Hacker News Reader

The goal was apparently not to "cut their food budget" or save money at all, but merely to challenge themselves. From http://onedollardietproject.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/it-star...

"When we first started talking about doing this, we didn’t really have an agenda, or any developed sense of why we wanted to do it. It just seemed like an interesting challenge; one that would force us to see things differently."

Perhaps the Social Justice discussed on Wikipedia is different from a social justice class. After all they say they're social justice teachers.

For instance this (http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Diversity/Academics/Social-...) description of a social justice class sounds a lot more about raising awareness of social issues than a "LITERALLY beyond-communist ideology". Another example -> http://www.fatimahs.org/pdf/Teacher%20Syllabi/Sister%20Lisa/... So it would seem unclear what exactly they mean. I'd imagine that term is quite overloaded.

"The reason that $1-per-day eating is tied up with this is that social justice folks want to redistribute ALL resources, across the entire planet."

Perhaps actually reading what they have to say, beyond the line where they mention social justice and the 3 line description of what that means in Wikipedia, before jumping to conclusions, losing your head, and seeing "LITERALLY beyond-communist" bogeymen everywhere would have been a far more constructive use of your time?

Social Justice isn't a farther than left policy, I was taught it by a far-right conservative Catholic, it's actually supported by the Vatican.

The idea of social justice is to extend laws and rights to everyone and every thing. The key part of this is in politics, if a politician promises something they have to deliver it or it becomes a breach of an agreement, just like a breach of an implied contract.

Another example is the use of welfare. Under social justice theory, it's perfectly acceptable for no welfare system to be in place, it would however be completely illegal to prevent a person or group from access to what hospital/unemployment services are available, even if it's just insurance. Basically it would make everyone insurable, there would be no ability to deny insurance, but the cost is still free to fluctuate before you get the contract. There would be no denying people care with insurance.

In countries with welfare systems, it would reinforce access to them. I know in France they have a welfare system, yet in some areas people can't get easy access to medical care; I know in one area it can supposedly take over an hour to get to the nearest emergency room, over two hours if you call an ambulance. The French take this as unnacceptable already, which is right in line with Social Justice, and right now they've got a conservative in power.

The benefits of society are not cold hard cash, they're whatever benefits are available from society. If you're not a communist country, getting cash handed to you isn't a benefit of society, however in the west access to certain services is seen as a benefit of society. Impartial means non-prejudice, so you can't be denied access to one of these benefits on account of race or religion or such; no stupid no-fly lists as air-travel is expected in the west.

Justice is just, and believing life should be fair and just everywhere isn't a leftist theory as it's implemented in both political sides of the argument.

The shame about social justice is that now when it's discussed people want money hand-outs. What really should be discussed in Social Justice isn't all the rewards, but the punishments. Anti-social behaviours that harm other peoples social entitlements are supposed to be harshly punishable; trespassing, noise pollution and such, that are rarely handled by police until it's a big deal.

The biggest shame of social justice, however is that it believes set things are right and wrong. Short-shorts weren't always acceptable, so if we embraced social justice 60 years ago, would people be allowed to wear them? Should women be allowed tattoos, because they were originally 'just for men'.

This is where their philosophy falls through. Morals are relative in our society, they don't have to be but we chose them to be, which our government and police right now allows certain laws to be disregarded as they become more irrelevant, like public decency laws (now uncovering the nipples, labia majora or anus are the only violations for women, on non-nude beaches), but certain places enforce their own clothing rules (no shirt, no shoes, no shopping) where there are publicly acceptable low decency expectations (beach fronts).

Either way, I generally agree, social justice is a stupid impractical philosophy.

Social Justice isn't a farther than left policy, I was taught it by a far-right conservative Catholic, it's actually supported by the Vatican.

The Catholic Church can't really be placed on a "left-right" axis -- they have a lot of "left-wing" views on money combined with a lot of "right-wing" views on what you should be allowed to do with your penis.

I've always thought of "social justice" as a left-wing buzzword rather than an actual policy.

Who cares for left or right as long as it's the best way and more people live a good life? So stop talking divisions focus on the justice like in "just" here.

Unfortunately the "left-right" divide is at the very crux of figuring out what "justice" and "living a good life" actually mean, so we can't bypass politics and go straight to "making things better" until we agree on what "better" means.

Briefly, left-wing folks think that it's best when everybody is equal, right-libertarians think it's best when everybody is free, and the Catholic Church and other religious types think it's best when everybody does what God says.

Yeah, but it's insane to construct left-right divisions into issues like social justice and cooking! Basic human rights (social justice is a synonym of those) are universal. Check some definitions:

"Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights." http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/social-justice....

You've far and away missed the point. You went from two people who wanted to see how much of the world lives by having a very limited food budget to "beyond-communist" ideals.

I'm with you until the third sentence, then you completely lose me. The linked article doesn't talk about any of that stuff. It's about eating cheaply.

Why inject a political rant where none is called for?

I didn't inject it.

These folks self-describe on their website as "Social Justice teachers".

If the website had been about hemp clothing and the folks called themselves "pro-marijuana activisits", that would be relevant.

If the website had been about eugenics and the folks called themselves "national socialists", that would be relevant.

I brought nothing new to the discussion - I merely pointed out what their words mean, for those who don't have a background to understand.

Thanks for pointing this out. It did change my thinking on the term "social justice". To be fair, though, acknowledge that this specific topic (cheap food) is universally interesting and valuable regardless of the political ideology of the messenger.

