> Walmart is perhaps the most egregious example of this. Walmart doesn’t pay its workers very well. And because it pays its workers so poorly, they have to rely on food stamps and food banks to make ends meet. So then, Walmart goes ahead and uses its charitable donations to pay food banks, to pay anti-hunger groups to support SNAP—which enables [Walmart] to pay its workers low wages. And then it also redeems about 1 in 6 SNAP dollars around the country.
Yet another argument for raising the minimum wage in the short term and moving to basic income in the medium-to-long term. The current system boils down to company scrip with added obfuscation.
Yeah, Walmart uses welfare to subsidize their business. From a capitalistic standpoint, it's a genius strategy. From a moral standpoint it's deplorable IMO.
Anyone who hires low wage workers domestically does this really, if I was supreme leader I'd abolish the tax write off for firms that pay a wage below the cost of living and consider additional taxes directed at that group (also resolve the welfare cliff but that is a separate issue keeping wages low) to level the playing field. Our tax code incentives behavior that we want to discourage.
What if the premise is wrong or misguided? In other words, Walmart doesn't pay well because retail doesn't pay well.
Nobody is forcing people to work at Walmart, and if they could, wouldn't they find better paying jobs? What keeps people working at walmart? Is it possible the rest of the retail sector isn't able to pay much more so they're all in the same boat?
If your company makes so little money that your employees literally can't eat and make rent, then your business has failed and it's not up to the government to prop it up.
I get it, but most of retail is Hemorrhaging money. Don't get me wrong, I want to see everyone being paid what they're worth and then some but most people I see argue about retail wages, they single out Walmart but don't have any data to explain why.
I applied for a Walmart job years ago, when they told me the rate of pay (below what I was making back then) I declined and they asked a few demographic questions and printed out a sheet with all the "benefits they can offer me". It was a list of all the welfare programs in my state. It's part of the sales pitch for the job, they will also keep you part time just below the threshold of where you lose benefits at your request. As a capitalist I'm tired of subsidizing Walmart and businesses like it they simply aren't acting in good faith.
Except the article basically argues for the opposite of guaranteed minimum income. For example, it argues against the food choice provisions of the SNAP program.
I used to say this too, but then I realized I didn't actually believe it. In order for that to be true I'd have to believe that we could remove SNAP and Walmart workers would be unaffected because they'd just be able to demand higher wages. Since I don't believe Walmart workers would be able to demand higher wages, then SNAP must not be subsidizing Walmart's payroll.
I do agree with the last sentence of your first paragraph though. Walmart benefits MUCH more from non-employee SNAP beneficiaries than it could ever save in employee wages. And it's not just the SNAP dollars it redeems. Every earned dollar not spent on food (because of SNAP) is a dollar that same person could spend on clothing or other goods sold at Walmart.
>Yet another argument for raising the minimum wage
Raising the minimum wage harms the lowest skilled and most poorly educated workers. If your productivity warrants $10/hr but the minimum wage is $15/hr, you're simply unemployed. First we provide poor people with abhorrent schooling in our failing public school system, denying them the skills they need to get a decent job, and then we require employers prejudice against these same vulnerable workers. Sure, the workers on the margins of being worth $15/hr get a boost, but everyone under them on the economic ladder is harmed until inflation catches up and washes out the raise.
"If your productivity warrants $10/hr but the minimum wage is $15/hr, you're simply unemployed"
That assumes that your productivity is absolute and not relative. And productivity is always relative. In other words, what makes a company viable is the cost structure of its competitors. If competitors are local than a minimum wage rise has little effect on employment. If competitors are international than a local minimum wage rise has a major effect.
The vast majority of minimum wage jobs in the States are in service industries with local competitors.
Automation is also a local competitor. Disability (leaving the workforce altogether) is also a local competitor. The labor participation rate today matches the rate in the 1970s, when we largely weren't allowing women to get jobs.
Why should it be the responsibility of businesses that require low skill workers to pay above market wages as a form of social welfare instead of having the government handle it using taxes collected from everyone?
Because minimum wage is a form of direct payment that is not antithetical to certain political persuasions and direct payment subsidies tend to be more efficient than other forms of governmental social welfare?
(Note: I don't feel qualified to argue this point but its the common response and there is lots of evidence of improved social welfare in places with higher minimum wages)
Because American's food supply has been so overly-manufactured and processed that it doesn't really satisfy hunger and nutrition, but rather addictive cravings.
