A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is really cheap.
I’m not making any particular claims about the free school meals program, just noting that this argument doesn’t hold water as it stands.
Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here.
You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't on the value of feeding children that would go hungry otherwise.
This is why saying
> This is a shallow analysis.
rings hollow.
The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not because the poor are viewed as expendable.
I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. That is not their expertise, not their domain and they don't need any temptations or distractions to use their funding or powers on schools. I want the federal government focused on federal issues.
It seems quite reasonable that schools should serve the local community and be largely funded and ran by locals.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
The metric of whether or not someone literally dies of starvation is a pathetic metric.
It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition.
The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules.
We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent.
> Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers.
When faced with data, you persist in this lie.
> Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed
False, food deserts coupled with the fact that the more nutritious foods are much more expensive make it extremely difficult to do so.
> I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy.
That's easy af to do when it's voluntary.
> We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
This tells me that you've never been poor. One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.
Obesity is caused exclusively by calorie surplus. You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese.
As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life. Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day
https://stackyourdollars.com/eat-on-5-a-day/
that's bacon/eggs/toast for breakfast beef burritos for lunch chicken and vegetables for dinner
and that meat you're spending money on can all be replaced by far cheaper healthier alternatives like lentils or beans
So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about
yet another $5/day menu that includes snacks, with mostly healthy foods and surpasses most peoples calorie needs https://uhs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/sos-eatingwell5...
I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day
You changed your argument from nutrition to calories.
> As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life.
As for your ignorant assumptions,
> Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day
None of this would be true in a place like California, especially if you live in a food desert.
> So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about
So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about
> I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day
Yea, maybe where ever you live, not here.
Not to mention I'm being extremely generous by using a salary that is 50% of the poverty line on top of only utilizing 30% of that for food and on top of that building meals that provide more nutrition than the average wealthy american gets by far.
but you've since left the domain of attempting reason, but I'm hoping that's just because you have too much ego on the internet but can still absorb information and utilize it later.
You don't even fully read the links you provide.
> Cost estimates based on Safeway and Berkeley Bowl prices advertised in January 2013.
> Note that costs are for portions used in the menu; your up-front cost will be higher if you purchase all items on the list as packaged.
Furthermore, this is only for one person. This menu doesn't work for little kids because they need formula. It doesn't work for teenagers because they're ravenous eating machines. And if they're particularly active kids, then this doesn't even meet the caloric needs.
This menu is for an adult that is relatively sedentary. If you're talking about working class people that do manual labor, this is completely inadequate.
> but you've since left the domain of attempting reason, but I'm hoping that's just because you have too much ego on the internet but can still absorb information and utilize it later.
Right back at ya.
I wouldn't go that far. Federal and state governments provide about half of education funding [0] and the way they dish it out is basically inversely proportional to how much funding a school gets through their local property taxes.
Without that, funding would be very unbalanced. Although I'd be fine with reducing federal government funding/taxes with proportionate increase by the states.
[0]: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-...
If an area does well to foster profitable trade and wishes to utilize that profit to boost education, I feel like that's a good thing and ideally would result in massive migration to that area. Especially with utilities of the internet that make it not only possible, but very much in practice to share teaching for free from the best educators.
If you force every kid to be equally educated, I worry you'll end up with a bunch of highly capable kids getting bored (because they're getting the same education as the rest of the kids who don't care) while forcing kids who don't care to painfully spend their entire youth on a useless education that they don't see value in.
Sure, we all want disadvantaged people to have better opportunities but if we're forcing them to have better opportunities it seems unlikely to instill the most important aspect of those opportunities, which is that the people utilizing them actually want them.
Difficult problems, for sure, but I struggle looking at todays kids attitude towards school and seeing how this is the best path forward. Even as recent as just a few generations ago you hear stories about kids giving up a lot in order to be educated. I imagine classrooms full of only eager students would have its benefits, and maybe those would vastly outweigh the detriments.
The income requirements often times are far too high especially if you're in gentrifying areas due to cost of living.