Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That must be why there was little obesity in the past... there were giant supermarkets in the ghetto And its not just ghetto dwellers that are fat. Geez man shameful
The poor weren't fat back in the day, they were waif thin because there wasn't enough to eat. Now instead of going hungry, we sell them bad food because they can't afford good food. And by afford I am using economic costs, not just monetary costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The have taxis, buses and other forms of mass transit.
That's because the poor forced those stores to close via shrinkage, shop-lifting, harassment, intimidation and riots.
Educating the truly ignorant...
Mircea
You should know that the buses, taxis and other forms of mass transit are not economicable though when considering economic costs. Remember economic costs include monetary, time and resource costs. If the bus line takes 40 minutes to go to the say WinCo 8 miles away and you walk 5 minutes to and from the stop while the Bodega is 10 minutes away walking, what do you pick? Taxis cost what $3-5 for a flag drop and $1 or so per mile, PLUS any stalling from traffic or waiting. At 8 miles, that turns into a $26 round trip WITHOUT gridlock traffic increasing holding time. For someone who claims to be smart with economics, you are rather naive or negligent.
Economics explains why general supermarkets will not enter extremely poor neighborhoods. If they could make a profit, they would, anything to exploit the poor, that's why you will see a plethora of corner stores, many out of state owners which end up being charged with food stamp fraud.
The real driving force why major supermarkets will not enter in extremely poor neighborhoods, (many in Baltimore that were impacted by tremendous urban renewal endeavors from the 50s on that literally divided and split apart mixed, stable neighborhoods), is because they won't make a profit. Low income residents will not be able to afford high-priced goods, especially on limited means. Hence, discount suppliers, like Save-A-Lot, will enter these markets, and purchase bulk, processed foods, canned goods, generic but relatively expensive boxed goods, all which they buy cheaply themselves and mark up to make a small profit. They also sell produce, but, it's often old, and rotting.
Major supermarkets make their profits not just by the sale of expensive goods, but also, the repeat, weekly customer, it's how they can project sales and earnings, budget accordingly. This does not occur with the EBT user who receives their supplemental funds once a month. They'll come in once or twice at most, and it's not a financial guarantee the grocer can rely upon. Especially the EBT user who needs to utilize public transportation to access a far away grocer--they will make the hike once for the month, because of the time required and public transportation expense. How do I know this? I've interviewed a score of operators in the area for work related to food access, healthy eating, and community engagement.
I've lived in one of the most violent cities in the Country for the last ~10 years-I can recall two robberies throughout my residency, one was at a corner store, one was at a more upscale grocer in an upscale neighborhood. Most robberies, the thousands that have occurred throughout my residency, occur on the streets, not supermarkets. If operators were concerned about crime, theft, safety in Baltimore, well, we wouldn't have a single store in the entire County.
The poor weren't fat back in the day, they were waif thin because there wasn't enough to eat. Now instead of going hungry, we sell them bad food because they can't afford good food. And by afford I am using economic costs, not just monetary costs.
You should know that the buses, taxis and other forms of mass transit are not economicable though when considering economic costs. Remember economic costs include monetary, time and resource costs. If the bus line takes 40 minutes to go to the say WinCo 8 miles away and you walk 5 minutes to and from the stop while the Bodega is 10 minutes away walking, what do you pick? Taxis cost what $3-5 for a flag drop and $1 or so per mile, PLUS any stalling from traffic or waiting. At 8 miles, that turns into a $26 round trip WITHOUT gridlock traffic increasing holding time. For someone who claims to be smart with economics, you are rather naive or negligent.
Depends on where they live how much that taxi will cost.
Example: When I lived in Maine, I lived just outside a "city" (if you can call it that). I lived CLOSER to the dispatch center than most of the people did in the city. However, because I was not "from the actual city", I would get charged $15 just to have them show up, and then you add in the fare. Someone from the city could call and the cab driver would have to drive 10 miles to get them. I call, they have to drive one mile to get me, but I have to pay more because I'm not in the actual city.
That happens all over this country. If someone is living in a rural area, and to get to the "cheap healthy food", they have to take a taxi, (because, don't forget, a lot of rural places do not have bus systems that get them where they need to go...heck, even in large cities...say Seattle, for example, there are places that the bus system does not go...I know, I used to have a job that the last mile to work I had to walk because no buses went that way), you have to add in the cost for that taxi to come pick them up because they are not in the city. Everyone seems to conveniently forget these details.