This. I've worked in food banks and an operation offering low-income persons and the homeless free food. While I applaud the organizations and people trying to do something, a lot of the food we give out is junk. Lots of high-carb, highly processed, high-additive containing foods.
The sad part is that I recall when at one operation I worked at people didn't want the fresh stuff when we got it. Sadly, I think they are addicted to the processed garbage.
This. I've worked in food banks and an operation offering low-income persons and the homeless free food. While I applaud the organizations and people trying to do something, a lot of the food we give out is junk. Lots of high-carb, highly processed, high-additive containing foods.
The sad part is that I recall when at one operation I worked at people didn't want the fresh stuff when we got it. Sadly, I think they are addicted to the processed garbage.
> They’re using those resources in a way that allows corporations to come in as problem solvers rather than problem causers—but to also not really address the root causes and to perpetuate the problem through just treating the symptoms of it.
I feel like I would understand what the whole article means if I could unlock the mysteries of this paragraph.
Food banks as a concept don't make any sense. We already have a well-developed food distribution system: it's called grocery stores. There is no way food banks can accomplish the procurement and delivery function at lower cost than existing retail channels. That militates towards simply writing people a check with which to buy food.
There is a small subset of the population that would use that check to buy drugs or the like instead of buying food for their kids. Those people don't need food banks, they need to be assigned a social worker.
That paragraphs seems to be a (somewhat mangled) summation of a lot of systems dynamics thinking. By trying to solve the symptoms of a problem, you might turn a knob in exactly the wrong direction it needs to be turned, which would exacerbate rather than relieve the root cause.
The idea is akin to this: You have a cold, but you take medication to prevent it from hampering your work. However, this means you do not rest, which would cure the cold. The moment you stop receiving the medication, the cold resurfaces.
In this situation, the cold is the root cause, the medication is the corporate 'problem solution', but the medication is also perpetuating the cold by making the proper solution less attractive.
The proper solution would be to change incentives such that sick workers are allowed to, and comfortable with, taking time to let the cold clear.
No, we get mad at those too. Trust me, if I could I would shred the IRS Tax Code and simplify it.
I also canvassed in Des Moines, Iowa in 2008 for a presidential candidate who was _not_ in favor of farm subsidies, and was especially against corn-ethanol subsidies. It, surprisingly, didn't come up that much?
"The hunger problem" is clearly someone else's problem, but what would be America's problem? Something about competing with other countries in various aspects of power, while mainaining and servicing its internal power structure, probably.
It doesn't generate shareholder value. Unless you're a grocery store or food producer whose customers are subsidized by food stamps or similar programs.
Feeding people also reduces the risk of a revolution (whether peaceful or violent) forcibly changing our power structures.
Is there a hunger problem, or is there a poverty problem?
The USA has an obesity crisis and the overwhelming majority of the population is fat, obese, or morbidly obese. Is that hunger? Or is that from poverty? Or something else?
It's from bad food. It's been overly processed to where there is no nutrition, so actual problems of hunger and malnutrition are no longer addressed. Just cravings.
But is someone really hungry or starving if they're overweight or obese?
They may be feeling hungry, or have cravings, or have some other side effect of destroying a bodies ability to handle insulin, much like a drug addict feels cravings for their drug, but is that hunger? Or just a side effect of abusing food like any other vice or intoxicant?
I'd imagine where hunger is real elsewhere in the world, and people are genuinely starving, lacking food, and otherwise malnourished, they'd find this type of discussion in the fattest country on earth to be offensive.
> But is someone really hungry or starving if they're overweight or obese?
Maybe, yes. It's easy for someone with an ample supply of cheap, crappy food to have both a calorie surplus and a nutrient deficit. These people are absolutely "malnourished" even if they're obese, and are a significant burden on the public health system. Food security is not just about access to adequate calories, it's about access to nutritious foods, to foods that make people feel full without eating to excess, etc. But vegetables are dramatically more expensive than soda per calorie.
> vegetables are dramatically more expensive than soda per calorie.
That's a poor measure of comparison. Vegetarians are healthy and easily survive without a problem on vegetables only (and calorie wise 50% or far less of what the "daily recommended intake" often is) whereas nobody is going to survive on soda alone.
