Re: Food Snob

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I'm thinking this thread has set a record for length, no?

;-)

We have one going on at alt.fan.cecil-adams with over 875 posts since
the 15th.

This food snob one has only about 380.

Boron

Boron Elgar <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I'm thinking this thread has set a record for length, no?

;-)

We have one going on at alt.fan.cecil-adams with over 875 posts since
the 15th.

This food snob one has only about 380.

Yeah, still a baby.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

Boron Elgar said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I'm thinking this thread has set a record for length, no?

;-)

We have one going on at alt.fan.cecil-adams with over 875 posts since
the 15th.

This food snob one has only about 380.

Boron

Well maybe we should crosspost it to that doc's ngs so we can get it
beyond 380? Hey it's a thought.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Boron Elgar said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I'm thinking this thread has set a record for length, no?

;-)

We have one going on at alt.fan.cecil-adams with over 875 posts since
the 15th.

This food snob one has only about 380.

Boron

Ok, so it's getting close to 1/2 way there...... <G>
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Boron Elgar said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I'm thinking this thread has set a record for length, no?

;-)

We have one going on at alt.fan.cecil-adams with over 875 posts since
the 15th.

This food snob one has only about 380.

Boron

Ok, so it's getting close to 1/2 way there...... <G>

Yep, me thinks we need to crosspost it to boost the replies <snicker>
Now whats that doc's name and his ngs again? Seriously though it has
been a very interesting thread with lots of opinions and really little
heat. What I like is I'm actually learning a few things from this
thread. I had no idea what food stamps or WIC was so that is
interesting. I had no idea how little food dollars someone has to exist
on in the US when on assistance yet come to think of it, the amount
isn't really all that far off of the Canadian allotments. I'm still
stuck on the *why don't we teach them how to cook* because that better
utilizes their food dollars. One big difference I see is Americans on
assistance *must* spend their food allotment at a grocery store.
Canadians, or at least those in Ontario can spend their food allotment
anywhere they please.

~patches~ said:

One big difference I see is Americans on
assistance *must* spend their food allotment at a grocery store.
Canadians, or at least those in Ontario can spend their food allotment
anywhere they please.

There are a lot of farmers markets, at least here in California, where
one can spend their allotment.

Christine

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

I'm thinking this thread has set a record for length, no?

;-)

No.

Think the first WebTV knothead...

The Ranger

[email hidden] wrote:
It is *so* easy to judge people in this situation. Why don't you take
some time to find out how much in food stamps and other government
assistance she actually gets, then look at the prices for fresh foods in
your local supermarket and think about the size of her family and how
much it'd cost to feed them good, fresh foods every day. Even at the
portions you'd consider "sensible".

Honestly, I think it's more of a culturally motivated difference than
mere poverty. My grandmother, for instance, was Dominican born and
always worked either factory or domestic jobs in this country. She
cooked every day, although meals often consisted of rice, beans,
vegetables and some meat. We rarely had junk food in the house because
my mother and grandmother thought it frivolous and expensive. What
about other immigrant groups stuck in low wage labor like Chinese,
Vietnamese, Koreans, Mexicans and Indians/Pakistanis, just to name a
few? Chances are that if there are women in those households, fresh and
inexpensive foods are being cooked, even if it's just tortillas and
frijoles or rice and daal.

Quoted message said:

While it is possible to eat better than you described on such a small
amount of money, it takes a lot of time, effort, and training to do it. It
is not intuitive, and it is not something that people are taught how to do
much any more.

Believe me, I'm no food snob and am far from rich. So, I'd probably
approach her from the angle of saving money in the long-term if she'd
learn to cook. I'd then teach her how to cook, probably couching it in
an invitation to come over my house and help me cook.

Quoted message said:

Also, it is only possible to eat a little better, not a
great deal better. So eating a little better, with a whole lot more work,
that it is unlikely anyone has taken the time to show her how to do versus
spending her time on other things that may appear more productive to her in
the long run...

My fiance cooks very well for me, but generally eats cheap convenience
foods because she doesn't want to be bothered cooking two meals. When
we can agree on what to eat together, I consider it especially
celebratory. I see what she spends on processed foods and think it
would be cheap for one person. But, if we had a family of four or ten,
that would surely add up beyond what we could stretch out using fresh
ingredients.

