Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote: The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold.
You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs.
I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate.
On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote: What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result?
At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat.
What are you referencing when you say:
the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
From the information provided it appears you're referencing this:
Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals.
That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat."
Well we agree what we have certainly isn't the best. I'm not sure what you're suggesting you want, but I'm confident making sure every kid gets fed at school regardless of their parents' income is better than what we have.
I think we know every family who can provide their own child with food is not going to suddenly stop. Perhaps you could clarify your concern about that, because it sounds nonsensical on its face?
I don't know what stigma there would be if all the kids just get in line, get their lunch, and get marked down as doing so?
I'm saying we don't (or at least I don't) know how much money is going to go to buy food for kids who won't eat it, basically. To bring in and address ChristianS's point, presumably the amount of money spent without effect will jump sharply, as most of the kids who might need such a program already have access to it. Making it universal must make it less efficient and more wasteful. The question is if that's the best solution and is the federal government the best entity to fix it.
I don't have a concrete suggestion, like I said this isn't an issue I'm up in arms about. But if I were in Congress I would certainly vote against a universal expansion without considering other options or taking the time figure out if the proposed solution will actually solve the problem.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I have to admit it still strikes me as a relatively simple issue to address through logistics analysis. Though I also recognize feeding 45+ million kids 5 days a week is already is no small task schools are managing to the best of their ability under the existing system.
While I'm certainly open to ideas for "the best solution", which you acknowledge you don't have, I think it's reasonable to accept a (non-reformist) "better" which I'd argue we could have in a universal school meal policy. At least until we find something even better than that or some Platonic ideal solution. Though I'd wager "the best solution" changes over time as material conditions change.
So the question is not and most certainly should not be "is this the best solution?" and even if it was, the answer being "no" doesn't mean it isn't an improvement we should make.
The relationships between education, state, and federal governments is complex and would likely be different under my preferences so the question about whether it should be implemented by the federal government is ambiguous. Generally some level of the aggregation and analysis of data to identify efficiencies would pragmatically fall to the federal level. But I also support taking into consideration more localized circumstances and maintaining local autonomy with the general guiding questions being "are the kids getting fed reasonably efficiently, and how can we improve it?".
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that we should wait for the ideal, head-in-the-clouds best idea, but at the very least a program should actually accomplish what it sets out to do and should do so at a reasonable cost (I know that's the biggest weasel word I could have picked). but I suppose you won't be surprised to find out I am skeptical of the federal government's ability to adequately "address through logistics analysis" the problems we would have If taxpayers decide they want to help feed kids while at school that's their prerogative and I personally don't see much moral hazard in the practice. It's really just asking if making the program universal is actually going to do something about the problem.
I don't mean to keep going because I think your post was a good place to end it but I want to emphasize it for the posters still struggling to understand the distinction I am trying to make here w/r/t feeding people who need it and trying to address why students wouldn't avail themselves of already available options. ( I think *you* get what I'm saying, even if you disagree)
On July 28 2023 06:41 JimmiC wrote: I find it pretty funny that conservatives are even mad about it. Shouldn't the businesses just invest more in security? government should be hands off no? Who is going to pay for all these jails for all this shoplifting and long sentences? Not republicans. Let the free hand of the market deal with it.
They can't hire security that is actually effective in many cities, because if they stop a person shoplifting, they are the one who gets charged eventually by the DA. Or, at best they've stopped one guy who the DA drops charges against. I've seen this at our local grocery store. It is 99% not poverty driving this. First incident I saw was a group of 3 guys with huge blueish like heavy duty garbage bags. They just went into the laundry aisle, shoved every box of Tide pods into the garbage bags and sauntered out. Another time it was similar, but the bags were green and the target was powdered baby formula. They took it all. The latest incident I saw was two ~15 year olds walk in, pick the lockbox to the expensive liquor and load up their backpacks with Patron. Never have I seen a real homeless person stealing like a 40 or food. Its always people either obviously stealing to sell shit for a profit, or people stealing expensive booze.
You assume the people doing this grew up wealthy? Why is that?
Edit: or are you suggesting they have bootstraped themselves up by the only realistic opportunity they had?
