lot of bad decisions. Bam! Suddenly it was a choice between food or a roof over our heads. We went without heat one winter, and there were several weeks in there without electricity and phones. The bad fortune would have set us back, but the bad decisions were what hurt us for the longest time. Fortunately, we were educated enough to recognize our bad decisions and recover, and eventually thrive, but a lot of people in the poverty cycle aren't.

We as a society need to drop the touchy-feely, it ain't your fault crap. All it does is breed victims of poverty. Instead, people need to know that yes, some of the fault does lie with them, but that's a good thing. It means they can recover, it means things can improve, it empowers people so they can make their lives at least a little bit better.

I spent a lot of time in the so-called ghetto surrounded by others in poverty. Some you would never know they were poor. They made good decisions and lived very mustachian lives in many ways. Sure, they weren't making enough to retire early, but they were able to live an enjoyable, comfortable life within their meager means. Others weren't faring as well, mainly because they didn't know how so they instantly blew what little they had, then compounded it with more bad decisions. Educating people first, giving them a hand up second, could work wonders. I don't know how to do it, but it needs done in a respectable, caring manner if the cycle is ever to be broken. The source of the problem needs cured, even as we treat the symptoms with food stamps and other programs.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 07:01:11 PM
I doubt there's an area in the nation that you can go where there will, as you say, be "guns going pop pop around you?"

You are kidding, right? It's called DC. If you have only been to touristy areas, you would not have experienced it.





Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Daleth on September 19, 2013, 07:04:58 PM
It's perfectly okay to point out a bad decision made by a relatively middle class person, but it's not PC to point out the same bad decision made by a poor person?

Where are you getting that?! No one here has issued any kind of blanket "poor people don't make bad decisions" or "we can't consider their decisions to be poor" statement. We were talking very specifically about the difficulty of grocery shopping for poor people who live in food deserts, and how in that context their decision to shop at their local 7-11 (and thus be stuck with the crap available there, at crappy prices) was totally understandable.

That has no bearing on other issues like "it's a bad decision to drop out of high school" or "it's a bad decision to choose a lifestyle and fashion sense that interferes with getting a job" or "it's a bad decision to get a girl pregnant when you and/or she are teenagers with no money or education."

Educating people first, giving them a hand up second, could work wonders. I don't know how to do it, but it needs done in a respectable, caring manner if the cycle is ever to be broken. The source of the problem needs cured, even as we treat the symptoms with food stamps and other programs.

With that I completely agree.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Joshin on September 19, 2013, 07:21:09 PM

Where are you getting that?! No one here has issued any kind of blanket "poor people don't make bad decisions" or "we can't consider their decisions to be poor" statement. We were talking very specifically about the difficulty of grocery shopping for poor people who live in food deserts, and how in that context their decision to shop at their local 7-11 (and thus be stuck with the crap available there, at crappy prices) was totally understandable.

That has no bearing on other issues like "it's a bad decision to drop out of high school" or "it's a bad decision to choose a lifestyle and fashion sense that interferes with getting a job" or "it's a bad decision to get a girl pregnant when you and/or she are teenagers with no money or education."


Actually, it is a poor decision. Even in a food desert, there are better options. Options that can actually save time, sanity and headaches in the long run. SNAP benefits are paid once monthly. A person, depending on canned goods, frozen foods, and non-perishables for the bulk of their meals, could do all their main grocery shopping once monthly. What's left goes to the overpriced gas station for milk and such. Most people, no matter how hard up, know at least one person with a car or can scrape together cab fare once monthly. This how many of the elderly on low incomes handle their shopping. Heck, a special transport service for groceries (which is supplied to the elderly in many cities and a few grassroots groups also have set some up) provided once or twice monthly for free to those with qualifying benefits could help even more than raising benefit amounts. Of course, it will only work if people learn how to plan for these trips.

Like I said, we need to figure our why the poor decisions are being made and what can be done to encourage better decisions. If it's easier to hit up the stop n' shop, how can we make getting to a real grocery store easier? And what needs to be done so people aren't ignorant of the option can can use it to its utmost potential?
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Undecided on September 19, 2013, 07:25:51 PM

Nobody's working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. Forty hours a week means overtime. It means access to paid time off, to sick leave, to benefits. No company that runs its business model by paying the bare minimum (and most American companies do these days) wants to invest like that in their workers.

Unless they're working at multiple part-time jobs, getting none of those things, but, yes, still working 40 hours or more at minimum wage.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Zikoris on September 19, 2013, 07:39:18 PM
Home grocery delivery is widely available in DC, both from major stores and independent companies.

I've been told there are food deserts in Vancouver, believe it or not. What a load of horseshit.

Have you tried to get home grocery delivery to Anacostia in SW DC? Do they deliver to the projects?

How would people order? Would they have to pay for an internet connection or walk to a library? I can assure you there won't be a cafe with free wifi if there are no grocery stores.

Looks like someone could pay around $12.95 to have groceries delivered. Not sure that is sustainable for poor folks.

"Somewhat pricey though.  More likely because it's the only decent and safe grocery store to go to where you won't have to be afraid of getting shot at in DC. Not a bad place to shop. Make sure to get your Safeway card though. It actually does save you a lot of money."


Peapod apparently delivers to Anacostia. Not sure what areas are considered "the projects" seeing as I don't live there, but delivery coverage seems to be pretty widespread. Peapod charges less for delivery the more you order, from 7.95 to 9.95 for an order - not bad if you do it, say, once a month.

Walking to a library once a month to use internet doesn't seem that arduous to me. For delivery from a grocery store(rather than a delivery service), you would normally call orders in.

I wonder what would happen if people put half the effort into making positive life changes that they put into making excuses...
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 19, 2013, 08:41:44 PM
Home grocery delivery is widely available in DC, both from major stores and independent companies.

I've been told there are food deserts in Vancouver, believe it or not. What a load of horseshit.

Have you tried to get home grocery delivery to Anacostia in SW DC? Do they deliver to the projects?

How would people order? Would they have to pay for an internet connection or walk to a library? I can assure you there won't be a cafe with free wifi if there are no grocery stores.

Looks like someone could pay around $12.95 to have groceries delivered. Not sure that is sustainable for poor folks.

"Somewhat pricey though.  More likely because it's the only decent and safe grocery store to go to where you won't have to be afraid of getting shot at in DC. Not a bad place to shop. Make sure to get your Safeway card though. It actually does save you a lot of money."


Peapod apparently delivers to Anacostia. Not sure what areas are considered "the projects" seeing as I don't live there, but delivery coverage seems to be pretty widespread. Peapod charges less for delivery the more you order, from 7.95 to 9.95 for an order - not bad if you do it, say, once a month.

Walking to a library once a month to use internet doesn't seem that arduous to me. For delivery from a grocery store(rather than a delivery service), you would normally call orders in.

I wonder what would happen if people put half the effort into making positive life changes that they put into making excuses...

Peapod does not accept SNAP or EBT, so that might be why more poor people don't use it. That and they might not have internet access.