Nutrition is not only about the quantity of calories but also about their quality. If you look at the food Intake of some impoverished fat person you're likely to find that they consume too many calories of low quality food void of proper nutrients fats and proteins but full of sugars and fast carbs. That's not only because of education but also cause the crap food is the only thing accessible and affordable to someone in the low income end and/or living off food stamps.
> but also cause the crap food is the only thing accessible and affordable
I hear this often, but it is much more expensive per meal to buy prepackaged garbage food, microwaveable meals, junk etc, than visiting the vegetable section along with bulk rice or beans, and meat. The difference is the latter requires 20-30 minutes of cooking and some minimal effort, whereas microwaving the package garbage meal takes 2 minutes.
Not everyone likes to cook, and many people don't want to deal with cooking after they're tired from a day at work, but it's not really about affordability until you're approaching organic foods.
About 1/3 of the country is at a normal or underweight BMI.
About 1/8 of the country experiences food insecurity.
So there is plenty of room for the majority of the food insecure to not be obese. I'm not making a claim either way, just pointing out that there is lots of room for that explanation in the statistics; further information required.
If you think about it, all social problems stem from a single word:
superiority.
So, why can't America solve the hunger problem? Because there are some who want to be superior to others. The end. The main value of being a "have" is not being a "have not". So if you give things to the "have nots", then you've undermined the "haves" (the distance between them has decreased)
>But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
It's also worth noting that Obamacare was originally a republican idea but since it was associated with Obama, they hate it.
Taking your view on Republican's inner psychology from Krugman is about as reliable as asking Sean Hannity what animates Democrats. That hardly even rises to the level of "unfounded accusation".
> It's also worth noting that Obamacare was originally a republican idea
No, the “mandate and subsidy” thing was originally an insurance industry idea, floated arond the time of Bill Clinton's healthcare reform efforts as what they would rather see.
Republican politicians later picked it up, but it didn't come from them. (And by the time the ACA was being floated, those Republicans who still supported a mandate plus subsidy approach wanted it limited to HDHP + HSA plans, which had become a major Republican idea during the Bush Administration, where mandatory at-risk personal investment accounts—not only HSAs, but also, for example, similar accounts as a replacement for all or part of Social Security—were a recurring theme in Republican policy proposals.)
It's assuming so much about people's motives. I work to get money, yeah, but I mostly work just so that I can be comfortable and get cool stuff, not so that I can one-up other people.
And if you take tabeth's argument to it's conclusion--- anyone who makes money is just trying to be a greedy sociopath and wants to push down their fellow man. Which is think is trivially false.
That's a strange conclusion to make from my pretty innocent comment. Projection? Besides, pushing down someone and failing to aid them are not the same thing. I'm surprised there's even disagreement here. Our entire society is based on an implicit caste system. We've involved from animals who use social rankings, etc.
It's not a strange conclusion at all! You're saying that all social problems stem from a desire for superiority, and you're including income inequality as a problem, so anyone who makes more than average is greedy, and you're saying that humans are essentially always guilty of coveting.
And to quote your HN profile-- "if you're going to claim something, please cite!" I've gotta turn that around and apply it to your "all social problems stem from a single word: superiority." claim.
2. Your assertion "anyone who makes more than average is greedy" is your own opinion and claim.
3. "saying that humans are essentially always guilty of coveting" is also your own claim, and one that I did not make.
In summary, it seems you're projecting some things you believe onto me.
Your last portion is well taken, though. Unfortunately for such a grand claim like the one I made, there (practically) can't be a study that irrefutably proves it. However, most of the modern social issues are inherently ones of superiority, including:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Agism
Arguably any act that harms anyone else is an act of "superiority." For you must believe your ideology or yourself to be superior in order to invoke it. When there are options there will be comparison, and when there's comparison there must be superiority as there's judgment. To judge is only human.
Ah, cool. I'll absolutely grant that racism, sexism and agism are all acts of superiority. And "superiority" is a really good way to enrapture the idea of these different biases, that makes sense.
Buuuuuuut you posted in a thread about _Hunger_. Hunger comes from poverty-- you're right that income inequality is maybe the wrong word for it, I was taking it a step farther. But from the context, it did feel like you were trying to say the poverty comes from people enacting superiority. And #2 and #3 are my trying to derive other moral positions your that assertion-- so let's put them to the side.
But cool, I'm glad we came to a closer understanding. I thought you were taking the common anti-capitalist position that "all businesses are evil!" or something.
