Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

huffpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 918 posts

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#131

Post by em-bee »

alwa wrote: post #48
infecto wrote: post #12

Nit: could not stand the writing style. It took 3-4x more words than it should have. On the topic I agree and believe strongly that all kids should receive free food at school. It amazes me people will fight to prevent when to me the costs are small but the benefit can be huge for the next generation.

It frustrates me when advocates get righteous about something that they only imagine and don’t take the time to see for themselves (while claiming it’s widespread and easy to observe): “I never actually witnessed this scene myself, but I’ve interviewed enough lunch ladies, principals and kids to construct a sort of composite mental image that now plays on an endless loop between my ears. It’s become my own personal f…

he talked to kids. how many kids to you have to talk to before you can make a picture? maybe the kids didn't get hungry, but if they tell you they felt humiliated, then that is what happened. the kid still knows. the other kids know. it doesn't matter if people went out of their way to avoid that. it doesn't matter that the story given is just an anecdote. teachers covering for kids are anecdotes too.

you can be the most courteous about helping a kid out, and it may be that in many cases that avoids humiliation, but in some it doesn't. and that's enough to make that picture.

and don't think that people working in schools can't be humiliating. i have had to experience it at least once myself. not because of lunch money but something else, but that's besides the point.

also how exactly are they supposed to see for themselves? it's not like they can just walk into a school and hang out during lunch until they see it happen.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#132

Post by vlovich123 »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #107
vlovich123 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

While this is generally true of a certain American political party, you see hard cutoff lines even in states like Massachusetts, where the majority of voters and politicians seem to be actively trying to make things better for people. The real answer is that gradients are hard, and clear lines are easy. A shocking number of Americans don't understand how our income tax brackets work; they believe that if you cross th…

You’re making the mistake assuming a political party is flawless or that a political party having power somehow obviates the need to be responsive to constituents who might take issue or be swayed to take issue with the policy changes you try to enact.

People like the ones I described exist in both parties but I think it’s telling that people assumed I’m talking about one political party because it made those slogans it’s brand. The hard lines vs gradient doesn’t make sense in terms of public because this doesn’t raise to the level of public discourse.

Also Massachusetts is a bad example because they enacted free lunches across the board. They may have gradient issues in other welfare programs but school lunches is something they’ve solved for now.

As for RCV being shot down, I don’t think it’s an education issue. I personally prefer approval voting as it’s simpler to explain and faster results. Not wanting to switch to RCV (specifically IRV) can have all sorts of reasons and claiming it’s because the electorate is dumb is the wrong take I think.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#133

Post by thinkingtoilet »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #17
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #5

It's astonishing this is a thing. I'm thankful to live in Massachusetts where all kids can get lunch for free with no questions asked. Where I live, kids can get breakfast too, however I've heard that isn't universal in the state. The article points out another issue that is so widespread. Often times, being right above or below a cut off line can make a huge difference and it's kids just above the cut off line here…

>I'm thankful to live in Massachusetts where all kids can get lunch for free What's the cost of living in Massachusetts again?

Why do you ask?

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#134

Post by autobodie »

internetter wrote: post #119
dahart wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools seem amazing at spending on lunches, when they can feed people for less than $5 a meal. I can’t eat for that amount, even when cooking at home these days. I’m not seeing clearly what your transit agency’s payment system upgrade has to do with school lunches or why that somehow supports the idea that they’re not spending prudently.

The question was asking if making them free actually saved the government money. I provided an anecdote suggesting that this might very well be the case, by providing an example of a place where the government is burning money in order to collect less money than they burned.

Wrong. The question asked the opposite; it asked if the means testing saved the government money.

You answered "yes" in your original comment, but your supporting arguments imply "no" so I can see why people are confused.

Read the original question again:

>Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free lunches with no strings attached?

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#135

Post by dahart »

internetter wrote: post #119
dahart wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools seem amazing at spending on lunches, when they can feed people for less than $5 a meal. I can’t eat for that amount, even when cooking at home these days. I’m not seeing clearly what your transit agency’s payment system upgrade has to do with school lunches or why that somehow supports the idea that they’re not spending prudently.

The question was asking if making them free actually saved the government money. I provided an anecdote suggesting that this might very well be the case, by providing an example of a place where the government is burning money in order to collect less money than they burned.

The specific problem is that the alternative in the case of school lunches does not involve upgrading the payment system. Just because transit might benefit in the short term from not upgrading doesn’t mean school lunches would.