In general, I like where you are going with the idea. At the same time, it doesn't address immigrants with limited English (who would have no idea Peapod exists), the elderly (who may not use the internet or be able to walk to the library, the mentally ill (who may not use the internet, etc). Of course, others *would* be able to use it, and so that sounds good. I wonder if they can get prescriptions. I just read a story about an elderly many who spends 8 hours in round-trip bus rides to get medication for cheap at a Walmart in the suburbs...although I have to wonder if the story is partly Walmart propaganda to make a case for building six stores in DC.

A few interesting articles I found:

"The idea [grocery delivery] is not, as you may expect, for vulnerable low-income populations to buy laptops, get high-speed wifi, and order heathful groceries. Even if the tools of the Internet Age were widely available and affordable—and they’re not yet – they wouldn’t be of much use to the elderly, immigrants with limited English, or folks who don’t have a credit card or bank account. But there’s no good reason why policymakers can’t intervene."


Also, you might find this interesting:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-01/news/0704010252_1_peapod-grocery-deliveries

Sounds like people in Chicago use it, and those that live in food deserts are not all poor.

Also, the article states, "Peapod doesn't deliver to certain neighborhoods because the broadband penetration for Internet access is not yet high enough to warrant delivery."

So, good and bad. Delivers to some areas and not others. Maybe it's a solution for the future--if they are ever allowed to accept SNAP.

With all due respect, your comment suggesting that poor people need to put more time into making betters choices instead of excuses comes off as lacking empathy. At the same time, you've suggested a service that those on food stamps can't even use. That's a great example of the middle or upper class sitting around talking about what the poor should do without having been in the shoes of the poor.






Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Systematic on September 19, 2013, 09:45:22 PM
why all this judgement of "poor people". 

Doesn't matter whether we are rich or poor at the moment, the truth is we can try to control our circumstances, but there is every chance we're going to get hit by an unexpected event. Until we walk a mile in the shoes of the people we judge we really don't know the truth.

I suggest time is better spent volunteering rather than judging.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on September 19, 2013, 11:34:08 PM
I'd say where I live is dangerous because guns are easy to get.

I think the question is not why do I live in a place with a lot of guns, but why are there a lot of guns where I live?

But that doesn't seem to be the whole story (to say the least!), because I live where guns are commonplace, and as easy to get as anywhere in the country.  They're often openly carried, too: the women I ride horses with generally carry pistols, for instance.

So maybe the question ought to be why people where you live use guns to e.g. shoot up the neighborhood gas station, while hereabouts they'll go back in the hills and set up a few targets.  (And there are places back there where on spring & fall weekends you will hear guns going "pop, pop, pop" around you.)  That in turn plays into larger questions, such as why particular urban areas are so dangerous, yet people continue to live there despite manifold disadvantages.

Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Systematic on September 20, 2013, 12:03:03 AM
Jameqf

Whats the motivation for carrying guns?  People who live in this country only carry them to go hunting in the bush, otherwise they're locked away.

Do you feel threatened for some reason or is it ego driven.

this is a genuine question.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 20, 2013, 06:38:41 AM
why all this judgement of "poor people". 

Doesn't matter whether we are rich or poor at the moment, the truth is we can try to control our circumstances, but there is every chance we're going to get hit by an unexpected event. Until we walk a mile in the shoes of the people we judge we really don't know the truth.

I suggest time is better spent volunteering rather than judging.

Thank you. +1
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 20, 2013, 06:39:45 AM
I'd say where I live is dangerous because guns are easy to get.

I think the question is not why do I live in a place with a lot of guns, but why are there a lot of guns where I live?

But that doesn't seem to be the whole story (to say the least!), because I live where guns are commonplace, and as easy to get as anywhere in the country.  They're often openly carried, too: the women I ride horses with generally carry pistols, for instance.

So maybe the question ought to be why people where you live use guns to e.g. shoot up the neighborhood gas station, while hereabouts they'll go back in the hills and set up a few targets.  (And there are places back there where on spring & fall weekends you will hear guns going "pop, pop, pop" around you.)  That in turn plays into larger questions, such as why particular urban areas are so dangerous, yet people continue to live there despite manifold disadvantages.

Maybe people who can afford to ride horses are less desperate and, therefore, less likely to rob people.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 20, 2013, 07:51:55 AM
With all the talk about food deserts, poor people making poor decisions, etc.

I'm thinking maybe it's not that they are making poor decisions but that it's easier for them to make poor decisions.  For example, where I currently live, there's a grocery store .5 miles away.  I can walk to it easily.  It's also the closest store that sells food.  Obviously I will go there for food.  It's better in the short term and long term.

Now take someone in the 'ghetto.'  The grocery store is 1 mile away.  The convenience store is at the end of the block.  They don't have a car.  In the short-term, it's much easier to go to the corner store.  While going to the grocery store is the optimal decision, the corner store can be chosen ... a series of seemingly optimal solutions resulting in a sub-optimal outcome.

P.S. I keep putting ghetto in quotes as I do not agree with calling them ghettos, but using the word is easiest for communication, because most everyone understands  what it means.

I doubt there's an area in the nation that you can go where there will, as you say, be "guns going pop pop around you?"

You are kidding, right? It's called DC. If you have only been to touristy areas, you would not have experienced it.

Somehow I have a hard time believing the areas in DC are worse than the areas in St. Louis.  Sure, these lists aren't perfect, but St. Louis has 2 neighborhoods on the worst 25, DC has 0 (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods/).  Quite honestly, I'm not interested in debating this because the argument that people living in these areas are too afraid to go to the store is BS, and it detracts from the real argument/solutions.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Zikoris on September 20, 2013, 08:12:37 AM
Quote
Peapod does not accept SNAP or EBT, so that might be why more poor people don't use it. That and they might not have internet access.

In general, I like where you are going with the idea. At the same time, it doesn't address immigrants with limited English (who would have no idea Peapod exists), the elderly (who may not use the internet or be able to walk to the library, the mentally ill (who may not use the internet, etc). Of course, others *would* be able to use it, and so that sounds good. I wonder if they can get prescriptions. I just read a story about an elderly many who spends 8 hours in round-trip bus rides to get medication for cheap at a Walmart in the suburbs...although I have to wonder if the story is partly Walmart propaganda to make a case for building six stores in DC.

A few interesting articles I found:

"The idea [grocery delivery] is not, as you may expect, for vulnerable low-income populations to buy laptops, get high-speed wifi, and order heathful groceries. Even if the tools of the Internet Age were widely available and affordable—and they’re not yet – they wouldn’t be of much use to the elderly, immigrants with limited English, or folks who don’t have a credit card or bank account. But there’s no good reason why policymakers can’t intervene."


Also, you might find this interesting:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-01/news/0704010252_1_peapod-grocery-deliveries

Sounds like people in Chicago use it, and those that live in food deserts are not all poor.

Also, the article states, "Peapod doesn't deliver to certain neighborhoods because the broadband penetration for Internet access is not yet high enough to warrant delivery."

