Copehead wrote:Robert wrote:Copehead wrote:
This presupposes that poor people have easy, cheap access to decent food and the time to spare to prepare it.
Often they have neither, you try getting the weekly shopping from a big supermarket when you have no car and work long hours for low pay.
It is easy to chastise poor people for making poor decisions when they actually do not have any real choice in the matter, or their choices are massively constrained by poverty of resources and time.
we have to remember that most people defined as living in poverty these days are actually in work, not a bunch of feckless layabouts on the dole.
If you work 9-5 for 30k a year and can toodle along to Waitrose in your 7 year old Volvo it is, I agree, fairly easy to buy cheap nourishing food to take home and prepare.
But not everyone has that luxury.
This presupposes nothing. There is no place where I linked laziness to being poor. In fact, the swath of middle class bcbc ers here happily admitting to having a burger or a take away seem to confirm that convenience drives most of that. I also said and I repeat that, convenience is just another word for being too lazy to do it yourself. I have no problem or opinion about that.
I come from a pretty poor background and I can tell you there was no one in our house, street or wider area that did not know that food someone else prepared for you is always more expensive than when you make it yourself. That is plain common sense and I can demonstrate that again and again an again with every fast food or ready made food proposition you can come up with.
The point of the article was trying to rebrand 'fast food' into 'cheap food'. That is just wrong. In common language most people would associate fast food sooner with shit food than with cheap food. Rightly so as it is just not cheaper than regular food.
Good that you care for the underpaid masses that work long hours but live in poverty but is that really so? Whatever the case, the point remains that if they can afford to buy fast food, they can afford regular food and be better and cheaper of.
So they can't get to a super market but they can get fast food from elsewhere ? That sounds..........I don't know...absurd.
There are parts of the UK where you can't reach a supermarket by foot, bike or public transport ? Maybe but it seems unlikely to me.
Even if this were the case, these days Supermarkets deliver it to your door for 5 or 6 quid. On a week's groceries that's a sound investment as the savings are much more than that. Knock yourself out and order for 2 weeks and it's practically delivered for free.
How are you going to get a family shop from an out of town supermarket home by foot, bike or public transport, have you thought about how many bags you pile into your 7 year old Volvo each week?
You just are not putting yourself in the shoes of these people and thinking it through.
Small supermarkets that you get on local streets are expensive and have small ranges, people sometimes have to work long hours or even 2 jobs, Tescos don't deliver if you live on the 13th floor and the lifts are gone again
Many people cannot afford to pay for 2 weeks food upfront so Tescos don't deliver at all.
50% of the people in this country in work earn 19K or less.
There are good reasons why some people have poor diets, they are cash poor and time poor. If you have to get a taxi to a supermarket and back to get your food home it doesn't look so cheap anymore does it?
Forgive me but I think you have a touch of the Marie Antoinettes here.
Sorry am a bit late in replying but the old Volvo required looking after.
And, sorry for the millions, or hundreds of thousands I forgot to take on board that live on 13th floors with broken down lifts.
For a socialist of your calibre you seem to take it all too easy as a given that unhealthy diets are exclusively a problem of the poor.