Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally just all (or close to all?) existing public school cafeterias staying open. Same cafeteria workers as always, same types of menus. The biggest change in logistics seems to be that all the meals are now to-go, so goodbye trays, hello bags.
Did public schools previously provide 3 meals a day?
Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
441–450 of 494 posts
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone runs out isn't the relevant stat. A person could receive $100/day and still run out in 17 days if they are ridiculous. The real question is can a person reasonably feed themselves on $4/day. I would submit the answer is 100% yes for the vast, vast majority of locations in the US. You can do your own web search for the litany of sites/postings on how to eat on Here's one sample site: https://www.budgetsar…
And from that sample site, they seem to have an abundance of time to exploit sales and an excess of freezer/storage space. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but I have always gotten the impression those "eat cheap" sites are run by stay at home parents with an excess of free time or people using them to generate income.
You can prep in bulk and fridge/freeze, but you need that space to do it.
Then again, I’ve been eating a lot of rice, dried pulses and stew of whatevers left/on sale lately.
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#443I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.
I think the fear some people have is that if everyone has free food and shelter, we'll lose a massive portion of the labor force because they would have no need to work. It is not clear at all to me that it would be objectively good or bad, but some people appear to have picked the other side because they think we'd lose a lot of our nice things.
For example, some people might learn to play one or more instruments; others might become gardeners; others painters, tinkerers, makers, hackers (as in builders), cooks, and so on. I don't believe most people would just sit on their asses and do nothing. Some people really enjoy business and trade, and they would probably just work on creating some kind of business that they enjoyed (like procuring and selling high quality lamps!... and eventually designing their own).
We know that people tend to work harder at something they care about. So if we all got to work on things we cared about instead of what was available or what paid (or paid best), it's fathomable that society might have a higher and higher quality output.
It's impossible to know since we can't really test it, but I like to imagine that scenario.
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah they get 31*4, but they can only make it 17 days with that. I doubt I could make it even 17 days with only $127.
I ate plenty well as a grad student on $120 a month. If that’s $127/person that’s plenty for just food. If that’s $127 for a family of 3 that’d be rough.
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) 327,000,000 people * 365 days * $5/person/day = $596,775,000,000 yearly Or $596 billion $693 billion is the Wikipedia number for DoD budget, so that actually checks out. Of course, that's more than "put a dent in the budget," but I'm sure you meant those in need, and not every American (which is t…
> but I'm sure you meant those in need, and not every American I personally despise means testing. There has been so much hatred spewed over "welfare queen" that I am amazed we still do means testing and we have pulled it forward to things like the New York state Excelsior program (college education for first-time college students) and even for the $1,200 COVID-19 stimulus. It is very sad. We don't less means testing…
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way our welfare system is structured in the United States, maintaining access to food and shelter is a huge amount of work and stress. Developing skills and gaining employment is difficult in the best of times—yet we insist on making it even harder.
Well then we may need to restructure in order to create a more effective system. Society does not benefit from people who are completely reliant on the government to meet basic needs.
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#447I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.
I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that f…
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what that article says
You have to read past the first sentence "A food desert is an area that has limited access to affordable and nutritious food,[1][2][3] in contrast with an area with higher access to supermarkets or vegetable shops with fresh foods, which is called a food oasis.[4] The designation considers the type and quality of food available to the population, in addition to the accessibility of the food through the size and proxi…
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#449I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.
I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that f…
Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's enough? We have a grocery budget of $500 a month for a family of 5. That's $3.30 per person per day.
Economies of scale. A $16.50 meal for five is going to be a lot nicer than a $3.30 meal for one. I get that you can cook in bulk, but having variety is in your diet is very important.
Make 3 days worth of rice in the fridge. Freeze small batches of stews/soups/vegetables. Scramble eggs with different ingredients. Different spices/sauces. Eat fresh stuff on shopping days.