So, good and bad. Delivers to some areas and not others. Maybe it's a solution for the future--if they are ever allowed to accept SNAP.

With all due respect, your comment suggesting that poor people need to put more time into making betters choices instead of excuses comes off as lacking empathy. At the same time, you've suggested a service that those on food stamps can't even use. That's a great example of the middle or upper class sitting around talking about what the poor should do without having been in the shoes of the poor.

That about covers Peapod, you missed the "other grocery stores that do delivery" it seems, the ones where you call orders in. This service is VERY popular among Vancouver seniors through small local grocery stores, that give free delivery to boot.

I don't have much sympathy for immigrants who "have no idea it exists" or old people who "can't use the internet". Life requires adaptation. When you have a problem, you start looking for solutions, different ones of which are available anywhere you go. It's almost a bit embarrassing when people in a city across the country complain about food costs and I can find a better place for them to shop from my computer in Vancouver, but it's happened before.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Systematic on September 20, 2013, 08:33:54 AM
It appears the argument is that poor people make easy choices rather than intelligent ones which is why they can't live according to your specified limit, and justifies their current financial position,

It reminds me of a time straight after a natural disaster when a person from the rich side of town tried to justify why the poor side of town got hit and that they should have known the 1000 year event was going to happen, Little did they know where the next more destructive quake was going to hit.

It appears some people like to justify their perceived superior position by asserting that others just need to make better choices, The circumstances of the individual are irrelevant

As the mental health foundation says

Don't judge me until you know me.



Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 20, 2013, 08:58:34 AM
It appears the argument is that poor people make easy choices rather than intelligent ones which is why they can't live according to your specified limit, and justifies their current financial position,

It reminds me of a time straight after a natural disaster when a person from the rich side of town tried to justify why the poor side of town got hit and that they should have known the 1000 year event was going to happen, Little did they know where the next more destructive quake was going to hit.

It appears some people like to justify their perceived superior position by asserting that others just need to make better choices, The circumstances of the individual are irrelevant

As the mental health foundation says

Don't judge me until you know me.

No, that's not what I said at all.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: sherr on September 20, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
Jameqf

Whats the motivation for carrying guns?  People who live in this country only carry them to go hunting in the bush, otherwise they're locked away.

Do you feel threatened for some reason or is it ego driven.

this is a genuine question.

I'm guessing that given they are in horse-riding territory the answer is probably "bears and mountain lions." Better to have a defense than not.

Even if that's not the answer though there are other possible reasons than the ones you suggest. Maybe they feel the need to make a political statement about their rights given the number of people who would like for guns to be illegal. Maybe they carry them "just in case" without feeling particularly threatened (most people lock their doors without feeling endangered. Locking your doors is just a wise precautionary measure.). Maybe they wish to have the means to put down their horse immediately if it were every critically injured instead of forcing it to suffer as they walked all the way to the house and back. Maybe they do it simply because it is their right, without any further motivations or considerations.

In the US gun ownership was a necessary fact of life for a long time, whether to defend yourself from wild animals, hunt, defend against bandits, fight with Native Americans :(, or revolt against the British. As such we tend to have very different cultural values around guns than most other countries, not to mention much stronger gun rights.

All that to say there's a lot more at play than simply "feeling threatened" or "having a big ego," but since it's cultural it's a lot harder to explain to a cultural outsider.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 20, 2013, 09:17:54 AM


I don't have much sympathy...

Yes. That is evident.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 20, 2013, 09:19:18 AM
It appears the argument is that poor people make easy choices rather than intelligent ones which is why they can't live according to your specified limit, and justifies their current financial position,

It reminds me of a time straight after a natural disaster when a person from the rich side of town tried to justify why the poor side of town got hit and that they should have known the 1000 year event was going to happen, Little did they know where the next more destructive quake was going to hit.

It appears some people like to justify their perceived superior position by asserting that others just need to make better choices, The circumstances of the individual are irrelevant

As the mental health foundation says

Don't judge me until you know me.

Exactly. I am disappointed at the superior attitude I've seen in this thread.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 20, 2013, 11:36:09 AM
Since the original quote there wasn't directed at anyone in particular, who exactly is demonstrating this superior attitude?

Maybe there's a few people who have made 'poor people make poor choices' comments, but on the whole I think everyone has had mostly logical comments.

It appears the argument is that poor people make easy choices rather than intelligent ones which is why they can't live according to your specified limit, and justifies their current financial position,

It reminds me of a time straight after a natural disaster when a person from the rich side of town tried to justify why the poor side of town got hit and that they should have known the 1000 year event was going to happen, Little did they know where the next more destructive quake was going to hit.

It appears some people like to justify their perceived superior position by asserting that others just need to make better choices, The circumstances of the individual are irrelevant

As the mental health foundation says

Don't judge me until you know me.

Exactly. I am disappointed at the superior attitude I've seen in this thread.
I think saying things like that is a cop-out for not wanting to give a real response. 

Though maybe you're just tired of responding to the thread, which is also understandable.  In that case, just say so and leave.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on September 20, 2013, 12:08:38 PM
Jameqf

Whats the motivation for carrying guns?  People who live in this country only carry them to go hunting in the bush, otherwise they're locked away.

Do you feel threatened for some reason or is it ego driven.

this is a genuine question.

I'm guessing that given they are in horse-riding territory the answer is probably "bears and mountain lions." Better to have a defense than not.

Yes, that's part of it.  Also, these are women who are out riding, often alone, in areas that you would call "bush".  There's no cell phone service and you don't often run into other people, so they have a certain concern about human predators.

I should add that I personally have never felt any need to carry a gun when out riding, hiking, or whatever.  But all your other reasons probably apply, in one degree or another, to the neighbors.

Quote
In the US gun ownership was a necessary fact of life for a long time, whether to defend yourself from wild animals, hunt, defend against bandits, fight with Native Americans :(

Or (depending on which ancestors you're thinking of), to fight with the wasicu :-)
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Systematic on September 20, 2013, 12:35:54 PM
Mpbaker22

With a response like that, do you really question the interpretation of a superior atitude?
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Systematic on September 20, 2013, 12:38:55 PM
Jamesqf

Thanks for the gun explanation.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 20, 2013, 01:05:00 PM
Mpbaker22

With a response like that, do you really question the interpretation of a superior atitude?

Can you point to what exactly demonstrated a superior attitude?  I simply pointed out how ridiculous it is to claim people, who have made legitimate statements, are using superior attitudes.  It just didn't exist.

Making a one-line post about how everyone has superior attitudes is absurd and useless to the discussion.  And if you think that's a superior attitude, then fine, but it's fact.  ... And it's magnified by the fact he didn't point to any superior attitudes exhibited.

I guess if questioning an unsupported claim is indicative of a superior attitude, then yes, I am using a superior attitude.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: CB on September 20, 2013, 02:37:40 PM

Can you point to what exactly demonstrated a superior attitude?

I'm guessing it might have been this:

Quote from: mpbaker22
In that case, just say so and leave.