I'm sure they aren't exactly vacationing in the Hamptons, but every store around here would hire a dozen more people at $20/hr right now for the low low expectation of showing up on time and doing a braindead job. I've seen people do the math on the Tide theft rings before. They aren't living in poverty, they are choosing theft over jobs because it is easier.
To be fair, if stealing Tide pods is easier than holding down a job, it's more of a problem of jobs not being rewarding enough than a problem of theft not being punished harshly enough.
Galaxy brain take. The numbers the tide pods people do makes it worthwhile for high end white collar workers to do on a per hour basis, if they assume they will be allowed to get away with it as the city gangs do. Its extremely profitable. Saying "jobs aren't fulfilling enough to compete with making $3-5k in an afternoon" is true, but its true for basically every job in the world. And at that point you're just engaging in full /r/antiwork nonsense.
$3-5k is obviously a gross exaggeration. Here's a video where a news reporter goes to a flea market in the Bay Area where they sell the stolen goods that gives some idea
He bought $41 dollars worth of stuff and paid $17. So less than 50% of retail value and you also have multiple mouths to feed through the operation. So it's unlikely anyone is getting rich off boosting Tide Pods. But clutZ point still stands that dollar for dollar it's still going to be way more lucrative than pretty much any job that the thieves are qualified for by a good margin.
On July 30 2023 17:47 BlackJack wrote: $3-5k is obviously a gross exaggeration. Here's a video where a news reporter goes to a flea market in the Bay Area where they sell the stolen goods that gives some idea
He bought $41 dollars worth of stuff and paid $17. So less than 50% of retail value and you also have multiple mouths to feed through the operation. So it's unlikely anyone is getting rich off boosting Tide Pods. But clutZ point still stands that dollar for dollar it's still going to be way more lucrative than pretty much any job that the thieves are qualified for by a good margin.
Okay, then let's get *actual* numbers. Because let's see, a supermarket's entire supply of tide pods is what? 1 pallet? let's be generous and say they have 2 pallets of tide pods. According to a random Google search, a pallet holds $3,271 retail value worth of Tide. So that means that is the haul from a supermarket. You need at least 2 people for this job, but it seems hard to pull off with fewer than 3. One to control the staff, one to load and haul the pallets and one driver. So assuming you sell at half retail value, that is $1k each.
But you need to sell the stuff too, so either you do that yourselves, or you cut in a fence. And if these are organized gangs, then there are bosses to be paid, and intel to get out of it. I'd be highly surprised if the actual robbers in organized gangs heisting tide pod from supermarkets haul more than $200 pp. for every robbery.
Now that's still nothing to scoff at. I reckon in a well oiled organisation they can probably figure out jobs like that 3 times a week? So 600 a week. Assuming a "normal" job has a 40 hour workweek, that works out to the equivalent of $15/hour. + Show Spoiler +
(and I swear I didn't make up numbers to work out to this. I made what seemed like reasonable assumptions in my napkin business case, and then out rolled this number as the "normal job equivalent")
. But hey, isn't that exactly what Democrats claim is a reasonable minimum wage? And if there are jobs that pay less than that, then shouldn't that be the focus of your anger?
Apparently while we've been talking about this the Oakland branch of the NAACP put out a statement calling for a state of emergency in Oakland
“There is nothing compassionate or progressive about allowing criminal behavior to fester and rob Oakland residents of their basic rights to public safety. It is not racist or unkind to want to be safe from crime. No one should live in fear in our city"
Also calling out the Defund the police movement and the recently elected District Attorney Pamela Price. (Of note, Pamela Price is the first black district attorney of Alameda County in the 170-year history of the position)
"Failed leadership, including the movement to defund the police, our District Attorney’s unwillingness to charge and prosecute people who murder and commit life-threatening serious crimes, and the proliferation of anti-police rhetoric have created a heyday for Oakland criminals. If there are no consequences for committing crime in Oakland, crime will continue to soar."
Sounds exactly like what I've been saying. I guess even the NAACP has been captured by MAGA narratives. Damn.
On July 30 2023 17:47 BlackJack wrote: $3-5k is obviously a gross exaggeration. Here's a video where a news reporter goes to a flea market in the Bay Area where they sell the stolen goods that gives some idea
He bought $41 dollars worth of stuff and paid $17. So less than 50% of retail value and you also have multiple mouths to feed through the operation. So it's unlikely anyone is getting rich off boosting Tide Pods. But clutZ point still stands that dollar for dollar it's still going to be way more lucrative than pretty much any job that the thieves are qualified for by a good margin.