Well, by some markers they were quite successful. When comparing socialist countries with capitalist counterparts of the same GDP/capita then the socialist countries were doing remarkably well.
Sure we are not thought this in the west. Remember "history is written by the victors"?
I fail to see what socialism has to do with my comment. I am not even making a value judgment on whether or not superiority is bad, it's just an empirical fact.
I read most of this article and skimmed the rest--- there doesn't seem to be a consistent thesis?
Allowing soda and other "junk" food maybe isn't the best thing, and I'm sure there is some mild bed-sharing between Kraft/BigSoda and the foodbanks, but I'm also in favor of letting people spend their benefits how they choose to.
Andy Fisher also recommends a higher minimum wage, which I disagree with. It makes it harder for people to get started in a job, and also if there are a lot more people applying for $15 jobs than there are jobs, it opens the likelyhood that discrimination will take place.
Economists are kinda uncertain about this though: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage The conclusion seems to be "$15 isn't that high of a wage so it won't distort the market that much."
"I read most of this article and skimmed the rest--- there doesn't seem to be a consistent thesis?"
Hunger isn't a solved problem in the United States, and it's either because the food banks aren't doing a good enough job, the corporations are too cozy with the "anti-hunger complex", the government isn't doing a good enough job, income inequality is too high, or because the public thinks that that food drives do more good than they actually do.
I'm first in line to point out that things in reality have complicated causes, but I have to agree that this is all over the board and if I put on my manager's hat, I don't think any group comes away with any actionable items from it.
North Americans are the most wasteful people in the world [1] and I have a suspicion that the USA Government is the most wasteful in the world too (tons of articles about wasteful spending).
I've worked with the very low income, and Wal-Mart (and McDonald's) are at top of their respective categories as desired jobs. Both pay better than most alternatives. Our state's Wal-Mart entry jobs pay 20% more than minimum wage.
> "pays its workers so poorly, they have to rely on food stamps and food banks to make ends meet."
Wal-Mart, by quota, hires people their diversity report calls "people of color". In 2015, 51% of people Wal-Mart hired were "people of color". At least in my state, African-Americans are six times more likely to be on food stamps. If Wal-Mart hiring matched the general population ratios, then their food stamp stats would look much more like the general population.
There are real problems in the word, but Wal-Mart's wages aren't one of them - they pay better than the alternatives. I really don't get the Wal-Mart hate.
But having helped someone fill out a job application for McDonalds, I'd personally take a programmer interview any day. That was way too many fricking questions.
> At least in my state, African-Americans are six times more likely to be on food stamps. If Wal-Mart hiring matched the general population ratios, then their food stamp stats would look much more like the general population.
Are you saying that people of color are six times more likely to be on SNAP at the same household income level, or that if Wal-Mart hired white people then they would pay them more?
In my state, at the same individual income levels, people of color have a higher rate of being on SNAP than the overall the population at that income level.
I have a different take on the article. Wal-Mart is merely an example that the author found relevant. You can substitute by any other alternative.
The point the author wants to drive home is that the minimum wage is so low, workers can't provide for their family without supplementing it with food stamps. Because they have food stamps, Wal-Mart and alternatives keep the wages low. Food industry also profit from food stamp massively, so they have incentive to keep wages low so more workers need them and spend them here.
This is a vicious circle, that doesn't help worker escape food insecurity.
I think one of the main issues here is assuming that jobs that pay minimum wage are (or should be) meant to support a family. There is all kinds of politics swirling around this issue, but one simple fact remains: a worker must create more value for their employer than it costs to compensate them. Just raising the minimum wage isn't going to help if the work isn't providing the necessary value. Sure, prices can rise to the consumers, but other market pressures will be at work to counteract such a rise (think automation, etc).
I think it is much more important to try and train/educate workers such that they aren't dependent on minimum wage jobs for their livelihoods. Then those jobs can be what they are supposed to be: entry points to the workforce that allow workers to develop skills and move on.
The author might have been using Wal-Mart as an example, but in general there's a trend in the American political left to shit on Wal-Mart because of the reasons given, and because they're a gigantic business. It gets kind of tinfoily-hat.
The root cause, IMO, is rent-seeking. Various groups can achieve their goals through making it more expensive to be poor. Parking tickets, land rents, civil forfeiture, bank fees, occupational licensing and restrictions, regressive taxation, de-facto requirements for university degrees, wage theft, and probably more things that I don't have the time to dive into.