As a casual observer I think that's the type of statement the poster was referring to.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 20, 2013, 03:38:52 PM

Can you point to what exactly demonstrated a superior attitude?

I'm guessing it might have been this:

Quote from: mpbaker22
In that case, just say so and leave.

As a casual observer I think that's the type of statement the poster was referring to.

no.  I made that statement in response to the claim that some posters had a superior attitude.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on September 20, 2013, 04:15:18 PM
The Washington Post disagrees with you that there are no food deserts in DC. And so do I.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/doing-away-with-food-deserts-in-the-district/2013/05/17/f3e7e2d2-bf1b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_blog.html

That article has a citation chain that ultimately leads back to http://www.dchunger.org/pdf/grocerygap.pdf (http://www.dchunger.org/pdf/grocerygap.pdf), which also seems to use a poor methodology. It does things like aggregate the data by ward then calculate things like "grocery store square feet per person" and "average distance to grocer" -- 0.66 miles in the worst case, by the way -- which are useless measures. (Why do we care about the average distance to the grocer? Either it's too far or it's not, and we only care about the former!)

Figuring out food deserts ought to be a whole lot simpler:

There's a phrase to describe the reports from the USDA and DC Hunger: "lying with statistics."

In the neighborhoods I'm thinking of, the Tenderloin and South of Market, public transit would involve taking a bus to the light rail, which would be a 45 minute endeavor each way.

I did a Google Earth search for "Safeway" (which I hear is a reasonable grocery store -- we don't have them in Georgia) and the farthest point away from them in those neighborhoods, which I eyeballed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Golden Gate Avenue and Market Street, is still within 1.2 miles. Admittedly, it'd be nice if they put another Safeway right near that intersection, and I'm sure there are hills to deal with, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. (And that's just Safeways; there might be other closer grocery stores that I don't know about.)


IDK what's up with Google Earth, but that Safeway is not on Googlemaps and I know for a fact that there was no Safeway at Golden Gate and Market when I lived there in 2007. There was one at Market and Castro St., which is where I went.

Dude, there is no Safeway at Golden Gate and Market, unless it was built in the last few years.

That's not what I claimed, even if you pretended it was (twice). Check your reading comprehension skills.

What I actually said was that Golden Gate and Market is the farthest point away from any Safeway, but that even that intersection is still within 1.2 miles of one.

I also highlighted it in red in the quote above, in case you're still having trouble.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 20, 2013, 06:43:51 PM
That about covers Peapod, you missed the "other grocery stores that do delivery" it seems, the ones where you call orders in. This service is VERY popular among Vancouver seniors through small local grocery stores, that give free delivery to boot.


You are incorrect. I did not "miss" other grocery delivery services. I researched them and they looked too expensive. Did I do exhaustive research? No. I'm not going to do that.

Another one nearby where people live charges $12.95. That is a lot of money for a poor person.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 20, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
Since the original quote there wasn't directed at anyone in particular, who exactly is demonstrating this superior attitude?

Maybe there's a few people who have made 'poor people make poor choices' comments, but on the whole I think everyone has had mostly logical comments.

It appears the argument is that poor people make easy choices rather than intelligent ones which is why they can't live according to your specified limit, and justifies their current financial position,

It reminds me of a time straight after a natural disaster when a person from the rich side of town tried to justify why the poor side of town got hit and that they should have known the 1000 year event was going to happen, Little did they know where the next more destructive quake was going to hit.

It appears some people like to justify their perceived superior position by asserting that others just need to make better choices, The circumstances of the individual are irrelevant

As the mental health foundation says

Don't judge me until you know me.

Exactly. I am disappointed at the superior attitude I've seen in this thread.
I think saying things like that is a cop-out for not wanting to give a real response. 

Though maybe you're just tired of responding to the thread, which is also understandable.  In that case, just say so and leave.
I've given several responses. If you don't think they are "real" enough, that is your call to make. Have a good night.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Zikoris on September 20, 2013, 08:48:23 PM
That about covers Peapod, you missed the "other grocery stores that do delivery" it seems, the ones where you call orders in. This service is VERY popular among Vancouver seniors through small local grocery stores, that give free delivery to boot.


You are incorrect. I did not "miss" other grocery delivery services. I researched them and they looked too expensive. Did I do exhaustive research? No. I'm not going to do that.

Another one nearby where people live charges $12.95. That is a lot of money for a poor person.

All your comments earlier were regarding the infeasibility of Peapod - internet access, etc, which would be a non-issue if you got delivery from somewhere that takes telephone orders.

In any case, $12.95(6.95-8.95 from Peapod or free for seniors from many stores) is not a lot of money if you spend it once or twice a month, and the alternative is buying fast food and over-inflated gas station - heck, you'd save a significant amount of money, plus be eating way better.

For what it's worth, I've lived the "poor, far from grocery stores" lifestyle, except on top of that I worked wacky hours that led to me needing to grocery shop around midnight more often than not, and my apartment had no kitchen. I didn't particularly care, just worked with what was available to me and found solutions that didn't involve eating processed shit.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: TrulyStashin on September 24, 2013, 06:23:39 AM
Throughout this thread, runs the assumption that food stamps are used only by "poor" people who are chronically down and out and live off SNAP perpetually.

The reality is that the typical SNAP recipient depends on the aid for less than 2 years.   Last year, I read a study that found that 64% of all Americans depend on some form of aid at some point in their life:  unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare.

Sometimes people hit a rough patch in life and need help to get past it and rebuild.   I'm one such person and I'm grateful for the help that kept my life from falling completely to pieces so that I retained a foundation on which to rebuild.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Daleth on September 24, 2013, 09:03:28 AM
In any case, $12.95(6.95-8.95 from Peapod or free for seniors from many stores) is not a lot of money if you spend it once or twice a month, and the alternative is buying fast food and over-inflated gas station - heck, you'd save a significant amount of money, plus be eating way better.

$14-$26 a month, you're suggesting, for people whose total food budget is $4.50/day? Let me do the math: 4.50 x 7 = $31.50 a week?!

They should spend as much as 6 days' worth of their food budget just having their food delivered?!

Think about it.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 24, 2013, 09:11:46 AM
Throughout this thread, runs the assumption that food stamps are used only by "poor" people who are chronically down and out and live off SNAP perpetually.

The reality is that the typical SNAP recipient depends on the aid for less than 2 years.   Last year, I read a study that found that 64% of all Americans depend on some form of aid at some point in their life:  unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare.

Sometimes people hit a rough patch in life and need help to get past it and rebuild.   I'm one such person and I'm grateful for the help that kept my life from falling completely to pieces so that I retained a foundation on which to rebuild.

Yes, and some people do really need and depend on it for a short time.  Then there are the people who make plenty of money but are still within the SNAP guidelines, so they receive benefits, though not the full amount. 

I also think having an asset tests discourages savings.  If I'm on SNAP, get a job, and can save a little bit of money; why would I?  Once I get over $2,000 I no longer get benefits, at least in my state.  Might as well spend all my money now and have free food later as opposed to saving money now and paying for my food later.