Okay, then let's get *actual* numbers. Because let's see, a supermarket's entire supply of tide pods is what? 1 pallet? let's be generous and say they have 2 pallets of tide pods. According to a random Google search, a pallet holds $3,271 retail value worth of Tide. So that means that is the haul from a supermarket. You need at least 2 people for this job, but it seems hard to pull off with fewer than 3. One to control the staff, one to load and haul the pallets and one driver. So assuming you sell at half retail value, that is $1k each.
But you need to sell the stuff too, so either you do that yourselves, or you cut in a fence. And if these are organized gangs, then there are bosses to be paid, and intel to get out of it. I'd be highly surprised if the actual robbers in organized gangs heisting tide pod from supermarkets haul more than $200 pp. for every robbery.
Now that's still nothing to scoff at. I reckon in a well oiled organisation they can probably figure out jobs like that 3 times a week? So 600 a week. Assuming a "normal" job has a 40 hour workweek, that works out to the equivalent of $15/hour. + Show Spoiler +
(and I swear I didn't make up numbers to work out to this. I made what seemed like reasonable assumptions in my napkin business case, and then out rolled this number as the "normal job equivalent")
. But hey, isn't that exactly what Democrats claim is a reasonable minimum wage? And if there are jobs that pay less than that, then shouldn't that be the focus of your anger?
How long do you think it takes to fill up a cart with Tide and walk out of a store? 5 minutes if you have a limp? So 30 minutes of work vs 40 hours of work... hmm.. tough choice..
Also I'm pretty sure they aren't paying any taxes on their tide pod income
On July 30 2023 17:47 BlackJack wrote: $3-5k is obviously a gross exaggeration. Here's a video where a news reporter goes to a flea market in the Bay Area where they sell the stolen goods that gives some idea
He bought $41 dollars worth of stuff and paid $17. So less than 50% of retail value and you also have multiple mouths to feed through the operation. So it's unlikely anyone is getting rich off boosting Tide Pods. But clutZ point still stands that dollar for dollar it's still going to be way more lucrative than pretty much any job that the thieves are qualified for by a good margin.
Okay, then let's get *actual* numbers. Because let's see, a supermarket's entire supply of tide pods is what? 1 pallet? let's be generous and say they have 2 pallets of tide pods. According to a random Google search, a pallet holds $3,271 retail value worth of Tide. So that means that is the haul from a supermarket. You need at least 2 people for this job, but it seems hard to pull off with fewer than 3. One to control the staff, one to load and haul the pallets and one driver. So assuming you sell at half retail value, that is $1k each.
But you need to sell the stuff too, so either you do that yourselves, or you cut in a fence. And if these are organized gangs, then there are bosses to be paid, and intel to get out of it. I'd be highly surprised if the actual robbers in organized gangs heisting tide pod from supermarkets haul more than $200 pp. for every robbery.
Now that's still nothing to scoff at. I reckon in a well oiled organisation they can probably figure out jobs like that 3 times a week? So 600 a week. Assuming a "normal" job has a 40 hour workweek, that works out to the equivalent of $15/hour. + Show Spoiler +
(and I swear I didn't make up numbers to work out to this. I made what seemed like reasonable assumptions in my napkin business case, and then out rolled this number as the "normal job equivalent")
. But hey, isn't that exactly what Democrats claim is a reasonable minimum wage? And if there are jobs that pay less than that, then shouldn't that be the focus of your anger?
How long do you think it takes to fill up a cart with Tide and walk out of a store? 5 minutes if you have a limp? So 30 minutes of work vs 40 hours of work... hmm.. tough choice..
Also I'm pretty sure they aren't paying any taxes on their tide pod income
How many tide pods do you think a store keeps on the shelf?
On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote: The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold.
You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs.
I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate.
On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote: What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result?
At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat.
What are you referencing when you say:
the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
From the information provided it appears you're referencing this:
Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals.
That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat."
Well we agree what we have certainly isn't the best. I'm not sure what you're suggesting you want, but I'm confident making sure every kid gets fed at school regardless of their parents' income is better than what we have.