We the resources to end hunger in America. The massive reduction in workforce dedicated to agriculture is evidence of that. The problem is that "or you'll starve" is a highly effective tool to coerce economic rents out of people, so efforts reducing the amount of hunger just means that rentiers can squeeze more out of those barely making it.
> Sixty percent of the non-elderly who receive food stamps are in households where there’s at least one person working.
This was the stat I was curious about. But it is generally underwhelming.. Should 1 person working in a household really expect to be able to feed, house, and clothe everyone? And if 40% of people on food stamps don't have jobs.. that seems like a much more obvious starting point. They are potentially capable* of working, but are not. Why is that?
*barring mental illness, disability, etc. Which is another issue I think could be solved sooner than rebuilding the entire food welfare system.
where "food insecurity" is not the same thing as starving, or getting enough calories in a day to survive (although it can include severe lack of food.) Food insecurity can be more about not being able to afford balanced meals, or not getting enough to eat some of the time.
America can't solve the hunger problem because a significant and politically powerful segment of America is ideologically devoted to capitalism, and hunger (more generally, the threat of being unable to meet basic life necessities) is the whip at labor's back on which capitalism depends.
Hunger is not a problem for capitalists, it's a solution.
(The article seems more about the network of interests that have grown up to profit off the determination of America to not solve hunger while paying lip service to the ideal of doing so, but that's not the root of the failure tomsolve hunger.)
The US throws away 50% of all food produced. Because it isn't "pretty enough" to be sold in retail stores. So America absolutely can solve the hunger problem. It just doesn't want to.
81 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadYet another argument for raising the minimum wage in the short term and moving to basic income in the medium-to-long term. The current system boils down to company scrip with added obfuscation.
I do agree with the last sentence of your first paragraph though. Walmart benefits MUCH more from non-employee SNAP beneficiaries than it could ever save in employee wages. And it's not just the SNAP dollars it redeems. Every earned dollar not spent on food (because of SNAP) is a dollar that same person could spend on clothing or other goods sold at Walmart.
>Yet another argument for raising the minimum wage
Raising the minimum wage harms the lowest skilled and most poorly educated workers. If your productivity warrants $10/hr but the minimum wage is $15/hr, you're simply unemployed. First we provide poor people with abhorrent schooling in our failing public school system, denying them the skills they need to get a decent job, and then we require employers prejudice against these same vulnerable workers. Sure, the workers on the margins of being worth $15/hr get a boost, but everyone under them on the economic ladder is harmed until inflation catches up and washes out the raise.
Actually economists are uncertain about that. It's not as simple as you make it seem.
That assumes that your productivity is absolute and not relative. And productivity is always relative. In other words, what makes a company viable is the cost structure of its competitors. If competitors are local than a minimum wage rise has little effect on employment. If competitors are international than a local minimum wage rise has a major effect.
The vast majority of minimum wage jobs in the States are in service industries with local competitors.
Why should it be the responsibility of businesses that require low skill workers to pay above market wages as a form of social welfare instead of having the government handle it using taxes collected from everyone?
(Note: I don't feel qualified to argue this point but its the common response and there is lots of evidence of improved social welfare in places with higher minimum wages)
The sad part is that I recall when at one operation I worked at people didn't want the fresh stuff when we got it. Sadly, I think they are addicted to the processed garbage.
The sad part is that I recall when at one operation I worked at people didn't want the fresh stuff when we got it. Sadly, I think they are addicted to the processed garbage.
You can keep people from going hungry by doing that, but it doesn't address the underlying problem and in fact it likely perpetuates it.
No more fish.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/november8/ocean-110806.ht...
I feel like I would understand what the whole article means if I could unlock the mysteries of this paragraph.
Food banks as a concept don't make any sense. We already have a well-developed food distribution system: it's called grocery stores. There is no way food banks can accomplish the procurement and delivery function at lower cost than existing retail channels. That militates towards simply writing people a check with which to buy food.
There is a small subset of the population that would use that check to buy drugs or the like instead of buying food for their kids. Those people don't need food banks, they need to be assigned a social worker.
In this situation, the cold is the root cause, the medication is the corporate 'problem solution', but the medication is also perpetuating the cold by making the proper solution less attractive.