TBH I’m a little skeptical of the payment system story, it sounds oversimplified and might be agenda driven. All our transit systems need payment system maintenance and upgrades over time. Riders want & demand tap to pay, for example. All costs cut into and balance against incomes, but that doesn’t mean they can opt out, nor that it will save taxpayers in the long run. Keeping the old payment system might have rising costs and lead to reduced ridership over time, costs which may not have been assumed in the story you shared. I doubt the payment system is very significant compared to train cars, rails, crossing lights & gates, employees, etc.

We tend to cherry-pick and arm-chair debate individual budget items without seeing the big picture, in order to justify the preconceived claim that governments are bad at spending. Making families pay for school lunches is pretty funny when taxpayers pay for the building, books, teachers, and janitorial and food staff, the sum of which is literally thousands of times more than lunch. Debating the funding of school lunches is missing the forest for the trees, right?

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#136

Post by grimcompanion »

relaxing wrote: post #89
grimcompanion wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way too simple to categorize behavior like this into good/evil. It's a worthwhile thought experiment (and habit) to assume that everyone is trying to do the right thing, and try to understand how they might come to a different viewpoint than you.

OK, so you endorse a policy which not only creates human suffering now but harms society and creates more human suffering in the future. The cost of fixing it is minuscule and outweighed by the future benefits. What are the good faith arguments in favor of this? - ignorance - lack of critical reasoning skills - religion - sadism - ?

I absolutely don't endorse it. I just find it counterproductive to say things like "malice is the point".

I do have trouble finding good faith arguments in favor of this policy. It is cruel. But the people who decided to implement it aren't "other". They're humans who think they're good people (aside from a small minority of people who really don't care) and much as we'd like to think so we're not that different than them. If we can understand their justification, that's a step toward actually convincing them there is another way. And yes, I have changed many people's viewpoints with this level of patience, not everyone is too stupid/mean/insult of your choice to change their minds.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#137

Post by wqaatwt »

mindslight wrote: post #128
thomascgalvin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is generally true of a certain American political party, you see hard cutoff lines even in states like Massachusetts, where the majority of voters and politicians seem to be actively trying to make things better for people. The real answer is that gradients are hard, and clear lines are easy. A shocking number of Americans don't understand how our income tax brackets work; they believe that if you cross th…

> Massachusetts ... also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard. The math wasn't "hard" - it was wrong. The decision process was to be instant runoff voting, which has significant problems. IRV is basically what people stuck in the two party mindset think they want so they can express support for a third party. But once a third party gains enough traction to become viable, perverse in…

Or just multi-member districts with a proportional system like STV..

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#138

Post by mindslight »

bombcar wrote: post #108
dataflow wrote: post #15

I'm confused about the mechanics of the process here. Could someone explain how paying off the lunch debt translates to hot meals? I'm confused because the fact that a continuous debt -- however the amount -- means your expenses exceed your revenue. So even if you pay it off... doesn't that mean when doors open tomorrow, there'll be new debt, and thus the problem will still recur? Or is the idea that the debt was dec…

When you're a student you get a card or pin or something to identify you to the school cafeteria. You have a balance it charges against. In theory, when it hits zero, no more food for you. But that's impractical because kids are bad about just about everything, and so denying food because they forgot to remind their parents to recharge the thing is harsh. So the system lets them go into "debt" and still get a lunch.…

Based on the article it seems like there is another level of enforcement here where once there is significant "debt", they take away the kid's hot lunch and give them a cold lunch instead. (and presumably this all happens at the cash register after the kid already has a hot plate of food in front of them)

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#139

Post by ryoshoe »

bombcar wrote: post #106
rpcope1 wrote: post #82

Surely it can't be that expensive to just provide every child living in our country that so desires/needs it three decent meals a day, regardless of their situation? That one has always confused me, if our country is actually prosperous and powerful, that something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide.

Let's assume (bad assumption, but it should be good enough for the math) that a Happy Meal™®© is a decent meal. It costs about $6 around here, so let's say without toy it's $5. https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp says there are 71 million kids. $466 billion a year. Ok, ok, that is maybe too high. Let's assume a wonderful world where you can produce a meal for a dollar (less than the local scho…

Based those calculations every child could be fed for less than 10% of the DoD's annual budget of $849.8 billion.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/370341...

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#140

Post by internetter »

autobodie wrote: post #134
internetter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was asking if making them free actually saved the government money. I provided an anecdote suggesting that this might very well be the case, by providing an example of a place where the government is burning money in order to collect less money than they burned.

Wrong. The question asked the opposite; it asked if the means testing saved the government money. You answered "yes" in your original comment, but your supporting arguments imply "no" so I can see why people are confused. Read the original question again: > Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free l…

Oh, that’s my bad
Post reply on HN