Poor people are fat because they can't afford healthy food

[NobleSavage]

Is Cooking Really Cheaper Than Fast Food?

I agree with the message that Slow Food and Bittman are sending here: that from-scratch cooking is absolutely the most powerful tool we have for improving our diets and resisting the food industry's most awful offerings. But I sense a significant accounting error: They omit the cost of labor for the home-cooked meal and include it in the fast-food alternative, which comes begging to be inhaled immediately, no postprandial dish-doing necessary.

The Times calculated the cost of its $14 chicken dinner by summing the price of the individual ingredients: a $6 raw whole chicken, $3 worth of potatoes, a nickel for salt and pepper, etc. But what about the time it takes to plan the dinner, shop for the ingredients, transform them into a meal, and then clean up the resulting mess?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tells us that the median hourly income in the United States is $16.27. Let's say it takes two hours to put the Times' meal together and clean up afterward—for the median US worker, that's about $32 worth of labor. Voilà! Our chicken dinner now costs around $46. Suddenly, that $28 Mickey D's excursion looks like quite the bargain.

Yet that bargain seems deeply problematic. McDonald's adds to its customers' leisure time in part by exploiting its own workers. The labor-adjusted price advantage McDonald's offers over a home-cooked meal largely reflects the fast-food industry's success at de-skilling and low-balling its own workforce. A "cook" at McDonald's doesn't so much cook as oversee the operation of simple-to-use cooking machines. As the BLS puts it: "Duties of these cooks are limited to preparation of a few basic items and normally involve operating large-volume single-purpose cooking equipment." It's no surprise, then, that the median wage listed by the BLS for "Cooks, Fast Food" is $8.70 per hour—just over half of the median wage for all professions.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/cooking-really-cheaper-junk-food-mark-bittman

2 hours and $14 -- what a crock of shit.

More like $7 and less than 30 min. I used to cook chicken breasts at 350 for 30min. I read a chef online who said to try 450 for 20 minutes. It works, and the chicken is juicer. It takes 5 minutes to warm up frozen veggies. I add a teaspoon of olive oil to the veggies and sprinkle a little seasoning on the chicken. So 20 minutes to make and I can talk on the phone or surf the net whille it's cooking. Clean up, 5 minutes max. If I drive to McDonalds and back it would take the same time.

All my meals are less than 30 minutes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is Cooking Really Cheaper Than Fast Food?

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/cooking-really-cheaper-junk-food-mark-bittman

2 hours and $14 -- what a crock of shit.

More like $7 and less than 30 min. I used to cook chicken breasts at 350 for 30min. I read a chef online who said to try 450 for 20 minutes. It works, and the chicken is juicer. It takes 5 minutes to warm up frozen veggies. I add a teaspoon of olive oil to the veggies and sprinkle a little seasoning on the chicken. So 20 minutes to make and I can talk on the phone or surf the net whille it's cooking. Clean up, 5 minutes max. If I drive to McDonalds and back it would take the same time.

All my meals are less than 30 minutes.

So for you who only ever cook chicken breasts with no sides and no children distracting you, no cutting of vegetables, no cleaning of the food, and no variety in the food preparation, always cooking it the same way all the time, you and just you, are exempt from the cost of labor.

 

[NobleSavage]

2 hours and $14 -- what a crock of shit.

More like $7 and less than 30 min. I used to cook chicken breasts at 350 for 30min. I read a chef online who said to try 450 for 20 minutes. It works, and the chicken is juicer. It takes 5 minutes to warm up frozen veggies. I add a teaspoon of olive oil to the veggies and sprinkle a little seasoning on the chicken. So 20 minutes to make and I can talk on the phone or surf the net whille it's cooking. Clean up, 5 minutes max. If I drive to McDonalds and back it would take the same time.

All my meals are less than 30 minutes.

So for you who only ever cook chicken breasts with no sides and no children distracting you, no cutting of vegetables, no cleaning of the food, and no variety in the food preparation, always cooking it the same way all the time, you and just you, are exempt from the cost of labor.

