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.
You are misstating the analysis of the study. It is significantly more sophisticated than you imply. The linked study is a meta-analysis of other studies dating back to 2000. In order to learn what "produce" and "snacks" means in the context of this study, you need to refer back to the 2010 study from which that data came. I'll wait . . .
See if you can find a breakdown of which foods they compared, because I can't. The methodology is discussed but not the actual foods they used.
The biggest problem with these studies is that they typically compare fresh fruits and vegetables to grains/starch-based junk food in terms of calories per $, which is a loaded comparison. Grains, healthy or not, are cheaper than every other category of food. Of course corn chips are cheaper than broccoli per calorie, but are they cheaper than frozen corn? No. Potato chips are cheaper per calorie than apples but they're not cheaper than whole potatoes? Frozen bean burritos are cheaper than an orange per calorie but they're not cheaper than dry beans?
One example:
A 9.5 oz bag of Lay's classic potato chips has 1,520 calories, a 10-lb. bag of potatoes has 3,500 calories and they cost virtually the same. The junk food version is more expensive per calorie.
You can't buy potatoes from a farmer, ship them to your factory, pay for advertising, a 22% profit margin (which is what Frito Lay's is), shareholder dividends, stock buybacks, production employees, environmental coordinators, human resources, plant managers, directors of operations, traffic coordinators, CEOs, COOs, accountants, 401k matching, healthcare, worker's comp, shipping, electricity, gas, water, maintenance and upkeep, packaging, waste disposal, FICA taxes, and on and on and on, and have them sell for less than what it costs to just buy potatoes. That is why processed food is more expensive than whole food.
Having said that, price per calorie is not even a good comparison in the first place because when people eat junk food they typically overconsume calories because junk food provides little satiety. They're often already eating, say 500 above maintenance, so it doesn't matter if more filling/healthier food has 500 fewer calories, their caloric maintenance level is still being met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Have you got a better study, or is it just your gut feel that healthy food is cheaper?
Here's one from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service:
The base is a cheap carbohydrate: potato, rice, beans, sweet potato, cassava, quinoa, wheat, etc.
Add to that cheap fruits and vegetables: cabbage, broccoli, carrots, peas, lettuce, onions, greens, bananas, chile peppers, eggplant, plantains, melons, apples, etc.
Round that out with small amounts of inexpensive protein: fish, meat, nuts, eggs, tofu, often mixed in with the starch and vegetables or in soups or stews. Fat and bones are used to flavor things as are liberal use of herbs and spices.
This is how average person eats in poor countries where they can't afford junk food. That's also how the average American family ate 60 years ago before people became more affluent/lazy and forgot how to cook. That's how I ate when I was dirt poor living off of $15k a year and paying off student loans and credit card bills.
There are healthy foods that are more expensive, e.g. ahi tuna, fresh mangostein, dragon fruit, quality olives, out of season berries, etc. but you don't have to eat those foods to eat a healthy diet. If you have a certain amount of money to spend on food, a diet similar to the above one beats a processed junk food diet in price every time in every country and it's not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
So I assume that you agree that government taxes and provides benefits--that it does not confiscate. You must realize that our system of government involves myriad cross-subsidies, so you won't get back the same money that you pay in taxes. Why should it matter to anyone whether you, personally, receive benefits. The point is that we all pay taxes and we all get some benefits.
Why should it matter what I receive for the money I pay in taxes? Is that a serious question?
I wouldn't call taxation "confiscation," it's part of living in a civilized society, but there are good and bad uses of tax dollars and there is fair and unfair taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
$4.77 an hour in Amarillo, Dallas, Hill Country, Texarkana? Makes a big difference, I would think.
$4.77 is an average for all of Texas. Some places more, some less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You are just wrong about the entry point for middle class neighborhoods in SF, though. There are many apartments for rent in SF under $2000. Take a look at Craigslist. And that is to say nothing of shared housing and rent control. And I'm sure you are aware that salaries and wages are higher here than most places. Again, these local issues really are not the subject of this thread, and I'm not sure exactly how you believe they connect. Feel free to establish a connection, though.
Yes, wages are higher, but not nearly enough to make up for cost of living. According to census.gov the median household income in San Francisco from 2008-2012 is $73,802. Cost of living is 199%. So $73,802/1.99= $37,086. For the nation as a whole it's about $51,000 (with an average cost of living of 100%).
As far as rent control goes I believe a lot of people are being evicted from rent-controlled apartments in San Francisco because of the Ellis act which, as I understand it, allows landowners to evict rent-controlled tenants if they sell the property. I believe it's mostly on its way out in NYC with only grandfathered-in tenants remaining.
Rent control can bring with it a whole host of other problems like decreased labor mobility, housing shortages, lack of maintenance, negative impacts to non-controlled renters, etc. A lot of that is discussed here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.aWc&cad=rja
Unintended consequences seem to be the normal result when the government tries to bypass the laws of economics, e.g. Nixon's wage and price controls or Smoot-Hawley.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 02-25-2014 at 08:25 PM..
With all the talk about raising the minimum wage, I think the real issue is that people are not getting a liveable wage anymore. This applies to many skilled people too in which their job tries to pay them $10-13hr for $20-30hr type of work.
Not everyone deserves a raise at walmart or other low paying jobs. I think everyone should atleast prove themselves for 6 months to year then start to gradually get a raise. You cant act a fool and get paid the same as people who work hard and try to move up in life. Even if walmart workers weren't making minimum wage and making $11hr, you cant really do much making 22k a year other than live in a cheap/borderline crime infested area
$11hr gets you about $1250 a month after taxes and health coverage at most jobs and ill list just the basic necessities in life
600 Rent
100 Utilities
200 Car Payment
150 Gas
125 Insurance
220 Food
50 Cell Phone
40 Internet
20 Home Alarm System or Gym membership EQUALS $1505 a month, with no cable TV, cooking your own food and not going out to eat, a cheap car payment, a basic cell phone plan, a basic home internet plan, and for $600 a month the place you live in might be in a high crime area unless you want to go the roommate route.
