Hacker News Reader

It says "people in the bottom decile" though, which is very low.

> You can easily feed a family of 4 on $125 a week using the items I outlined above

It looks like the bottom decile had an average income of £130/week in 2015.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...

That's a fair point, because that would be in the 70% range. But that doesn't factor in income assistance. I know essentially nothing about UK law in this regard, but I imagine they have some sort of income assistance programs for low-income individuals/families, yes? That would raise their income substantially, would it not?

No, the figures include all available government benefits.

Current rate for a single person claiming Universal Credit is listed here: https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

That money is mostly not used to pay rent, so we can ignore housing costs.

Single and under 25 £251.77 Single and 25 or over £317.82 In a couple and you’re both under 25 £395.20 (for you both) In a couple and either of you are 25 or over £498.89 (for you both)

This also assumes there are no sanctions in place. Sanctions can take the income down to as low as £1 per week.

More about Sanctions for those that don't know about them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46104333

You can disagree with their guidelines, but the food you listed definitely wouldn't be following "Public Health England’s eating advice."

> Also, sausage is usually very cheap

Almost no one is going to recommend that you make processed, preserved, and likely sweetened meat a significant portion of your diet.

In the US you have sacrificed ethics and standards for price and profit. Its why there is such a panic around Brexit leaving us open to US farming practices. You also have hugely cheaper transportation costs. I'd like to compare the cost US to UK, i wouldn't be surprised if it was x2 or x3 times more in the UK overall, fruit is especially pricey eggs locally are as much as 3$ for 6. 74% is a bit much though, most of the poorest spend at least half of their wage on rent as the last thirty years of government has brought right to buy with no new social housing.

It is expensive to be poor, where i can buy in bulk, saving some money, poorer people have to pay through the nose, wealthy people have pantries and chest freezers, poorer people generally have small fridge freezers that hold a week of food at most so they can't take advantage to most deals. Farmers markets are not generally much cheaper than supermarkets and you would be lucky to live near one. There is a minimum limit on delivery from supermarkets (about $60). I'm quite close to a supermarket only about $14 in diesel for every trip. I cook everything, and freeze dozens of meals at a time, I've been able to get down to about $2-$3 per day, but couldn't get near that if i was poor, and my diet has almost no fruit to speak of.

The 74% is disposable income once the cost of housing has been removed. It still seems a little high but not completely fanciful https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The...

"the poorest spend at least half of their wage on rent"

Now that I believe. Similar situation in the US for sure. Hard to find places less than $800 a month in most places and those places usually aren't great. If you're making 20-25k a year, that's easily close to 10k on rent (40-50%) and doesn't generally include all utilities.

It wasn't even all that many years ago that I was in my first job out of school making substantially less than I am now. Even though I was well above poverty level, I was still spending around 22k on housing (I bought a small house which cost $1800 a month for mortgage + property tax, not including utilities). So it was still in the 40-50% range for me and I had a job way above minimum wage with benefits at a major corporation.

I don't disagree with your overall analysis except:

> Raw produce (not meats) from a farmer's market or most major supermarkets are very cheap.

The vast majority of poor Americans live in places where there are no Farmer's Market (that's a thing for affluent cities) and more poor than you realize live far away from a major grocery stores. Dollar stores are driving a lot of small grocery stores/ bodegas out of business in the US. I still think you are right that spending 74% of income on food to be healthy is an exaggeration for the US.

> Farmer's Markets... (that's a thing for affluent cities)

There are farmers markets and then there are "farmers" markets. The original having existed at most major transportation hubs and required for farmers to get their food to market.

And, in the case that rural areas where farmed goods are the top product, (the SouthEast, Midwest, California) authentic farmer's markets exist (though they might also be the local flea market)

> Dollar stores are driving a lot of small grocery stores

!Cough! Dollar General expansion. Luckily, a restaurateur in a small town that I visit has started increases his fresh ingredient orders from local farms and selling them.

Nothing in your response really covers what the article is saying though, because you're not looking at what the advice is.

I'd also note that the UK has significantly lower incomes than the US.

Agreed. I'm also in the US, but my family of four's food budget is about $100 per week and we eat very healthy. Lots of fresh fruit and vegetables. Meat tends to be the most expensive thing, but you can get cheap cuts (<$3/lb = <$3 for 2.5 servings) and always supplement protein with beans.

I wonder to what extent this difference between the perceived cost of food in the UK vs US is driven by the relative difference in amount of food imported vs grown locally? As far as I could tell the US is a net exporter of food whereas the UK seems to import something like 50% of its food [0].

Plus a lot of fruit/vegetables don't grow well here meaning oranges will be from Spain or Israel or somewhere. Its not uncommon for fresh green beans to be from Kenya or Mozambique or Peru. I'm not sure if the lower cost of production offsets transport and tariff costs?

[0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-p...

Do you have a freezer? Do you have a car? Do you have enough income to bulk buy some items?

How much are you paying for energy? Poor people may be on prepayment meters for gas and electricity, which will charge about 25 pence per day per fuel (so about 50 pence per day, or about 60 cents a day) just to have the meter, before any gas or electricity is supplied.

I have a normal fridge with freezer on top. No car. And we don't buy in bulk with at least one or two trips per week to the store, $50 tops, but could break it into small buys if needed.

If I had trouble getting energy to cook, I'd do what the low income folks in SF do - buy a cheap camp cooker and use that to cook.

Why are you talking about sausage in a conversation about eating healthy foods?

Theres only one non ocean animal product on this list, and its pork fat.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutrit...

I fully agree. But the intersection of people who read articles like this and buy their food at Walmart (or any other source that specifically tries to be low cost) and pay attention to the prices is likely quite small so people who tend to read and discuss these kinds of articles forget how cheap food can be at the low end.

Eggs at my local Walmart are $1.20-$1.70/dozen (depending on large/medium/small/white/brown), milk is $2.19/gal and you can get several different large loafs of wheat (or white) bread for under $2. It's been awhile since I've done the shopping but IIRC boneless chicken breast is under $2/lb and ground beef is $3.xx/lb.

I wouldn't be putting bread on the list of stuff to buy if we're aiming for healthy things, but yes, that's also really cheap as well.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the intersection of readers and those buying food at Walmart. I get that the overlap is probably not large, but I don't see the connection to the claim made by the article. Whether or not a low-income person reads that report they are probably still shopping at a place like Walmart so the prices are what they are. And that claim from the report is still bullshit either way because however they are measuring it is clearly designed to fulfill the desired outcome so they could write it up this way.

>I wouldn't be putting bread on the list of stuff to buy if we're aiming for healthy things

I can think of plenty "healthy enough" meals of which bread is a component.

>I'm not sure I understand your point about the intersection of readers and those buying food at Walmart. I get that the overlap is probably not large, but I don't see the connection to the claim made by the article

This article is written for a more wealthy audience that is going to be less aware of what food actually costs at the low end (i.e. just buying the cheapest X on the shelf instead of the X you like). My point is that few reading the article have the requisite knowledge/experience to call it out for portraying the situation inaccurately as the top level comment is doing and several here are agreeing with.