The proper solution would be to change incentives such that sick workers are allowed to, and comfortable with, taking time to let the cold clear.
I also canvassed in Des Moines, Iowa in 2008 for a presidential candidate who was _not_ in favor of farm subsidies, and was especially against corn-ethanol subsidies. It, surprisingly, didn't come up that much?
"The hunger problem" is clearly someone else's problem, but what would be America's problem? Something about competing with other countries in various aspects of power, while mainaining and servicing its internal power structure, probably.
How relevant is feeding people to that?
It doesn't generate shareholder value. Unless you're a grocery store or food producer whose customers are subsidized by food stamps or similar programs.
Feeding people also reduces the risk of a revolution (whether peaceful or violent) forcibly changing our power structures.
The USA has an obesity crisis and the overwhelming majority of the population is fat, obese, or morbidly obese. Is that hunger? Or is that from poverty? Or something else?
They may be feeling hungry, or have cravings, or have some other side effect of destroying a bodies ability to handle insulin, much like a drug addict feels cravings for their drug, but is that hunger? Or just a side effect of abusing food like any other vice or intoxicant?
I'd imagine where hunger is real elsewhere in the world, and people are genuinely starving, lacking food, and otherwise malnourished, they'd find this type of discussion in the fattest country on earth to be offensive.
Maybe, yes. It's easy for someone with an ample supply of cheap, crappy food to have both a calorie surplus and a nutrient deficit. These people are absolutely "malnourished" even if they're obese, and are a significant burden on the public health system. Food security is not just about access to adequate calories, it's about access to nutritious foods, to foods that make people feel full without eating to excess, etc. But vegetables are dramatically more expensive than soda per calorie.
That's a poor measure of comparison. Vegetarians are healthy and easily survive without a problem on vegetables only (and calorie wise 50% or far less of what the "daily recommended intake" often is) whereas nobody is going to survive on soda alone.
I hear this often, but it is much more expensive per meal to buy prepackaged garbage food, microwaveable meals, junk etc, than visiting the vegetable section along with bulk rice or beans, and meat. The difference is the latter requires 20-30 minutes of cooking and some minimal effort, whereas microwaving the package garbage meal takes 2 minutes.
Not everyone likes to cook, and many people don't want to deal with cooking after they're tired from a day at work, but it's not really about affordability until you're approaching organic foods.
About 1/8 of the country experiences food insecurity.
So there is plenty of room for the majority of the food insecure to not be obese. I'm not making a claim either way, just pointing out that there is lots of room for that explanation in the statistics; further information required.
superiority.
So, why can't America solve the hunger problem? Because there are some who want to be superior to others. The end. The main value of being a "have" is not being a "have not". So if you give things to the "have nots", then you've undermined the "haves" (the distance between them has decreased)
>But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
It's also worth noting that Obamacare was originally a republican idea but since it was associated with Obama, they hate it.
No, the “mandate and subsidy” thing was originally an insurance industry idea, floated arond the time of Bill Clinton's healthcare reform efforts as what they would rather see.
Republican politicians later picked it up, but it didn't come from them. (And by the time the ACA was being floated, those Republicans who still supported a mandate plus subsidy approach wanted it limited to HDHP + HSA plans, which had become a major Republican idea during the Bush Administration, where mandatory at-risk personal investment accounts—not only HSAs, but also, for example, similar accounts as a replacement for all or part of Social Security—were a recurring theme in Republican policy proposals.)
And if you take tabeth's argument to it's conclusion--- anyone who makes money is just trying to be a greedy sociopath and wants to push down their fellow man. Which is think is trivially false.
And to quote your HN profile-- "if you're going to claim something, please cite!" I've gotta turn that around and apply it to your "all social problems stem from a single word: superiority." claim.
2. Your assertion "anyone who makes more than average is greedy" is your own opinion and claim.
3. "saying that humans are essentially always guilty of coveting" is also your own claim, and one that I did not make.
In summary, it seems you're projecting some things you believe onto me.
Your last portion is well taken, though. Unfortunately for such a grand claim like the one I made, there (practically) can't be a study that irrefutably proves it. However, most of the modern social issues are inherently ones of superiority, including:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Agism
Arguably any act that harms anyone else is an act of "superiority." For you must believe your ideology or yourself to be superior in order to invoke it. When there are options there will be comparison, and when there's comparison there must be superiority as there's judgment. To judge is only human.