So at $11hr, you are $300 a month short of basic necessities, and means you are now taking public transit and the bus is now your best friend, just to break even.
So the minimum wage would have to be atleast $13hr just to be a livable wage for most people, but the the prices of everything would also go up, including rent since most landlords now you are good for a couple extra hundreds of dollars. Either way your back at square one and then people now making $13-20 hr will demand $20-30hr to separate their skills from minimum wage skills.
Lose the car payment, live in a cheaper place or get
a roommate, dump the gym/home alarm and...BAM...
you're living within your means and able to save some money.
Raising the minimum wage will result in every one of your
bills eventually going up proportionally to the wage increase.
You really want to get ahead? Make more, spend less. Pretty simple really.
The only people who want to raise the minimum wage are those who earn it,
and those people are either school kids who don't have any marketable skills,
or the riff-raff of society who don't want any marketable skills.
Did you miss that whole hullaballoo about how much taxpayers subsidize minimum wage jobs with things like food stamps and welfare?
If workers at the bottom make more money, there will be less subsidization required. They'll actually be taking less of the fruits of someone else's labor.
Whose labor are you even talking about anyway? Ronald McDonald?
Taxpayers don't subsidize minimum wage jobs. That's a myth.
So you think that the minimum wage should be abolished?
Simply put, minimum wage does not represent wage earners "keeping the fruits of someone else's labor." That is an inapt comparison, and it is misleading.
Yes, I believe that minimum wage should be abolished (but I didn't say anything about that in the post that you reference).
If the minimum wage is above the market determined wage, than my description is 100% accurate, and is not in any way misleading.
I think I recently saw that around 40% of the population have computers now and are getting online.
Way off. According to the Census Bureau in 2011 (latest year figures available for), it was 75/.6% had computers in the home, with 71.7% on line.
Quote:
Some places that I do business with are online already, though most are not, yet.
Currently in 2014---53% of small businesses have a web site. The ones that do $2.5 million or more, 2/3rds have a website. Source for data, E-Marketer, Barlow Researchers, U.S. Census Bureau, Jupiter Research
Way off. According to the Census Bureau in 2011 (latest year figures available for), it was 75/.6% had computers in the home, with 71.7% on line.
Currently in 2014---53% of small businesses have a web site. The ones that do $2.5 million or more, 2/3rds have a website. Source for data, E-Marketer, Barlow Researchers, U.S. Census Bureau, Jupiter Research
Most people in the USA are urbanites. When I retired I settled to a rural area with a long-term depressed economy. Here the wealth and prosperity of the high-cost cities has not had as much influence.
Most of the land-mass of the USA is rural.
Quote nationwide 'average' stats if you wish. They do not apply everywhere. In fact, they do not apply anywhere. Such is the nature of nationwide averages.
Few have computers here. Not saying that few everywhere in the USA have them. I am certain that somewhere is a place where nearly everyone has a computer.
Here fewer people are wealthy, fewer businesses have computers, etc. It has been a depressed economy.
Im a little late to this party but.....there are 3 basic needs of a human being, a shelter is one of them. (Food and Water being the other) These are BASIC NEEDS to exist. You just claimed that people making minimum wage dont even deserve one of the only three things required to exist on this planet. Doesnt that sound a little odd to you?
Fun fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are 3.6 million workers in the US at or below minimum wage. Your claim is that 3.6 million people dont deserve their own shelter....in what claims to be the greatest nation on Earth. Well done sir, well done.
Excuse me, but what exactly "qualifies" this country as "the greatest nation in earth"? Just curious, because what we do here + what we do to others can't possibly qualify us for such title.
Instead of raising the minimum wage, more good could be done if kids were required to stay in school. It's foolish to let kids drop out of school while they are still minors. Without a basic education, they will have little chance of getting a good job. For all of those who complain about a government-mandated minimum wage: make your own job.
Besides, raising the minimum wage will only spur wage inflation for everyone, leading to overall inflation. The benefits of widespread wage increases are only temporary, since the cost of living will likely increase by an equal or greater amount.
Australia's minimum wage is about 15 bucks an hour (there dollar is roughly equivalent to a US dollar on the exchanges) and their cost of living is about the same, if not slightly less.
The pay difference between top execs and the average worker is far less than it is here in the US.
Lose the car payment, live in a cheaper place or get
a roommate, dump the gym/home alarm and...BAM...
you're living within your means and able to save some money.
Raising the minimum wage will result in every one of your
bills eventually going up proportionally to the wage increase.
You really want to get ahead? Make more, spend less. Pretty simple really.
The only people who want to raise the minimum wage are those who earn it,
and those people are either school kids who don't have any marketable skills,
or the riff-raff of society who don't want any marketable skills.
I dont know what part of the country you live in, but $600 a month for rent is the bare minimum to not live in the ghetto. Anything cheaper will have you living with **** roaches, rats and in a high crime area. I live in metro Atlanta and I see what $600 and under gets you. $4-500 is guaranteed to put you in a bad area in the Atlanta metro. $20 for a alarm system or home owners insurance is not much just to make sure you are not cleaned out completely since you are living in a $600 or less apartment which get broken into all the time. Even if you lost the car payment & insurance, that would bring you even with an 11hr salary, but you better pray your job is close by. In metro Atl things are spread out, so you might have a very long commute everyday on transit, just to get to this chump change job.
And this whole thread is about a livable wage more than the minimum wage, as no burger flipper deserves $10-15hr starting. IF you make $7.25 a hr, you need to live with your parents.
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.
