Why don't poor neighborhoods have Grocery Stores? (Evanston, Glenview: school, tax)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Heh. Yeah, i guess that makes a little more sense. You have to spell things out for me....very....slowly.

I think it's really a mix of both though. In the end, no person is a slave to their environment, and everyone has the ability to dictate how will they react despite whatever roadblocks have been placed in their way.

But in the macro sense, I have a hard time believing the American poor (and for that matter, the American middle class) are that much lazier and sloppy than their counterparts in other Western nations. Public policy that would make wise nutritional choices easier (some of which discussed in that article sukwoo posted) would go a long way in reducing health care costs from the many diseases resulting from our terrible diets.

I'll leave judgment on the accuracy of the first sentence of your last paragraph to those who have undertaken to improve the nutritional issues that plague lower income neighborhoods. I only hope those individuals answer that question honestly so their noble efforts are not doomed to failure.

One thing for sure though, too many Americans are obese. We definitely need to correct that. Hopefully, well-intentioned education from liberals to the poor is the way. Otherwise, we may have to undertake more drastic measures, such as heavy taxation on the most unhealthy foods. The stick versus the carrot, if you will.

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by BRU67

10 double cheesburgers are $10, and a pound of lunch meat and a loaf of bread would be roughly the same cost and make the same number of sandwiches, if that clarifies it better for you.

Using this to illustrate not how great the Bru67 diet is (I will tell you how to pump up in another thread) but to show that the argument that economics "force" persons in the ghetto to eat like crap is horse hockey. People eat that way because they want to eat that way, bottom line.

Ok lets look at the 10 for 10 thing.

Lets say those 10 burgers lasted you for five days, eating 2 a day.

If I ate two sandwiches a day that you were suggesting, I would not make it 5 days on a lb of turkey.

The costs just dont add up.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by skipcromer

Ok lets look at the 10 for 10 thing.

Lets say those 10 burgers lasted you for five days, eating 2 a day.

If I ate two sandwiches a day that you were suggesting, I would not make it 5 days on a lb of turkey.

The costs just dont add up.

I see what you're saying. The 2 burgers for 2 bucks thing is hard to beat on price. Was that "Supersize" documentary about this? I always wanted to see that...

Lunch meat is more expensive.... How about PBJ, tuna fish, or egg sandwiches instead?

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

I see what you're saying. The 2 burgers for 2 bucks thing is hard to beat on price. Was that "Supersize" documentary about this? I always wanted to see that...

Lunch meat is more expensive.... How about PBJ, tuna fish, or egg sandwiches instead?

I'll help you save two hours of your life and sum up 'SuperSize' for you.

If you eat mcdonalds for all three meals everyday you will not be healthy.

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

I see what you're saying. The 2 burgers for 2 bucks thing is hard to beat on price. Was that "Supersize" documentary about this? I always wanted to see that...

Lunch meat is more expensive.... How about PBJ, tuna fish, or egg sandwiches instead?

Theres nothing healthy about a PBJ sandwich.

Ive never eaten straight tuna, isnt mayo usually added to it?

Egg Sandwich? Never ate one but it sounds pretty healthy and cheap.

[oakparkdude]

In public policy, I think this rule generally holds: You give people better options, and overall you get better results. Sure, some people are so stupid/lazy/evil that they will have bad outcomes regardless of the assistance/intervention/wealth they have. This explains people like Paris Hilton and Ted Bundy. On the other hand, you hear the occasional heart-warming tale of a kid from the ghetto, with drug-addicted parents, who somehow avoids gangs, studies hard, and ends up at Harvard. So outliers definitely occur on both ends.

Still, for the majority of people in the middle, the circumstances of birth and upbringing can have life-changing consequences for both good or ill. Small measures by government, such as NOT SUBSIDIZING unhealthy food and nutritional education can go a long way in modifying behavior. If we could improve outcomes by only 20%, we'd save billions of dollars in health care expenses.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I'll leave judgment on the accuracy of the first sentence of your last paragraph to those who have undertaken to improve the nutritional issues that plague lower income neighborhoods. I only hope those individuals answer that question honestly so their noble efforts are not doomed to failure.

One thing for sure though, too many Americans are obese. We definitely need to correct that. Hopefully, well-intentioned education from liberals to the poor is the way. Otherwise, we may have to undertake more drastic measures, such as heavy taxation on the most unhealthy foods. The stick versus the carrot, if you will.

I'm not really talking about education. Did you read that article? I'm trying not to speak with an air of authority, because I haven't even read the guys book yet. But it makes sense.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by skipcromer

Ok lets look at the 10 for 10 thing.

Lets say those 10 burgers lasted you for five days, eating 2 a day.

If I ate two sandwiches a day that you were suggesting, I would not make it 5 days on a lb of turkey.

The costs just dont add up.

I'd go to Jewel and come back with a full report on the actual cost of 10 turkey sandwiches but I think this line of argument misses the point. Ask yourself this question -- are people who live in low income areas frugal? Not as a general rule. So I don't think the people on the quarter pounder. fry and soda diet are running the numbers and making that choice because 10 double cheeseburgers are $10 and 10 turkey and cheese sandwiches are $12, if you know what I mean. And of course they could go to the cheaper GoCubs1 diet of PBJ, tuna and egg sandwiches in any event. But they will not, because fast food is easier, and tastes better.

[Costa Rica Chica]

The reason why our poor are obese and other countries aren't is because fast food is cheaper here than healthier staples. For example, in Central America McDonalds is actually more expensive there than here, and add in that people there make less money - it's not as economic. However, rice, beans, fruits and veggies are dirt cheap. It's MUCH cheaper to cook than to go to a fast food restaurant. It's the opposite here.

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I'd go to Jewel and come back with a full report on the actual cost of 10 turkey sandwiches but I think this line of argument misses the point. Ask yourself this question -- are people who live in low income areas frugal? Not as a general rule. So I don't think the people on the quarter pounder. fry and soda diet are running the numbers and making that choice because 10 double cheeseburgers are $10 and 10 turkey and cheese sandwiches are $12, if you know what I mean. And of course they could go to the cheaper GoCubs1 diet of PBJ, tuna and egg sandwiches in any event. But they will not, because fast food is easier, and tastes better.

Yes, I do think that people who live in low income do eat fast food (particularly Mcdonalds) because of how cheap it is. Apparantly Mcdonalds does as well, judging by their recent ad campaigns.

Why do you think Kool Aid has become part of the culture of those lower on the socioeconomic food chain. Because its a cheaper alternative to pop.