Buuuuuuut you posted in a thread about _Hunger_. Hunger comes from poverty-- you're right that income inequality is maybe the wrong word for it, I was taking it a step farther. But from the context, it did feel like you were trying to say the poverty comes from people enacting superiority. And #2 and #3 are my trying to derive other moral positions your that assertion-- so let's put them to the side.
But cool, I'm glad we came to a closer understanding. I thought you were taking the common anti-capitalist position that "all businesses are evil!" or something.
Sure we are not thought this in the west. Remember "history is written by the victors"?
I'd say it is "oppression".
Allowing soda and other "junk" food maybe isn't the best thing, and I'm sure there is some mild bed-sharing between Kraft/BigSoda and the foodbanks, but I'm also in favor of letting people spend their benefits how they choose to.
Andy Fisher also recommends a higher minimum wage, which I disagree with. It makes it harder for people to get started in a job, and also if there are a lot more people applying for $15 jobs than there are jobs, it opens the likelyhood that discrimination will take place.
Economists are kinda uncertain about this though: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/15-minimum-wage The conclusion seems to be "$15 isn't that high of a wage so it won't distort the market that much."
Hunger isn't a solved problem in the United States, and it's either because the food banks aren't doing a good enough job, the corporations are too cozy with the "anti-hunger complex", the government isn't doing a good enough job, income inequality is too high, or because the public thinks that that food drives do more good than they actually do.
I'm first in line to point out that things in reality have complicated causes, but I have to agree that this is all over the board and if I put on my manager's hat, I don't think any group comes away with any actionable items from it.
[1] https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf
I've worked with the very low income, and Wal-Mart (and McDonald's) are at top of their respective categories as desired jobs. Both pay better than most alternatives. Our state's Wal-Mart entry jobs pay 20% more than minimum wage.
> "pays its workers so poorly, they have to rely on food stamps and food banks to make ends meet."
Wal-Mart, by quota, hires people their diversity report calls "people of color". In 2015, 51% of people Wal-Mart hired were "people of color". At least in my state, African-Americans are six times more likely to be on food stamps. If Wal-Mart hiring matched the general population ratios, then their food stamp stats would look much more like the general population.
There are real problems in the word, but Wal-Mart's wages aren't one of them - they pay better than the alternatives. I really don't get the Wal-Mart hate.
But having helped someone fill out a job application for McDonalds, I'd personally take a programmer interview any day. That was way too many fricking questions.
Are you saying that people of color are six times more likely to be on SNAP at the same household income level, or that if Wal-Mart hired white people then they would pay them more?
The point the author wants to drive home is that the minimum wage is so low, workers can't provide for their family without supplementing it with food stamps. Because they have food stamps, Wal-Mart and alternatives keep the wages low. Food industry also profit from food stamp massively, so they have incentive to keep wages low so more workers need them and spend them here.
This is a vicious circle, that doesn't help worker escape food insecurity.
I think it is much more important to try and train/educate workers such that they aren't dependent on minimum wage jobs for their livelihoods. Then those jobs can be what they are supposed to be: entry points to the workforce that allow workers to develop skills and move on.
We the resources to end hunger in America. The massive reduction in workforce dedicated to agriculture is evidence of that. The problem is that "or you'll starve" is a highly effective tool to coerce economic rents out of people, so efforts reducing the amount of hunger just means that rentiers can squeeze more out of those barely making it.
This was the stat I was curious about. But it is generally underwhelming.. Should 1 person working in a household really expect to be able to feed, house, and clothe everyone? And if 40% of people on food stamps don't have jobs.. that seems like a much more obvious starting point. They are potentially capable* of working, but are not. Why is that?
*barring mental illness, disability, etc. Which is another issue I think could be solved sooner than rebuilding the entire food welfare system.
hunger problem => food insecurity
where "food insecurity" is not the same thing as starving, or getting enough calories in a day to survive (although it can include severe lack of food.) Food insecurity can be more about not being able to afford balanced meals, or not getting enough to eat some of the time.
I recommend the linked report, Household Food Security in the United States in 2015: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=797...
Hunger is not a problem for capitalists, it's a solution.
(The article seems more about the network of interests that have grown up to profit off the determination of America to not solve hunger while paying lip service to the ideal of doing so, but that's not the root of the failure tomsolve hunger.)