Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!lazarus
From: lazarus@ucbvax.ARPA (Andy Lazarus)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory,net.politics
Subject: Re: Extent of hunger in America
Message-ID: <10668@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 17:39:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10668
Posted: Tue Oct 15 17:39:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:51:13 EDT
References: <203@gargoyle.UUCP> <3913@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <215@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.politics.theory:1277 net.politics:11508

> Jan Wasilewsky writes:
> 
> >Economic
> >hunger proceeds from either shortage of food (hardly the case  in
> >US),  or  from  its dearth compared to existing sources of income
> >such that the food cannot be acquired. Is this the case?  Let  us
> >see.
> >
> > An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies
> >100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours
> >(and you don't even have to cook it).
> >Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible.
> >
> > From the point of view of basic nutrition, 
> >people can be divided into 4 economic classes:
> >(1) "Very poor": cannot afford enough carbohydrates (or calories).
> >(2) "Poor": enough calories, not enough protein.
> >(3) "Middle-class": enough protein.
> >(4) "Rich": can afford to *choose* the form in which basic nutrients
> >    come (e.g. can replace eggs with fish or meat at will).
> >
> >In this classification, all Americans fall into the "rich"
> >category.
> 
> Not even close to being true.  See below.
> 
> >Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country,  they  cannot,
> >in  fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal
> >or borrow a dime an  hour,  you  can't  (except  voluntarily)  go
> >hungry.  
> 
> But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even
> that much.  They include children, the elderly, the mentally and
> physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed.  If they had any
> adequate sources of income, very few of these would still be hungry.
> How does Jan square this with his belief that food automatically
> distributes itself in nations where there is high food productivity?
> 
This is a good response but it misses the principal fallcay in
janw's arithmetic, viz., that it is also necessary to buy shelter,
utilities, clothing, education materials for children, etc.  I do
agree that everyone could afford an egg an hour -- raw (no stove),
eaten in the street (no apartment) while stark naked.  This would seem
to create some addl. problems.....


andy lazarus