How do you know I don't have children distracting me? I just mentioned sides - frozen veggies with olive oil, and not just chicken, I mix it up a lot. I'm not exempt from the cost of labor and my time is worth more than $16.27/hr. I guess poor people should quit doing their laundry because the cost of two hours of their time is not worth it? I'm sure they could hire an illegal to do their laundry for $5.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There have been a couple threads in the recent past discussing how junk food is more costly than the real food your great grandmother would recognize. What did poor people eat generations ago when there wasn't this spectrum of fast food everywhere? I'll have to go visit my grandmother's grave to see how she survived and lived to be 92, all the while living in a world that didn't offer all the crap that's out there today. She was as poor as poor gets.

 

[dismal]

So for you who only ever cook chicken breasts with no sides and no children distracting you, no cutting of vegetables, no cleaning of the food, and no variety in the food preparation, always cooking it the same way all the time, you and just you, are exempt from the cost of labor.

How do you know I don't have children distracting me? I just mentioned sides - frozen veggies with olive oil, and not just chicken, I mix it up a lot. I'm not exempt from the cost of labor and my time is worth more than $16.27/hr. I guess poor people should quit doing their laundry because the cost of two hours of their time is not worth it? I'm sure they could hire an illegal to do their laundry for $5.

I guess by this logic if you make enough it would be cheaper to eat steak and lobster at the Palm than open a can of tuna.

Also, watching TV or posting on internet sites is a very expensive thing to be doing. We should get robots to do it for us.

 

[NobleSavage]

There have been a couple threads in the recent past discussing how junk food is more costly than the real food your great grandmother would recognize. What did poor people eat generations ago when there wasn't this spectrum of fast food everywhere? I'll have to go visit my grandmother's grave to see how she survived and lived to be 92, all the while living in a world that didn't offer all the crap that's out there today. She was as poor as poor gets.

I've got a good idea. When my grandmother wanted a chicken she would have my father go get one in the pen and chop off it's head. You put logs in the oven and start a fire. When hot, you get water from the well and bring it to a boil. You dip the chicken in boiling water to wipe off the feathers. Then you can cut it up and cook it. If you want sides, you go to the garden or root cellar. There was no refrigerator or electricity. You canned or salted everything.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm here to remind you that not every problem, pseudo problem and non problem require the government to tell people what to do.

People = Government

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not exempt from the cost of labor and my time is worth more than $16.27/hr. I guess poor people should quit doing their laundry because the cost of two hours of their time is not worth it? I'm sure they could hire an illegal to do their laundry for $5.

In all these calculations of the cost to the poor of do-it-yourself, there are a few elephants in the room...

(1) The fact that $16.27 is the median income does not mean $16.27 has anything to do with your time.

(2) If your wage is $X, that doesn't mean you get paid $X. You get paid $Y, where Y = X - taxes and insurance premiums. Do-it-yourself in lieu of paying somebody to do it for you is equivalent to getting extra take-home pay, not extra formal wages.

(3) Just because you can sell 8 hours of your time for $8X does not mean anybody would pay $9X for 9 hours of your time. Cooking for an hour doesn't cost you an hour of salable time.

(4) The circumstance that you get paid $Y for an hour does not mean your time is worth $Y. It means your time is worth more than $Y to your employer and less than $Y to you. That's why you sell it to her and that's why she buys it. The cost of your cooking time is not your pay; it's whatever lower amount your time is worth to you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(2) If your wage is $X, that doesn't mean you get paid $X. You get paid $Y, where Y = X - taxes and insurance premiums. Do-it-yourself in lieu of paying somebody to do it for you is equivalent to getting extra take-home pay, not extra formal wages.

But if you work an extra hour that insurance won't go up. Thus it's $x - taxes.

(3) Just because you can sell 8 hours of your time for $8X does not mean anybody would pay $9X for 9 hours of your time. Cooking for an hour doesn't cost you an hour of salable time.

Yup, this is the real problem with this "math".

(4) The circumstance that you get paid $Y for an hour does not mean your time is worth $Y. It means your time is worth more than $Y to your employer and less than $Y to you. That's why you sell it to her and that's why she buys it. The cost of your cooking time is not your pay; it's whatever lower amount your time is worth to you.

Yup. Work is a matter of trade and trade always is based on different parties putting a different value on the item.

 

[ZiprHead]

Right. You are responsible for putting down the fork.

OOH witty, you must own a television. But I would go beyond that to say you are responsible for your health beyond eating which means getting proper exercise and sleep and proper preventative measures. We of course cannot legislate this, but we can as a culture encourage this.

Unless it's Mooshelle Obama encouraging it. Then it's from the devil.