I think we know every family who can provide their own child with food is not going to suddenly stop. Perhaps you could clarify your concern about that, because it sounds nonsensical on its face?
I don't know what stigma there would be if all the kids just get in line, get their lunch, and get marked down as doing so?
I'm saying we don't (or at least I don't) know how much money is going to go to buy food for kids who won't eat it, basically. To bring in and address ChristianS's point, presumably the amount of money spent without effect will jump sharply, as most of the kids who might need such a program already have access to it. Making it universal must make it less efficient and more wasteful. The question is if that's the best solution and is the federal government the best entity to fix it.
I don't have a concrete suggestion, like I said this isn't an issue I'm up in arms about. But if I were in Congress I would certainly vote against a universal expansion without considering other options or taking the time figure out if the proposed solution will actually solve the problem.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I have to admit it still strikes me as a relatively simple issue to address through logistics analysis. Though I also recognize feeding 45+ million kids 5 days a week is already is no small task schools are managing to the best of their ability under the existing system.
While I'm certainly open to ideas for "the best solution", which you acknowledge you don't have, I think it's reasonable to accept a (non-reformist) "better" which I'd argue we could have in a universal school meal policy. At least until we find something even better than that or some Platonic ideal solution. Though I'd wager "the best solution" changes over time as material conditions change.
So the question is not and most certainly should not be "is this the best solution?" and even if it was, the answer being "no" doesn't mean it isn't an improvement we should make.
The relationships between education, state, and federal governments is complex and would likely be different under my preferences so the question about whether it should be implemented by the federal government is ambiguous. Generally some level of the aggregation and analysis of data to identify efficiencies would pragmatically fall to the federal level. But I also support taking into consideration more localized circumstances and maintaining local autonomy with the general guiding questions being "are the kids getting fed reasonably efficiently, and how can we improve it?".
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that we should wait for the ideal, head-in-the-clouds best idea, but at the very least a program should actually accomplish what it sets out to do and should do so at a reasonable cost (I know that's the biggest weasel word I could have picked). but I suppose you won't be surprised to find out I am skeptical of the federal government's ability to adequately "address through logistics analysis" the problems we would have If taxpayers decide they want to help feed kids while at school that's their prerogative and I personally don't see much moral hazard in the practice. It's really just asking if making the program universal is actually going to do something about the problem.
I don't mean to keep going because I think your post was a good place to end it but I want to emphasize it for the posters still struggling to understand the distinction I am trying to make here w/r/t feeding people who need it and trying to address why students wouldn't avail themselves of already available options. ( I think *you* get what I'm saying, even if you disagree)
Citing “waste” is not an effective argument unless you are showing what amount of waste is acceptable and where that level is achieved.
What you are describing is a common hand wave, but it’s not substantiated. If there is a system where people are accomplishing this with less waste, point to that. But I am not seeing it.
Apple is a profoundly wasteful company. Many of the biggest companies in the world have extraordinary waste. It is important to keep in mind that inefficiency is inherent and varies by situation. It is possible to be incredibly successful as a company while also generating billions of dollars of inefficient spending.
So what is the standard you are going for? Until you show why the government’s free lunch program would be more wasteful than an equivalent private program, you are still losing the argument because you haven’t actually addressed anything.
All you’ve done up to this point is winked at yourself in the mirror for saying the government is wasteful.
On July 30 2023 22:44 JimmiC wrote: Wait, do these people not have to transport it, store it and the resell it? I suspect they are not getting rich, and have the risk of jail for all the activities.
I really doubt it’s some middle class people being like I do not want to be a teacher any more, this tide pod game is where it’s at.
If the state pension fund runs dry and if parents keep getting to tell teachers what to teach and how to teach it, you might be surprised.
On July 30 2023 22:44 JimmiC wrote: Wait, do these people not have to transport it, store it and the resell it? I suspect they are not getting rich, and have the risk of jail for all the activities.
I really doubt it’s some middle class people being like I do not want to be a teacher any more, this tide pod game is where it’s at.
Of course they aren't getting rich. There is only so much grey market tide pod and gillette razor buyers. But the point is that it isn't driven by desperate poverty it is driven by not enforcing the law. If we enforced the law, there are plenty of jobs for able bodied 16-30 year olds. The reason they steal tide pods instead is because those jobs require you to wake up at 8 AM and work 30+ hours a week (and its often boring and/or tiring. The horror!).