Quoted message said:

An awful lot of the people I know who are on government assistance don't
have the time, kitchens, cooking implements, or skills to do what would be
needed to improve their diet. The cost of setting themselves up with the
necessary things to make a diet of beans and rice palatable is likely
higher than that they'd save over the course of several months, which, when
you're living check to check and having to make choices about which bills
to pay, isn't a very good incentive.

How much do you think it costs to make rice and beans palatable? Plenty
of poor people manage to afford even a modest collection of spices and
cooking implements. Even an Indian slum dweller can afford onions,
garlic, chiles and other spices to put in her family's daal or poha.

Quoted message said:

They manage to eat enough to survive so they can work their [censored] jobs with
no hope of advancement (or look constantly for work with few skills and
little hope of finding anything other than soul crushing labour) so maybe
their kids can have some better chance, but aren't likely to because
they'll be fat and thus have a much harder time in school, in the office
place, and out finding jobs. All the while having to carry the stress
caused by all of this so they can die early and their kids can continue
this cycle that we as a society make it nearly impossible to break out of.

Your depiction would make me want to shoot myself and end it all rather
than kill myself gradually with munk food. I think good food, even from
simple ingredients, can really change one's outlook on circumstances
even by simply making one feel physically more nourished.

Quoted message said:

Lots easier to just judge her as a fat slob sucking off the government teat
than to actually help her learn a better way. What a great friend you are.
Oh maybe you're nice to her face, but you're here in public calling her a
fat, lazy slob who is *refusing* to feed her family well at the expense of
the tax payers.

Goddess save me from "friends" like you.

I agree with you here. Middle class people can sure get judgmental when
they can afford organic milk and eggs, free range chickens and mail
ordered spices. I used to be able to afford all that before my ex wife
left me financially destitute from her compulsive spending. Now, I
can't buy free range and organic, and I frequently opt for frozen fruits
and vegetables because of how I tend to use them. But, we have
relatively few processed foods in our house and generally like it that
way. My fiance, being "WASP" and Missouri raised, probably is used to
more processed foods than I knew growing up. But, her parents also
smoked meats and cultivated fruit and vegetable gardens. All in all,
I'd teach this woman how to cook and turn her on to some cheap and tasty
food that will make her feel better and excite her taste buds.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

[email hidden] wrote:
It is *so* easy to judge people in this situation. Why don't you take
some time to find out how much in food stamps and other government
assistance she actually gets, then look at the prices for fresh foods in
your local supermarket and think about the size of her family and how
much it'd cost to feed them good, fresh foods every day. Even at the
portions you'd consider "sensible".

Let's be fair and do the same for all those people waiting on un in fast food
restaurants for minimum wage. They get themselves to work and put in a full
day, usually working their buns off.

Dave Smith a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

[email hidden] wrote:
It is *so* easy to judge people in this situation. Why don't you take
some time to find out how much in food stamps and other government
assistance she actually gets, then look at the prices for fresh foods in
your local supermarket and think about the size of her family and how
much it'd cost to feed them good, fresh foods every day. Even at the
portions you'd consider "sensible".

Let's be fair and do the same for all those people waiting on un in fast food
restaurants for minimum wage. They get themselves to work and put in a full
day, usually working their buns off.

Minimum wage is the capitalist sorry excuse. "Sorry, can't pay you
more." "Sorry, we have no money for that daycare you need." Of course
they can, but then they'd actually have to take a cut in their own
income. Costco has a better model for workers. I posted something on
that here not too long ago.

alsandor said:

Minimum wage is the capitalist sorry excuse. "Sorry, can't pay you
more." "Sorry, we have no money for that daycare you need." Of course
they can, but then they'd actually have to take a cut in their own
income. Costco has a better model for workers. I posted something on
that here not too long ago.

It is astounding that almost a century after the fact a lot of capitalists
don't remember the concept of "Fordism", e.g. Henry Ford realised if he paid
his workers a living wage they'd be able to afford the products that came
off his assembly lines...

I remember a few years back when there was a big debate about raising the US
minimum wage a measly 15 cents or whatever. All these businesses saying,
"Oh, we'll go out of business if that happened...". Well it happened and we
had an economic boom...