$14-$26 a month, you're suggesting, for people whose total food budget is $4.50/day? Let me do the math: 4.50 x 7 = $31.50 a week?!

They should spend as much as 6 days' worth of their food budget just having their food delivered?!

Think about it.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't like the way of arguing.  This is how presidential candidates talk about such and such policy saving the debt 7 Trillion.  Well yea, if you extrapolate over 100 years, that's true.  But that's hardly a dent when it's 70B in one year, I digress.

I don't think your post every really made a point.  That's six days food budget over the course of a month, but you compare it to a time frame of a week (previous sentence).  I don't think you meant to do that, but that's the way it reads.  Over the course of a month, it's roughly 10-20% of food costs.  If it's saving them 20% on the food costs, it could be worth it (but i doubt it is).

Pick a time frame and stick to it.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Daley on September 24, 2013, 10:05:00 AM
Throughout this thread, runs the assumption that food stamps are used only by "poor" people who are chronically down and out and live off SNAP perpetually.

The reality is that the typical SNAP recipient depends on the aid for less than 2 years.   Last year, I read a study that found that 64% of all Americans depend on some form of aid at some point in their life:  unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare.

Sometimes people hit a rough patch in life and need help to get past it and rebuild.   I'm one such person and I'm grateful for the help that kept my life from falling completely to pieces so that I retained a foundation on which to rebuild.

Hush now, TrulyStashin, that kind of talk upsets the petite bourgeoisie! The little darlings need to protect their illusions of lifelong ghetto welfare queens and mooching bums too lazy for work as overwhelming the ranks of those on assistance. Otherwise, they might have trouble sleeping at night while they declare social programs worthless, defend the act of gutting and abolishing those programs over any sort of progressive reform, and turn a blind eye to their own lack of charity in their lives. We don't want them to lose any sleep now, do we? After all, it takes a lot of work to preserve a fantasy world.

Don't worry guys, TrulyStashin' just misquoted those statistics. It's actually only 0.64% of the welfare recipients in this country. You can go back to sleep now.

This thread is almost as appalling as the homeless in the forest thread. I had avoided reading it suspecting as much, and boy was I not disappointed. Let them eat cake, indeed! I can't imagine the reactions this thing must cause with some of the new readers.

Unsurprising, there's a lot of familiar names in both threads (myself included, now). This raises the question of why some of you people are actually here in the first place? "Mustachianism" isn't about achieving ends to selfish means, it's about working towards making the world a better place for everybody, including your own family. There's an overwhelming current of social responsibility and a desire to making the world a better place to MMM's core messages when he's not talking about gearhead topics, yet there's an entire subset of this community that now ignores that thread or is quite possibly wholly oblivious to it. The opinions expressed by these individuals sadly embodies the very ugly stereotype of elitist WASP snobbery and self-entitlement that feeds class warfare and turns off the less fortunate to the idea of striving towards financial security in the first place. These are clearly not compatible schools of thought.

I don't disagree that people are entitled to their opinions, and should have the right to express them... but there's also a responsibility to the community that must not be ignored when you participate within a group or collective of others. Of course, I don't expect people to understand that when they think poor people are just being lazy and financially irresponsible when they choose to pick up a can of pork and beans with a loaf of white bread down at the corner 7-11 over walking the three miles round trip to a larger grocery store. We're all in this together, which means we can just as easily perpetuate and create the very societal ills that upset us if we're not careful and responsible with our own actions.

why all this judgement of "poor people". 

Doesn't matter whether we are rich or poor at the moment, the truth is we can try to control our circumstances, but there is every chance we're going to get hit by an unexpected event. Until we walk a mile in the shoes of the people we judge we really don't know the truth.

I suggest time is better spent volunteering rather than judging.

QFT

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. Treat others as you wish to be treated. These are not just tropes and cliché phrases - they're a succinct philosophy and way of gently walking through life, and it's a life of joy and wonder that no amount of money could ever purchase or secure.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Mega on September 24, 2013, 10:10:31 AM
Honestly, as an outsider looking at USA, the food stamps program, and a couple of other programs, just don't make sense to me.

Why, if you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, does the government provide money for food? Isn't this just an indirect government subsidy for the businesses paying people minimum wage? Ditto for all of the other government subsidies (housing, medicare (?), etc).

Why not set the minimum wage to a reasonable level, and set it to automatically adjust with inflation?

Isn't the 1950s minimum wage something like $15 and hour, adjusted for inflation?

It's pretty simple. The minimum wage was never intended to guarantee a sufficient income for a family of four. Teens and young adults who live with their parents don't need as much money to survive as single people living on their own do. Single people living on their own need less money to survive than working parents do. Some people have a spouse or other family members who bring in enough cash to meet the family's basic needs, while others do not. Some people have found jobs that can pay for a full 40-hour schedule (or more), while others have not. Other people have already saved enough money to retire and are working less for a paycheck and more because they enjoy it. Given the fact that everyone's financial situation is different, the minimum wage is set at a relatively low level that's the same for everyone regardless of family situation or other factors. Programs like food stamps exist to fill in the gaps for families whose overall income ends up being too low (in the government's estimate) to purchase basic necessities.

A low minimum wage helps people who don't have many skills break into the workforce so that they have a chance at someday moving up to higher-value employment. Imagine if the minimum wage was $20/hr. This would be great for some people who are currently making less, but whose employers could afford to pay them more. Lots of businesses run on lower margins than that, and simply could not afford to pay their lowest-skilled workers that much. All the people whose skills are not worth $20/hr to any employer would never have a chance to have any employment and would be a permanent drain on social welfare programs.

You can choose to view the low minimum wage (and food stamps) as a subsidy for low-paying employers, or you can view the existence of the low-wage employment as a way to minimize the number of people who need to resort to programs like food stamps in the first place. In a system that has as many moving parts as the economy, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Well, you have many great points. There are many advantages and drawbacks to both systems.

TomatoLand is an excellent book on the economics of tomatoes and what happens to empolyees when there is no minimum wage / safety standards / accountability. I strongly recommend that you read it, as it really shaped my expectations for what minimum wage should be. For example, set the part time minimum wage HIGHER than the full time minimum wage, make the minimum wage apply to all people in the country, etc.

How many of us would actually be negatively impacted by an increase in the minimum wage? It isn't like we buy a lot of stuff new / pre-packaged.

Anyways, I know it won't get fixed, but I can always hope.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 24, 2013, 10:22:15 AM
Throughout this thread, runs the assumption that food stamps are used only by "poor" people who are chronically down and out and live off SNAP perpetually.

The reality is that the typical SNAP recipient depends on the aid for less than 2 years.   Last year, I read a study that found that 64% of all Americans depend on some form of aid at some point in their life:  unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare.

Sometimes people hit a rough patch in life and need help to get past it and rebuild.   I'm one such person and I'm grateful for the help that kept my life from falling completely to pieces so that I retained a foundation on which to rebuild.