Naming one's career is suddenly irrelevant on a personal website? I would imagine one of the most common questions you'd get if you set out to eat for $1 a day is "What do you do?". That's a way of asking if they are doing it because they have to without appearing rude.

Yes, but it's pretty clear they're doing it to make some kind of political point.

The point, of course, is pretty iffy, because the people out there who truly are living on "less than a dollar a day" live in places where a dollar has very different buying power to what it does in a US supermarket -- thus their experiences are probably pretty incomparable.

When you hear those "dollar a day" stats for world hunger don't kid yourself into thinking that $1 converted into the third world is somehow generous. They use purchasing power parity power to calculate the numbers relative to what it would be in the USA. When they say $1 a day they mean a $1 a day in America. That means they actually have less than a buck to spend, depending on the country significantly less.

"When they say $1 a day they mean a $1 a day in America."

Citation required. I've seen these numbers and I've never seen one quoted in terms of purchasing power parity. The $1 a day that's often trotted around is real dollars - i.e. $1 USD.

The article authors would have had a far more accurate (and less biased towards their cause) result if they had accounted for this. By no means am I saying that $1 USD in a third world country is a lot of money, but it certainly does a lot more than $1 USD in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

Do you have a source on that? I've always been curious about how those sorts of numbers are calculated. Do they, for instance, include subsistence farmers, who may have plenty to eat but no actual money?

Yeah I had the same thinking with my comment below (above?, wherever it is now). I don't cut corners with food, that's the one place (and maybe my tech gadgets..). I saved a few hundred moving to another place, and then another hundred getting rid of cable I rarely watched.

I fully agree. Food is such a fundamental (and enjoyable!) aspect of your life, why would you cheap out on it? I realize that wasn't the intent of this exercise, but given the recent number of "how I don't waste money on food" articles, I think it needs to be said.

The benefit you get from good food (which doesn't even have to be all that expensive) far outweighs whatever money I spend on it. Food is the only thing in my life that I do not set a firm budget for. I eat what I want, when I want, because food lends a richness to my life that no amount of cable TV or internet news trolling can equal.

To extend beyond this point a bit: of all the things that people really need to get rid of, it's cars. I recently moved to a new city and wondered if it was really time I got a car - nothing fancy, just your average middle-class sedan. Turns out between ownership cost, insurance, and gas, the car would be chewing up $15-20K per year (more likely $20K than $15).

And for what? So I can sit on a clogged freeway, gas-brake-honk my way to work every day, and repeat in the evening? No thanks.

Instead I paid a bit extra (couple hundred bucks a month) to live in a denser area with great transit coverage. Imagine what that money can do for your average individual/family. $20K of extra discretionary spending a year? Holy batman!

"Food is such a fundamental ... why would you cheap out on it?" Because once you've trimmed everything else, that's what's left to trim some more. I agree that food's great stuff - but seriously, we can still get plenty of great-tasting food without paying for all the processing and additives. Most of the rest of the world knows that; we've been owned by decades of advertising.

Are you sure? Don't know how in the US, but in Europe, organic food (ie, without additives and much better quality) is usually a bit more expensive.

I don't necessarily mean Whole Foods, or alike. Even if you go to a small farmer with few acres of land, and get the meal from him it is, because of the scale, much more expensive than a large farm with one pig per square meter and all being fully automatic.

"Even if you go to a small farmer with few acres of land, and get the meal from him it is, because of the scale, much more expensive than a large farm with one pig per square meter and all being fully automatic."

And yet it would still occupy such a tiny part of our income... That's the point I was trying to make. Yes, you can reduce your grocery bill all to hell - but in the end if you break down your living costs, things like rent, car, etc, all cost vastly more than what you pay for food. If anything start optimizing there, where a dollar saved won't nearly result in as big a loss of quality of life as it would if you took it out of food.

Sure, if you are really broke, then yes, the food budget must go - I've been there myself. It just strikes me as odd when people with perfectly good incomes (even GREAT incomes) insist on eating cheap, crap food.

That's true. Sometimes it is, though, part of the lifestyle.

Also, people have more problems with losses than looking for more profits; and, food is much more "visible" spending than, say, insurance.

I mean, every time I go to a grocery and spend few euros, I "feel" this money. Even if my food budget is still smaller than my health insurance, accountant, rent etc.

Wealth that you generate yourself isn't a benefit that comes from society, so social justice doesn't demand it be redistributed. There plainly are benefits that society gives us that give us a chance at generating that wealth, though, as can be seen by, for instance, the lack of Botswanan Web 2.0 startups.

Even if you were correct that social justice is radically redistributive of all wealth, however, that would not imply that the $1/day idea is supposed to serve as a positive example. Rather, it shows how unpleasant it is to do so. If they wanted to show equality of income wasn't such a bad idea, they might have done the live-on-$22-per-day project.

"these folks are making plans on how we can all live on drastically (and artificially) diminished resources."

Good idea, too... 'cause that's what we've been doing since wages started dropping in value 35 years ago ... and what caused so many people to start spending the equity in their homes (thanks, TV commercials!) ...

Other'n that, they're a couple vegan kids, not "beyond-communists", so you can get down now.

Sure, but have you tried the Chana Masala? It's delicious.

My.

"It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society" sounds like a really radical goal...

...almost as nefarious as "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."