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?
Why inject a political rant where none is called for?
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.
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.
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.