Hush now, TrulyStashin, that kind of talk upsets the petite bourgeoisie! The little darlings need to protect their illusions of lifelong ghetto welfare queens and mooching bums too lazy for work as overwhelming the ranks of those on assistance. Otherwise, they might have trouble sleeping at night while they declare social programs worthless, defend the act of gutting and abolishing those programs over any sort of progressive reform, and turn a blind eye to their own lack of charity in their lives. We don't want them to lose any sleep now, do we? After all, it takes a lot of work to preserve a fantasy world.

Don't worry guys, TrulyStashin' just misquoted those statistics. It's actually only 0.64% of the welfare recipients in this country. You can go back to sleep now.

This thread is almost as appalling as the homeless in the forest thread. I had avoided reading it suspecting as much, and boy was I not disappointed. Let them eat cake, indeed! I can't imagine the reactions this thing must cause with some of the new readers.

Unsurprising, there's a lot of familiar names in both threads (myself included, now). This raises the question of why some of you people are actually here in the first place? "Mustachianism" isn't about achieving ends to selfish means, it's about working towards making the world a better place for everybody, including your own family. There's an overwhelming current of social responsibility and a desire to making the world a better place to MMM's core messages when he's not talking about gearhead topics, yet there's an entire subset of this community that now ignores that thread or is quite possibly wholly oblivious to it. The opinions expressed by these individuals sadly embodies the very ugly stereotype of elitist WASP snobbery and self-entitlement that feeds class warfare and turns off the less fortunate to the idea of striving towards financial security in the first place. These are clearly not compatible schools of thought.

I don't disagree that people are entitled to their opinions, and should have the right to express them... but there's also a responsibility to the community that must not be ignored when you participate within a group or collective of others. Of course, I don't expect people to understand that when they think poor people are just being lazy and financially irresponsible when they choose to pick up a can of pork and beans with a loaf of white bread down at the corner 7-11 over walking the three miles round trip to a larger grocery store. We're all in this together, which means we can just as easily perpetuate and create the very societal ills that upset us if we're not careful and responsible with our own actions.

why all this judgement of "poor people". 

Doesn't matter whether we are rich or poor at the moment, the truth is we can try to control our circumstances, but there is every chance we're going to get hit by an unexpected event. Until we walk a mile in the shoes of the people we judge we really don't know the truth.

I suggest time is better spent volunteering rather than judging.

QFT

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. Treat others as you wish to be treated. These are not just tropes and cliché phrases - they're a succinct philosophy and way of gently walking through life, and it's a life of joy and wonder that no amount of money could ever purchase or secure.

I think the problem is you're ignoring the welfare queens that do exist.  Having toured section 8 residences, organized in ghetto areas, and created a blog about fixing such areas, I can say that the problems are far too complicated to condense in a little forum post, even in a longer one that you posted.

The facts I've seen in St. Louis are
1) welfare queens exist
2) inhumane slums exist
3) the biggest obstacle to both is corruption, and those who are corrupt cross party lines and have no clear political vision.  They're vision is for personal gain, not politics.

Again, you've ignored the arguments at hand, crafting your conclusions off of premises that are being debated.  Of course, your used your premises as fact.  We've already determined that a VERY VERY small number of people in cities have to resort to walking 3 miles roundtrip to grocery stores.

Quote
Of course, I don't expect people to understand that when they think poor people are just being lazy and financially irresponsible when they choose to pick up a can of pork and beans with a loaf of white bread down at the corner 7-11 over walking the three miles round trip to a larger grocery store.

This quote is a perfect example of your mis-representation of what everyone has actually been arguing on this thread.

No one has called these people lazy or financially irresponsible, and we haven't even determined these people need to walk 3 miles ...
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Daley on September 24, 2013, 10:34:37 AM
This quote is a perfect example of your mis-representation of what everyone has actually been arguing on this thread.

Your entire reply illustrates that you only skimmed over what I wrote instead of actually reading it.

I also find it fascinating that you've taken offense to my post when I cited no names, and had not had you in mind as being one of the individuals I spoke of.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 24, 2013, 12:19:59 PM
In any case, $12.95(6.95-8.95 from Peapod or free for seniors from many stores) is not a lot of money if you spend it once or twice a month, and the alternative is buying fast food and over-inflated gas station - heck, you'd save a significant amount of money, plus be eating way better.

$14-$26 a month, you're suggesting, for people whose total food budget is $4.50/day? Let me do the math: 4.50 x 7 = $31.50 a week?!

They should spend as much as 6 days' worth of their food budget just having their food delivered?!

Think about it.

I love math. +1
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 24, 2013, 12:23:14 PM
Throughout this thread, runs the assumption that food stamps are used only by "poor" people who are chronically down and out and live off SNAP perpetually.

The reality is that the typical SNAP recipient depends on the aid for less than 2 years.   Last year, I read a study that found that 64% of all Americans depend on some form of aid at some point in their life:  unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare.

Sometimes people hit a rough patch in life and need help to get past it and rebuild.   I'm one such person and I'm grateful for the help that kept my life from falling completely to pieces so that I retained a foundation on which to rebuild.

Hush now, TrulyStashin, that kind of talk upsets the petite bourgeoisie! The little darlings need to protect their illusions of lifelong ghetto welfare queens and mooching bums too lazy for work as overwhelming the ranks of those on assistance. Otherwise, they might have trouble sleeping at night while they declare social programs worthless, defend the act of gutting and abolishing those programs over any sort of progressive reform, and turn a blind eye to their own lack of charity in their lives. We don't want them to lose any sleep now, do we? After all, it takes a lot of work to preserve a fantasy world.

Don't worry guys, TrulyStashin' just misquoted those statistics. It's actually only 0.64% of the welfare recipients in this country. You can go back to sleep now.

This thread is almost as appalling as the homeless in the forest thread. I had avoided reading it suspecting as much, and boy was I not disappointed. Let them eat cake, indeed! I can't imagine the reactions this thing must cause with some of the new readers.

Unsurprising, there's a lot of familiar names in both threads (myself included, now). This raises the question of why some of you people are actually here in the first place? "Mustachianism" isn't about achieving ends to selfish means, it's about working towards making the world a better place for everybody, including your own family. There's an overwhelming current of social responsibility and a desire to making the world a better place to MMM's core messages when he's not talking about gearhead topics, yet there's an entire subset of this community that now ignores that thread or is quite possibly wholly oblivious to it. The opinions expressed by these individuals sadly embodies the very ugly stereotype of elitist WASP snobbery and self-entitlement that feeds class warfare and turns off the less fortunate to the idea of striving towards financial security in the first place. These are clearly not compatible schools of thought.

I don't disagree that people are entitled to their opinions, and should have the right to express them... but there's also a responsibility to the community that must not be ignored when you participate within a group or collective of others. Of course, I don't expect people to understand that when they think poor people are just being lazy and financially irresponsible when they choose to pick up a can of pork and beans with a loaf of white bread down at the corner 7-11 over walking the three miles round trip to a larger grocery store. We're all in this together, which means we can just as easily perpetuate and create the very societal ills that upset us if we're not careful and responsible with our own actions.

why all this judgement of "poor people". 