That must be why there was little obesity in the past... there were giant supermarkets in the ghetto And its not just ghetto dwellers that are fat. Geez man shameful
So you miss when poor people in America were malnourished and dying from hunger? I don't know where Teabaggers get off thinking people will be more productive and look for work more when they are starving and waiting in soup lines all day like the Depression rather than having actual food. Funny how you'll never see a Teabagger comment negatively on government bailouts for Wall St or Donald Trump's flagrant abuses of eminent domain Rush really whipped the Tea fascists into a nice little frenzy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The have taxis, buses and other forms of mass transit.
That's because the poor forced those stores to close via shrinkage, shop-lifting, harassment, intimidation and riots.
Educating the truly ignorant...
Mircea
So people should spend an hour commuting each wat to supermarkets in the suburbs and spend more time away from their families? Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about family values? Oh I forgot, its a code phrase made by white supremacists fortearing apart families of color with greedy schemes. I guess you'd rather have the beggar population multiply by ten since you think little kids should starve to death for being born poor. Is your dream putting up a Confederate flag in those neighborhoods when they're all gone?
How did conservatives become ignorant to the point that they don't understand good wholesome foods are generally prohibitively expensive in ghetto areas? You don't have huge suburban supermarkets in poor areas and they're usually an unrealistic commute away. Many inner cities are "food deserts" that your only option for buying foods are small convenience stores, gas stations and liquor stores. So shameful how conservatives have to constantly dump on the poor for being poor.
You're not paying attention to the fact that among the poor, only those who receive food stamps have the MUCH higher rate of obesity. Those who don't receive food stamps have a MUCH lower obesity rate, and while still having a slightly higher obesity rate than higher income earners, certainly aren't starving.
From the USDA:
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
"SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics (46 percent versus 36 percent)."
74% of the households receiving food stamps have children. I suggest that the duplication of services regarding food stamps that are provided for the very same free meals (breakfast and lunch, if not dinner too, every week day including summer and school breaks) kids get at school be investigated as the cause of food stamp recipients being more obese than anyone else (including the poor who don't receive food stamps). Free meals PLUS food stamps for those very same meals could very well be enabling overeating in those households, ruining their health and costing more taxpayer money to fund the associated free health care benefits (Medicaid, CHIP) costs.
27.8% obese is the total amount of Wyong residents obese in the *entire state.* Entire state. That's a huge figure. Especially when comparing to other state data--and, especially considering Wyoming has the least amount of SNAP recipients throughout the Country, only 5% of the entire state population.
Your whole basis for this thread, your entire argument, your repeated posts, have been, SNAP causes obesity. Enroll in SNAP, you're going to become obese. Those slobs, they overeat with SNAP! They double dip! Wyoming's data disproves this backward statement. They have the least amount of SNAP recipients in the entire County, and 1/4 of the population, 1 in 4 is obese.
I'm not sure where your confusion is. Wyoming's obesity rate is LOWER than that of the higher earning population:
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
"SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics (46 percent versus 36 percent)."
Obesity causes and/or contributes to the worsening of health problems. So not only are we disproportionately ruining the poor's health by overfeeding them, but that then also costs taxpayers extra money to fund the resultant obesity-related illnesses via Medicaid and CHIP health care benefits for the poor.
So you miss when poor people in America were malnourished and dying from hunger? I don't know where Teabaggers get off thinking people will be more productive and look for work more when they are starving and waiting in soup lines all day like the Depression rather than having actual food. Funny how you'll never see a Teabagger comment negatively on government bailouts for Wall St or Donald Trump's flagrant abuses of eminent domain Rush really whipped the Tea fascists into a nice little frenzy.
So people should spend an hour commuting each wat to supermarkets in the suburbs and spend more time away from their families? Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about family values? Oh I forgot, its a code phrase made by white supremacists fortearing apart families of color with greedy schemes. I guess you'd rather have the beggar population multiply by ten since you think little kids should starve to death for being born poor. Is your dream putting up a Confederate flag in those neighborhoods when they're all gone?
I don't think you know what a Tea Partier is. Maybe you should work on that before going off half cocked next time.
According to one recent nationally representative sample, obesity prevalence was higher in lower income and education groups, but the rate of increase in obesity over two decades was faster for higher income and education groups (Singh et al., 2011). For instance, between 1992 and 2008, obesity prevalence increased by 42.3 percent for the lower income group compared to 88.5 percent for the higher income group.
It puts a huge financial burden on our health care system. Surely they can afford healthier foods, if they would just make the effort. They can afford a membership to a gym, why don't they get one? Is it because they are too lazy? Or too stupid?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And its not just ghetto dwellers that are fat. Geez man shameful
