So, because of this article you conclude that the OP is wrong to say poor people are "unable to make enough money to feed themselves and their families working multiple part-time/full-time jobs paying these sorts of wages."? Maybe they spend less because they simply can't afford to spend more? I spend less on private-jets & high-end cars than rich people do, is it because I simply don't want those items or because I can't afford it?
Actually, this article appears to be saying the opposite of what you think it's saying:
FTA:
The short answer is that relative food costs are low and falling fast for everybody -- but they're not falling for the poor. In 1984, the poorest Americans spent 16 percent of their income to eat. The median-income family also spent 16 percent of its (slightly higher) income on food. And the rich spent the least. In the last three decades, food's share of the family budget has fallen for all but the poorest families, where it's stayed the same.
So... poor people are spending _more_ on food than the rich? Whatever way one interprets this article, I don't think it can be used to to prove anything in regards to affordability of food for the poor and what else they may have sacrificed to pay for food.
Ah, here we go. So overweight because why? Eating 99-cent menu items from fast-food menus 4 times a day and filling their homes with the cheapest industrial-processed food ever. Liters of soda, microwave-TV-dinners, huge bags of cheetos, etc. That junk isn't food, IMHO. If a low-income person wants to give their family something better, they can't afford it.
Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money...
This is so wrong. I'm not sure why this argument is always made when it's obviously incorrect. Beans, rice, cabbage, tomatoes, chicken, pasta, bread, potatoes, bananas, yogurt, eggs, vegetables, etc. are cheap.
Low-income, probably low-education & stressful-job(s), not enough motivation/energy after coming home from work to cook a proper meal or get exercise. Personally, I think they can't afford it in ways that go beyond just money...
_____ways that go beyond money____
stressful-job(s) = not enough motivation/energy to cook. Multiple jobs probably means get home, just in time to take a 3 hour nap, take shower and head out to the next job. Forget about any meaningful attendance at the local gym. Assuming it's even safe enough to be at said gym during after-work hours in a low-income area.
low education = Not knowing just how damaging junk food really is.
Okay, I'm done here. I'm not even clicking on that link. Go tell that to the illegal immigrants doing back-breaking labor everyday, poor people barely making ends meet with their 2 or 3 jobs, that they have more quality leisure time than high-level executives in some financial company, a Bay Area software engineer making nearly 6-figures or rich celebrities who took their daughter, and all her friends to Paris for her sweet 16 birthday-party, bought her a car and had Justin Timerlake perform live with a song written just for her....
"The poor in America are far likelier to be overweight than starving."
Your statement is true, but mainly because very few people in the US are actually starving. What they are doing is living on poor diets.
There certainly seems to be some kind of correlation between low income on obesity, but the contributing factors are complex. Individuals and families living on low incomes may lack ready access to fresh food ("food deserts") due to high transport costs and/or there being no nearby shops that sell it, may not have equipment to prepare food, may live in areas where opportunities for exercise are limited due to crime or lack of facilities. Poor education about nutrition and lack of role modes can also be important factors.
I'd urge you to read the short article "Poverty and Obesity in the U.S." [1] from the American Diabetes Association. Quote:
"How is poverty linked to obesity? It has been suggested that individuals who live in impoverished regions have poor access to fresh food. Poverty-dense areas are oftentimes called “food deserts,” implying diminished access to fresh food (7). However, 43% of households with incomes below the poverty line ($21,756) are food insecure (uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, sufficient food) (7). Accordingly, 14% of U.S. counties have more than 1 in 5 individuals use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The county-wide utility of the program, as expected, correlates with county-wide poverty rates (r = 0.81) (7). Thus, in many poverty-dense regions, people are in hunger and unable to access affordable healthy food, even when funds avail. The double-edged sword of hunger and poor availability of healthy food is, however, unlikely to be the only reason as to why obesity tracks with poverty."
The American Society for Clinical Nutrition has a
paper from 2004 titled "Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs" [2] that goes into a lot more detail. From the abstract:
"A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low-income groups. Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit. The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables."
I would urge you to look into this subject more carefully and, considering some of your other comments in this thread, to avoid resorting to crude and misleading stereotypes of people living in poverty.
Note that their diets are poor, by choice. They are making bad choices, which they're not being forced into. Not by money shortage, at least. You can say education, but I'm willing to bet that these people were in fact instructed in balanced diets (in high school, not at a very high level, but still).
Of course, this is the perfect illustration of how you'd expect natural evolution to respond to lack of evolutionary pressure on something. If you "solve" the hunger problem, thereby eliminating dietary evolutionary pressure, people will no longer worry about it at all, leading to "dumb problems", like this one. If we solve this problem, by, say, forcing every food to contain vitamin K, C, D and things like Iron, evolution will find new problems.
>>Note that their diets are poor, by choice. They are making bad choices, which they're not being forced into. Not by money shortage, at least. You can say education, but I'm willing to bet that these people were in fact instructed in balanced diets (in high school, not at a very high level, but still).
Anecdotal time: This is going to make me look like a fool, but I'll tell this story anyway. I sorta knew hamburgers and fast-food were bad for you, but it wasn't until after I earned my BS CompSci that I realized just how bad. And I only realized it because of a game called Dance Dance Revolution. As you can see in my youtube channel on my HN profile, I was kinda hardcore about that game. One day, I didn't have time to eat my usual meal containing mostly rice. I went to BurgerKing and got a Double Whopper with cheese and fries. Ate all of it, waiting about 1 hr, then went to the arcade to play. I ran out of energy so fast I couldn't believe it and my day was ruined. After that I went home and did research on what athletes eat & general balanced diet for energy.... then I saw Food Inc. That was how I learned what to eat and is the only reason I'm not 300lbs+ today.
School does not stress these points nearly enough. In fact, I had this discussion with co-workers less than a month ago. We concluded that American schools purposely avoid effectively teaching 3 things so that most will fall into the trap of the credit-debt, junkfood & diet fads and easy manipulation by the media.
1. Finances
2. Health & Fitness
3. Critical Thinking
Thanks! I haven't yet read the article you linked to, so maybe the answer is already there, but does this chart include food stamps for poor? I mean, is it (stamps + 16.1% of income)?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/cheap-ea...