Doesn't matter whether we are rich or poor at the moment, the truth is we can try to control our circumstances, but there is every chance we're going to get hit by an unexpected event. Until we walk a mile in the shoes of the people we judge we really don't know the truth.

I suggest time is better spent volunteering rather than judging.

QFT

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. Treat others as you wish to be treated. These are not just tropes and cliché phrases - they're a succinct philosophy and way of gently walking through life, and it's a life of joy and wonder that no amount of money could ever purchase or secure.

+4

Great response. Thank you.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on September 24, 2013, 12:40:05 PM
Hush now, TrulyStashin, that kind of talk upsets the petite bourgeoisie! The little darlings need to protect their illusions...

Maybe I'm getting too personal here, but I have to wonder just how much first-hand experience you have, or whether you're just maintaining your own illusions.

Quote
Unsurprising, there's a lot of familiar names in both threads (myself included, now). This raises the question of why some of you people are actually here in the first place? "Mustachianism" isn't about achieving ends to selfish means, it's about working towards making the world a better place for everybody, including your own family. There's an overwhelming current of social responsibility and a desire to making the world a better place to MMM's core messages...

Granted that that's the case, surely it is more important to look at what actually works (and what doesn't), than to keep on doing something that some of us wish would work, just because it allows us to feel good about ourselves, and SO morally superior to the petite bourgeoisie, a good number of whom have actually escaped poverty.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: TrulyStashin on September 24, 2013, 03:28:54 PM
When it comes to ending poverty, what works?

This works http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/ (http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/)

Education.  Support.  Building community.  Training in new skills.  Creating a vibrant neighborhood of mixed income levels. 

We know how to do it, but it is so much easier to just shame people who are already vulnerable.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 24, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
When it comes to ending poverty, what works?

This works http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/ (http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/)

Education.  Support.  Building community.  Training in new skills.  Creating a vibrant neighborhood of mixed income levels. 

We know how to do it, but it is so much easier to just shame people who are already vulnerable.

I skimmed parts of it, and I'm not completely understanding the timeline, but these grand projects usually end in disaster.  Sometimes it takes decades (a generation maybe) to learn they don't work.

This does seem different in that it's about education and community, not just housing and food.  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on September 24, 2013, 08:45:42 PM
This works http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/ (http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/)

Evidence?  Skimming through, it seems as though it's a work in progress, with arguably good intentions*, but not much in the way of results.

*But it seems to me that there's a disturbing thread of racism running through the article, though I'm not sure whether it's in the project itself, or just the writer's attitude.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: davisgang90 on September 29, 2013, 06:37:07 AM
I have a heart for the poor among us.  My church supports several efforts in the low-income portions of DC and last year I volunteered at an inner-city DC school.

I think that the impact of children born out of wedlock/committed relationships has a devastating impact on our society.

Quote
Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears has noted, children born to unmarried women and to those in cohabiting relationships "must often overcome increased risks of poverty, education failure, child abuse, delinquency, emotional distress and mental illness."……the lack of a father's guidance in children's lives is a major cause of their suffering. "Marriage is the best child welfare, crime prevention, anti-poverty program we have,"

"Ominously, the most reliable predictor of crime is neither poverty nor race but growing up fatherless."
Fortune Magazine
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: oldtoyota on September 29, 2013, 07:18:34 AM
I have a heart for the poor among us.  My church supports several efforts in the low-income portions of DC and last year I volunteered at an inner-city DC school.

I think that the impact of children born out of wedlock/committed relationships has a devastating impact on our society.

Quote
Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears has noted, children born to unmarried women and to those in cohabiting relationships "must often overcome increased risks of poverty, education failure, child abuse, delinquency, emotional distress and mental illness."……the lack of a father's guidance in children's lives is a major cause of their suffering. "Marriage is the best child welfare, crime prevention, anti-poverty program we have,"

"Ominously, the most reliable predictor of crime is neither poverty nor race but growing up fatherless."
Fortune Magazine

Yay! Nice work.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Daleth on September 29, 2013, 07:21:02 AM
I think that the impact of children born out of wedlock/committed relationships has a devastating impact on our society.

Tell that to my sibling and me. Our dad was a deadbeat, gone by the time I was 5, and we're both happily married, creative, happy, wealthy professionals (and part-time landlords) with no criminal record at all. Our mom was not only single but disabled, and we were so broke that I remember ducking behind the counter so the guy who came to shut off our utilities (this couldn't be done remotely back then) would think no one was home and go away.

I think the key is that the single parent must (1) love the kids and let them know it, verbally, emotionally and practically; (2) teach the kids to value education and aspire to something more; (3) not make a mess of his/her personal life (i.e. not an endless series of shiftless temporary boyfriends/girlfriends), or at least not expose the kids to the mess; (4) not have a victim mindset and (5) cultivate a strong social network, whether extended family or friends who might as well be family, so the kids feel like part of a community and there's someone to pick up the occasional slack.

I'm not negating the importance of a good dad (or for gay couples, second parent) here. But note the adjective "good": having no dad is better than having a bad dad. That said, a good dad is worth his weight in gold, and if I'd had one I highly doubt I would've flailed through my teens and twenties in a series of bad relationships.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 29, 2013, 07:53:43 AM
I have a heart for the poor among us.  My church supports several efforts in the low-income portions of DC and last year I volunteered at an inner-city DC school.

I think that the impact of children born out of wedlock/committed relationships has a devastating impact on our society.

Quote
Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears has noted, children born to unmarried women and to those in cohabiting relationships "must often overcome increased risks of poverty, education failure, child abuse, delinquency, emotional distress and mental illness."……the lack of a father's guidance in children's lives is a major cause of their suffering. "Marriage is the best child welfare, crime prevention, anti-poverty program we have,"

"Ominously, the most reliable predictor of crime is neither poverty nor race but growing up fatherless."
Fortune Magazine

Yay! Nice work.

Ironically the federal government promoted fatherless children for much of the middle of the 20th century.  Many welfare requirements were tied to the father not being in the family's life.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Abe on September 29, 2013, 08:19:48 AM
Whole Foods is opening a store in Englewood, one of the poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago (and the US, for that matter).  I hope they sell cheaper food though. They did the same in a neighborhood of Detroit with good results apparently.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: mpbaker22 on September 29, 2013, 12:11:07 PM
Whole Foods is opening a store in Englewood, one of the poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago (and the US, for that matter).  I hope they sell cheaper food though. They did the same in a neighborhood of Detroit with good results apparently.

Can you confirm that it's going in at 63rd and Halstead?  That's a pretty awful food desert.  After all the nearest aldi is as much as .2 miles away!