On July 30 2023 22:44 JimmiC wrote: Wait, do these people not have to transport it, store it and the resell it? I suspect they are not getting rich, and have the risk of jail for all the activities.
I really doubt it’s some middle class people being like I do not want to be a teacher any more, this tide pod game is where it’s at.
Of course they aren't getting rich. There is only so much grey market tide pod and gillette razor buyers. But the point is that it isn't driven by desperate poverty it is driven by not enforcing the law. If we enforced the law, there are plenty of jobs for able bodied 16-30 year olds. The reason they steal tide pods instead is because those jobs require you to wake up at 8 AM and work 30+ hours a week (and its often boring and/or tiring. The horror!).
I agree, the fact that we have a capitalist system that arbitrarily requires people to spend a third of their week performing labor that may or may not be contributing to society and may or may not just be contributing to corporate quotas, thus subjecting people to a 9 to 5 job that isn't fulfilling in the least, and is really just done to satisfy their corporate paymasters, is quite an objectionable proposition.
That said, arguing about the scourge that is the Tide Pod black market is, much like people eating Tide Pods, among the dumbest things my brain has ever been subjected to on this forum. Please stop.
On July 30 2023 22:44 JimmiC wrote: Wait, do these people not have to transport it, store it and the resell it? I suspect they are not getting rich, and have the risk of jail for all the activities.
I really doubt it’s some middle class people being like I do not want to be a teacher any more, this tide pod game is where it’s at.
Of course they aren't getting rich. There is only so much grey market tide pod and gillette razor buyers. But the point is that it isn't driven by desperate poverty it is driven by not enforcing the law. If we enforced the law, there are plenty of jobs for able bodied 16-30 year olds. The reason they steal tide pods instead is because those jobs require you to wake up at 8 AM and work 30+ hours a week (and its often boring and/or tiring. The horror!).
I agree, the fact that we have a capitalist system that arbitrarily requires people to spend a third of their week performing labor that may or may not be contributing to society and may or may not just be contributing to corporate quotas, thus subjecting people to a 9 to 5 job that isn't fulfilling in the least, and is really just done to satisfy their corporate paymasters, is quite an objectionable proposition.
That said, arguing about the scourge that is the Tide Pod black market is among the dumbest things my brain has ever been subjected to on this forum. Please stop.
I personally found it illuminating, going to hand in my notice at work and shift careers to being a Tide Pod fence
On July 30 2023 22:44 JimmiC wrote: Wait, do these people not have to transport it, store it and the resell it? I suspect they are not getting rich, and have the risk of jail for all the activities.
I really doubt it’s some middle class people being like I do not want to be a teacher any more, this tide pod game is where it’s at.
Of course they aren't getting rich. There is only so much grey market tide pod and gillette razor buyers. But the point is that it isn't driven by desperate poverty it is driven by not enforcing the law. If we enforced the law, there are plenty of jobs for able bodied 16-30 year olds. The reason they steal tide pods instead is because those jobs require you to wake up at 8 AM and work 30+ hours a week (and its often boring and/or tiring. The horror!).
I agree, the fact that we have a capitalist system that arbitrarily requires people to spend a third of their week performing labor that may or may not be contributing to society and may or may not just be contributing to corporate quotas, thus subjecting people to a 9 to 5 job that isn't fulfilling in the least, and is really just done to satisfy their corporate paymasters, is quite an objectionable proposition.
That said, arguing about the scourge that is the Tide Pod black market is among the dumbest things my brain has ever been subjected to on this forum. Please stop.
I personally found it illuminating, going to hand in my notice at work and shift careers to being a Tide Pod fence
I know, I busted my ass to become an engineer, who knew I could've been shifting product and making bank by grabbing Tide Pods off the shelf, walking out without anybody noticing, and offloading them to a reliable contact instead?
When all else fails, rant about Trump or capitalism. Because you know, Trump and capitalism are most popular in San Francisco and Portland which has this problem the worst.
EPT
If taxpayers decide they want to help feed kids while at school that's their prerogative and I personally don't see much moral hazard in the practice. It's really just asking if making the program universal is actually going to do something about the problem.