 

[EricK]

And nothing in the thread so far seems to contradict the claim that if these people ate exactly the same sort of diet but, say, 500 fewer calories per day they wouldn't be as fat, and would save money and probably time as well. And furthermore, they are surely almost all aware of this fact. So it doesn't seem likely to me that the type of food available, the amount of money they have, the amount of time they have, or the knowledge they have, can really be the fundamental reason(s) for the phenomenon.

Actually I think that concentrating on fast food vs so-called "healthy" food is missing the elephant in the room. Eating is enjoyable, it doesn't need very much monetary outlay, and can be done almost anywhere and anytime, often mindlessly when doing other things. In my opinion, almost everybody who is overweight got there by snacking. They have breakfast, then grab a coffee and doughnut on the way to work. Maybe they'll have a few biscuits with a cup of tea at a couple of points during the day. Then in the evening, before and/or after dinner, they'll sit in front of the TV with a jumbo-sized bag of their favourite carbohydrate snack and a fizzy or alcoholic drink. All those extra calories, over and above, their meals lead to steady weight-gain.

For various reasons there was far less snacking in earlier generations, so far less obesity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And nothing in the thread so far seems to contradict the claim that if these people ate exactly the same sort of diet but, say, 500 fewer calories per day they wouldn't be as fat, and would save money and probably time as well. And furthermore, they are surely almost all aware of this fact. So it doesn't seem likely to me that the type of food available, the amount of money they have, the amount of time they have, or the knowledge they have, can really be the fundamental reason(s) for the phenomenon.

Actually I think that concentrating on fast food vs so-called "healthy" food is missing the elephant in the room. Eating is enjoyable, it doesn't need very much monetary outlay, and can be done almost anywhere and anytime, often mindlessly when doing other things. In my opinion, almost everybody who is overweight got there by snacking. They have breakfast, then grab a coffee and doughnut on the way to work. Maybe they'll have a few biscuits with a cup of tea at a couple of points during the day. Then in the evening, before and/or after dinner, they'll sit in front of the TV with a jumbo-sized bag of their favourite carbohydrate snack and a fizzy or alcoholic drink. All those extra calories, over and above, their meals lead to steady weight-gain.

For various reasons there was far less snacking in earlier generations, so far less obesity.

That'll never fly. No one is a victim. There's no way to assign blame for your condition to anyone but yourself if you buy that argument.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Prior to the 1970s we had fast food, we had junk food, we had advertising telling us how yummy it was and more disposable income to buy it. why were obesity rates lower?

 

[EricK]

Prior to the 1970s we had fast food, we had junk food, we had advertising telling us how yummy it was and more disposable income to buy it. why were obesity rates lower?

If I had to guess at one single cause, I would see how obesity rates correlate with average hours of TV watched. Unfortunately I can't find any historic figures for this (I'm at work at the moment and many sites are blocked).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Prior to the 1970s we had fast food, we had junk food, we had advertising telling us how yummy it was and more disposable income to buy it. why were obesity rates lower?

If I had to guess at one single cause, I would see how obesity rates correlate with average hours of TV watched. Unfortunately I can't find any historic figures for this (I'm at work at the moment and many sites are blocked).

Well, if that is true, then are you saying television overrides personal choice?

 

[EricK]

If I had to guess at one single cause, I would see how obesity rates correlate with average hours of TV watched. Unfortunately I can't find any historic figures for this (I'm at work at the moment and many sites are blocked).

Well, if that is true, then are you saying television overrides personal choice?

People choose to watch more TV than they used to - probably because households have more TVs, and there is more choice of programs, so many people can find something they want to watch at any time of the evening (or day, for those at home during the day). While watching TV, they choose to snack - because food is tasty and, so this just adds to their enjoyment, and doesn't in any way detract from the fun of watching TV. They could choose to do press-ups and sit-ups etc while watching TV. If they did, then the increase in TV-watching would lead to people being fitter than in the 70s. But the truth is that people prefer snacking to press ups. Chacun à son goût, as the French say - which, coincidentally, also explains the increase in gout (http://www.webmd.com/arthritis/news/20110728/gout-becoming-more-common-in-us).

 

[ronburgundy]

And nothing in the thread so far seems to contradict the claim that if these people ate exactly the same sort of diet but, say, 500 fewer calories per day they wouldn't be as fat, and would save money and probably time as well. And furthermore, they are surely almost all aware of this fact. So it doesn't seem likely to me that the type of food available, the amount of money they have, the amount of time they have, or the knowledge they have, can really be the fundamental reason(s) for the phenomenon.