I know you didn't call it a food desert, but the chicago media did.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Aldi&daddr=63rd+and+halsted&hl=en&ll=41.780201,-87.642644&spn=0.003208,0.005284&sll=41.780635,-87.643889&sspn=0.003208,0.005284&geocode=FbyCfQIdXbXG-iEVFQVGFB17uylJ6brh4C4OiDEVFQVGFB17uw%3BFSmCfQIdlqXG-imx7zS54y4OiDG0lA6evK-WJA&t=h&gl=us&mra=ls&z=18
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: grantmeaname on September 29, 2013, 12:32:55 PM
When it comes to ending poverty, what works?

This works http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/ (http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/10/17/public-housing-project-a-national-model-for-supporting-health/)

Education.  Support.  Building community.  Training in new skills.  Creating a vibrant neighborhood of mixed income levels. 

We know how to do it, but it is so much easier to just shame people who are already vulnerable.
How much did this cost? What, if anything, has it done to end poverty? I found nothing in the entire article to convince me anything about anything, and certainly not the kind of evidence needed to declare something a cure for poverty.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Abe on September 30, 2013, 07:59:54 AM

Can you confirm that it's going in at 63rd and Halstead?  That's a pretty awful food desert.  After all the nearest aldi is as much as .2 miles away!

I know you didn't call it a food desert, but the chicago media did.

That's the plan! The USDA map shows that Chicago actually has very few food deserts if you use the 1-mile limit (which I think is completely reasonable). Also, they don't include small grocery stores that have less than $2 million in sales per year.  There are a hundreds of such stores in Chicago.

I think the Whole Foods thing is a marketing ploy, unless their prices are a lot lower than at their other stores.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: randymarsh on September 30, 2013, 09:49:21 AM
Ironically the federal government promoted fatherless children for much of the middle of the 20th century.  Many welfare requirements were tied to the father not being in the family's life.

Maybe not the federal government directly anymore, but the system still promotes fatherless children. They've attempted to solve some of the financial problems with child support enforcement and wage garnishment, but they don't encourage actual involvement. The state has long viewed fathers as little more than a piggy bank.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: ace1224 on October 01, 2013, 09:48:32 AM

I think that the impact of children born out of wedlock/committed relationships has a devastating impact on our society.


damn, my kid is screwed then. lol.  poor bastard child (true story NC made me and the partner sign an affidavit of paternity for a child born out of wedlock)

seriously though, statements like that don't really make sense in today's society when there are more people shacking up than getting married.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: grantmeaname on October 01, 2013, 09:56:42 AM
there are more people shacking up than getting married.
[citation needed]

There may be more cohabitation than in previous years, but it usually leads to marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_the_United_States) and still isn't that common on an absolute scale.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: ace1224 on October 01, 2013, 10:31:16 AM
there are more people shacking up than getting married.
[citation needed]

There may be more cohabitation than in previous years, but it usually leads to marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_the_United_States) and still isn't that common on an absolute scale.
http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

you're right i should have said people shacking up before they get married.  my whole point though can be summed up in this quote from the article Children tend to be happier and healthier the more stable their parents' union is, regardless of whether the "union" has been formalized or not, she added.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: davisgang90 on October 01, 2013, 10:36:17 AM
there are more people shacking up than getting married.
[citation needed]

There may be more cohabitation than in previous years, but it usually leads to marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_the_United_States) and still isn't that common on an absolute scale.
http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

you're right i should have said people shacking up before they get married.  my whole point though can be summed up in this quote from the article Children tend to be happier and healthier the more stable their parents' union is, regardless of whether the "union" has been formalized or not, she added.
Which is of course, why I said marriage or committed relationship.  Reading really is Fundamental.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: grantmeaname on October 01, 2013, 10:55:16 AM
http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html
The article says that more people are living together now than were living together before, not that more people are living together now and not getting married than getting married now.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: ace1224 on October 01, 2013, 11:09:04 AM
there are more people shacking up than getting married.
[citation needed]

There may be more cohabitation than in previous years, but it usually leads to marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_the_United_States) and still isn't that common on an absolute scale.
http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

you're right i should have said people shacking up before they get married.  my whole point though can be summed up in this quote from the article Children tend to be happier and healthier the more stable their parents' union is, regardless of whether the "union" has been formalized or not, she added.
Which is of course, why I said marriage or committed relationship.  Reading really is Fundamental.

you said
I think that the impact of children born out of wedlock/committed relationships has a devastating impact on our society. did i read that wrong?  if i did i'm sorry but i took it as you felt children born to unmarried couples (wedlock/committed relationships) had a devastating impact.  i didn't see where you said if the unmarried parents stayed together it was ok
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: ace1224 on October 01, 2013, 11:11:12 AM
http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html
The article says that more people are living together now than were living together before, not that more people are living together now and not getting married than getting married now.
i know. that's why i said that i should have said before they get married.  i originally said something wrong, thank you for prompting me to correct it. those kids are still born out of wedlock though, even if their parents do get married later on.  i guess i consider that shacking up even if a marriage results out of it.  i spoke before i totally thought it through.  sorry
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: grantmeaname on October 01, 2013, 11:19:44 AM
I think everyone's really getting at the same thing here, which is that as a generality kids are better off when raised by a committed couple. By my reading, davisgang90 was suggesting that on a societal level there's a high cost to the sheer number of exceptions to that statement, but that's not the only valid way to interpret it and may not even be what he meant.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: more4less on October 04, 2013, 04:35:34 PM
I'm quite skeptical about all these stories. I came to US with $400 in my pocket. I was lucky that I had a place to stay - someone from my extended family allowed me to sleep in his living room. My 1st job was 2 miles away, I walked to it every morning - I didn't have a bike then. When I got my 1st check, I bought groceries and carried them in my backpack on order to put my share on the table of the family which kindly gave me shelter. My story isn't unique since millions of immigrants worked their asses off to change their life for good and succeeded in it with very little help from gov't. $4.50 a day? Wow! it's like dozen of eggs, or roughly 10 lbs of rice. There's a saying where I came from: When one wants (something) he looks for ways, when one doesn't want - he looks for excuses.

I agree about people (some of whom happen to be poor) make poor choices. This part of the forum (Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy) is dedicated to bashing people making poor decisions. But it's terribly wrong to say the exactly same thing about poor people. I think I missed conversation where we set the income level on such topic. Should it be minimum wage for the area? Or shall we go with federal one?

PS: actually 7-11 near me sells gallon of milk for 40c less than "real" grocery stores like Lucky or Safeway.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jack on October 04, 2013, 07:35:13 PM
I'm amused that in 2 weeks and 3 pages, there still hasn't been a post citing a genuine urban food desert that hasn't been debunked.
Title: Re: Panera CEO and Food Stamps
Post by: Jamesqf on October 04, 2013, 08:49:58 PM
$4.50 a day? Wow! it's like dozen of eggs, or roughly 10 lbs of rice.

Yeah.  At the local WinCo, that's just about 4 dozen eggs (I think they're $1.19/doz).  You might only get 7-8 lbs of (long grain brown) rice, which IIRC is about $0.55/lb.  For variety, there are plenty of bulk beans, lentils, pasta and so on in the same price range.