In the UK the minimum wage is almost $10.00 US per hour. Not only is their
economy thriving but there is a labor shortage, many of those lower - level
jobs are now being filled by Poles, Latvians, etc....

It's a *simple* concept, *everybody* gains by higher wages...

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow"
<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In the UK the minimum wage is almost $10.00 US per hour. Not only is
their
economy thriving but there is a labor shortage, many of those lower -
level
jobs are now being filled by Poles, Latvians, etc....

Some here from the UK, her name slips me for now, she
said that people cannot hold two jobs. Doesn't matter what
your one job is, you can't have another job.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, she said once you had
a low level job it was hard to move on to a better one somehow,
if she's around perhaps she could explain for me.

Struck me as strange. I forget how it had come up in chat,
I think something to do with waiters working at different
restaurants.

nancy

Nancy Young <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, she said once you had
a low level job it was hard to move on to a better one somehow,
if she's around perhaps she could explain for me.

<snip>

I'm not her, but I have heard in Canada that in some fields it is
considered better *not* to work at a very basic level if you are aiming to
be employed at the top someday. Specifically, I have heard that if you
start working in a bank as a teller, you won't be taken too seriously if
you apply for a management position; people hired for management positions
start with a different type of entry level jobs. In some offices, if you
start in a clerical position, you can advance to other clerical positions,
but you will not be considered to have the right kind of get-up-and-go to
be considered for a management position - even if you have the same type
of degree the management candidates have (many people in both clerical and
management groups have bachelor degrees these days).

You can usually moonlight, though, as long as your efforts in one job
don't adversely affect your efforts on the other. Some employers don't
like it.

--
Cheryl

Cheryl Perkins said:

I'm not her, but I have heard in Canada that in some fields it is
considered better *not* to work at a very basic level if you are aiming to
be employed at the top someday. Specifically, I have heard that if you
start working in a bank as a teller, you won't be taken too seriously if
you apply for a management position; people hired for management positions
start with a different type of entry level jobs.

I didn't know that it was so widely recognized, but it certainly does seem to
be the case from my experience. However, I personally know two people who
started at the bottom and worked their way to the top. One of them started off
as a lineman for a telephone company and worked his way to CEO. The other
worked a summer job in large steel mill and became manager of one of their
facilities.

Quoted message said:

In some offices, if you
start in a clerical position, you can advance to other clerical positions,
but you will not be considered to have the right kind of get-up-and-go to
be considered for a management position - even if you have the same type
of degree the management candidates have (many people in both clerical and
management groups have bachelor degrees these days).

During my 28 years working for the provincial government I saw all sorts of
hard working people bypassed for promotion while incompetent [censored] climbed the
ladder. Ever once in a while we had
a boss pass through our office who was being groomed for higher positions.
Then every once in a while we had some sort of wunderkind parachuted in who
had been everywhere, done everything, knew everyone. Then a year or two later
the people who brought them in shipped them right back out after realizing
what we recognized quite quickly, that they were psychopaths.

It's an odd phenomenon in the world of work. Some people are quite convinced
that you can get ahead by knowing your job and working hard. Then there are
those who get to the top because their goal has always been getting ahead,
rather than doing the job. Then there is the problem of making yourself to
valuable.

I was stuck in a dead end job for a while. I had had several promotions, but I
got about as far as I could get in this area without having to move, which was
not an option for me. I needed to get out of the department that I was in.
Hard work didn't work. I tried screwing up. That didn't work. Then tried a
new approach..... cause trouble. We had a religious fanatic working in our
shop. He was a lazy SOB who spent all day walking around preaching to everyone
instead of working. The boss didn't know what to do with the guy because he
was a minority and kept complaining about racial prejudice. I complained in
writing about religious harassment.

They were stuck behind a rock and a hard place. They couldn't get rid of him,
so they got rid of me. It was suggested that I put in for a job vacancy in
another branch. The pay was about 40% higher than I was getting, and it was an
expanding filed, while our shop was destined to be closed within a few years.
I won the competition for the job, got the nice raise. That position was in
the midst of a classification grievance that was settled two years later,
which ended giving me a 100% raise over my old job. A few years later the old
shop closed down. My previous 3 jobs no longer even existed.