Actually I think that concentrating on fast food vs so-called "healthy" food is missing the elephant in the room. Eating is enjoyable, it doesn't need very much monetary outlay, and can be done almost anywhere and anytime, often mindlessly when doing other things. In my opinion, almost everybody who is overweight got there by snacking. They have breakfast, then grab a coffee and doughnut on the way to work. Maybe they'll have a few biscuits with a cup of tea at a couple of points during the day. Then in the evening, before and/or after dinner, they'll sit in front of the TV with a jumbo-sized bag of their favourite carbohydrate snack and a fizzy or alcoholic drink. All those extra calories, over and above, their meals lead to steady weight-gain.

For various reasons there was far less snacking in earlier generations, so far less obesity.

There were many many fewer foods with empty calories and mounds of sugars in past generations. That has at at least as much to do with it as the shear amount of calories eaten. Those foods can be avoided but it takes active conscious deliberate and constant effort not to eat the garbage the comprises 90% of what is on the grocery shelves and restaurant menus. Your great grandparents did not have to pay attention to that. In addition, there used to be far more jobs involving physical labor and far less cars, and more walking to work and the store. 100 years ago, no one went to the gym, or worked out at home, jogged, etc. Yet obesity was less common. Today, if you don't set aside time for the sole purpose of exercise, you are likely to be overweight.

 

[credoconsolans]

Anyway, in recent purchases I have found the chicken breasts for $3/lb--and the low quality ground beef at about the same price. Cheaper still is the whole chicken....

I get chicken breasts at Cosco for $2.50/lb. Yeah, poor people don't shop at Cosco, but I just checked Walmart and it's $2.30/lb.

If you have one nearby. I live in a blue-collar, low income area. The nearest Walmart is 7 miles away. OK if you have a car, not OK if you don't.

No bus?

Nope. The city I live in has very poor public transportation.

You CAN get there by bus, but you'd have to take 2 hours out of your evening to wait for the bus, take it downtown, get off, wait for an outgoing bus, transfer to the outgoing bus, get off 'close' to the Walmart, walk to the store which is about 1/4 mile, go shopping, then I hope you brought something to haul back your several bags of groceries, walk back to the bus stop then reverse your steps.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Prior to the 1970s we had fast food, we had junk food, we had advertising telling us how yummy it was and more disposable income to buy it. why were obesity rates lower?

In the 70s, people did not grow up eating this shit. More mom's were home making supper and and eating out (as even this was still considered) was more of an occasion not the norm. Even with the onset of the working mom, was it not still her job to make supper as soon as she walked in the door, or was this just my house?
Further, and I think you would have to agree, kids still went out to play.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Prior to the 1970s we had fast food, we had junk food, we had advertising telling us how yummy it was and more disposable income to buy it. why were obesity rates lower?

In the 70s, people did not grow up eating this shit. More mom's were home making supper and and eating out (as even this was still considered) was more of an occasion not the norm. Even with the onset of the working mom, was it not still her job to make supper as soon as she walked in the door, or was this just my house?
Further, and I think you would have to agree, kids still went out to play.

Here's the thing, In minority and poor white communities, moms always worked. Yet, you didn't have the obesity rates then that you do now.
Stayed at home moms have been using boxed and canned and frozen foods, IOW preserved and semi prepared foods, as staples of their menu planning for quite some time now and you didn't have the obesity spike in the 1940s, 50s, or 60s.

The use of cheap fats, sugars, and salt increased in the 1970s and so did the weight of the american public.

About exercise and the sedentary lifestyle

Definite contributor as well, but the food also contributes to the lack of movement. Much of the food available at the local supermarket is not what I call long haul food. such food gives you bursts of energy but wont get you through an hour of jogging or walking. The lethargy many Americans feel comes from the food we eat. And the portions size, and the need to clean our plates (which trains us to eat beyond satisfaction), and our aversion to drink plain water, we have to now flavor it somehow.

See it's what we eat and how we eat.

But who am I? I'm just a woman who did the research, changed the food she ate and the way she ate it, lost over a hundred pounds WITHOUT getting her stomach stapled or taking pills, beat back type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, and can now walk stairs without being winded after 3 steps.

But what do I know?