More interesting reading:
It’s a place that lacks demand for healthier alternatives. That’s part of the culture, not some function of the geography.
In my experience poor neighborhoods abound with check cashing places, liquor stores, rent-to-own places, etc. It’s demonstrably true that people will do business in a poor neighborhood if there is money to be made. It strains credulity to think that there is a similar demand for healthy food that isn’t being met while all the other demands are.
What about the affluent neighborhood with no liquor stores? Does it lack demand for liquor, or are there other reasons a prospective liquor store owner would go elsewhere?
- Affluent neighborhoods often have access to liquor stores where they do their other shopping.
- A liquor store doesn’t necessarily need to be in an affluent neighborhood to satisfy their demand. They have the means to travel for alcohol or have it delivered if need be. If there is money to be made selling fresh, wholesome food to a population that can’t drive a long way to get it, the business will locate nearby to capture that money.
Exactly. Unlike some ethnic groceries, they don’t need to be in any particular neighborhood.
Not if they think there is more money (or less trouble with site and logistics) locating elsewhere.
[quote=“Peremensoe, post:425, topic:707949”]
Exactly. Unlike some ethnic groceries, they don’t need to be in any particular neighborhood.
[QUOTE]
They do to meet the demand.
It’s not an either/or. If you can make money in both location A and location B, why wouldn’t you?
He’s saying that the rise in obesity among the poor isn’t because they don’t have access to good supermarkets with healthy food (which is often part of the food desert concept - that people don’t eat healthier diets because they can’t, not because they prefer a different diet) -even poor neighborhoods with access to good supermarkets have a higher rate of obesity. And that even when there was an program encouraging bodegas to stock fruits and vegetables , people didn’t buy them.
You existed - but that doesn’t mean your neighbors wanted healthy food. A store is not going to make a profit selling items that only a small proportion of customers want.
Nope.
I have a much more nuanced approach. Large family from Latin America? Probably has a homemaker (if she hasn’t been forced out of the role by bureaucratic rules). 8 guys sharing a room while they try to find work in lawncare or construction? Not so much.
Of course, looking at these issues as multi-factorial makes it much harder to go “oh, those stupid fat poor people!”.
YOU might be talking only about food desserts. The rest of this thread has touched on a variety of topics, among them the tendency of poor folks to spend windfalls immediately instead of saving them.
That would be grand if there were never any costs other than food. That’s not the case. There’s rent, clothing, gas, utilities, deodorant, toilet paper, getting the car fixed… Losing food benefits is the equivalent of getting a pay cut of several hundred dollars a month - something even the middle class would notice.
Virtually all financial gurus suggest keeping 3-6 months living expenses in the bank as a cushion against normal stuff that happens. $2k is about six weeks at most for my household. Thus, the current system discourages the poorest from taking such a basic precaution as saving up a couple month’s expenses. I suggest that this is counter-productive. We’re not encouraging good financial habits in the poorest, in fact we’re discouraging them, then acting shocked when they don’t engage in those habits anyway.
Selling tortillas and a couple different types of peppers now make a store an ethnic wonderland? Holy crap, my local Aldi’s is a Mexican grocer now! Oh, wait - they sell edamame, too, in the frozen aisle, I guess they’re really a Japanese grocery.
Actually, Aldi’s does a pretty good job of keeping parts of my area from turning into a food desert. You don’t get 10,000 selections, but they have the basics plus a few other items and what they have is decent quality. If they weren’t there, however, there would be significant stretches where no, there are NO grocery stores and for anyone without access to a car getting to the ones further out would be a pain in the ass.
Seriously? When is the last time you walked four miles to accomplish a routine task?
This is a dense urban area where most people- rich or poor- do not own cars. There was a bus route that went by Whole Foods, but not a good one to the regular supermarket.
I now live in a nicer part of the city and I’m half a mile from four different grocery stores (and a fifth that just closed). That’s not a substantial burden. I can grab the kid and do a half mile hop, even in the snow or in extreme heat. Carrying heavy groceries half a mile isn’t bad.
But two miles is bad. Two miles is too far to walk for eggs, especially with kids.
When I lived there I did most of my shopping as dry or frozen foods from the CVS drug store, with occasional fresh foods from the $5.00 tomato bodega (not at all kidding. As a concrete example, those little $1.00 boxes of Barilla pasta were $4.00. A banana or orange was $2.50). Eventually a joined a CSA and started getting a produce box, but that’s pricey.
Upthread I mentioned people who used to sell fruit at Chicago El stations. Hey, free enterprise! The sellers found a demand and were filling it. The buyers were eating healthy. Win-win! Nope - the city came and arrested the sellers, they weren’t legal businesses.
Again, most of these situations are multi-factorial. There are laws regarding selling food, passed with the best intentions, but which make an obstacle to market entry.
As another example: in my state you can NOT purchase alcohol on Sunday in a grocery or liquor store. There is certainly a demand for it - on Sundays the checklanes at the store where I work pile up with booze people try to buy but can’t - and since the alcohol is already stocked certainly people who are there to sell it. But it won’t move on Sunday. Because of the law.
There is also a problem of crime in some areas. At one time, Detroit had NO grocery stores within the city limits. None. One 7/11 on the edge of the city, but that was it. Why? Because they kept getting held up. A business can’t survive if they’re getting robbed all the time. Ever notice how those “currency exchanges” and payday loan places in bad neighborhoods have things like bars on the windows and bulletproof glass between the cashiers and the public? That’s not because someone it trying to make a fashion statement.
Which brings us back to your cite: great, Indianapolis has made some progress. Wonderful. That’s just one city. I would have been much more impressed if that article had discussed other cities and what they’ve done to remove barriers to access. (Detroit worked out a program so that food stamps could be used at their Eastern Market, for example, which is like a farmer’s market with vendor stalls).
The fact that someplace like Indianapolis is applauding increasing such stores is great - but it also indicates that even if there isn’t an access barrier right now there was one in the past. Fantastic, we worked on one factor in the problem of nutrition and poverty. Unlike yourself, I don’t have the delusion there is a one-size-fits-all solution to these sorts of problems.
I’ve shopped at genuine Latino groceries, where only one staff person spoke broken English and all the signage was in Spanish. There’s a world of difference between that and a corner store with a few poblano peppers and some stale tortillas.
I mean, sure, great, that all these ethnic foods are getting more popular. I think it’s fantastic when some impoverished family drives their shopping cart past my register and pays for peppers, tortillas, mangoes, kiwis, and a bag of oranges with their food stamps. Bravo! The system is working! Then some fat middle class people drive through with the worst sort of processed crap in their cart, wheezing as they heave their bulk along, and not a green leaf in the whole lot. The difference? The middle class people aren’t be judged on their food choices.
So, great - make sure everyone has access to healthy food (because if they can’t get it they certainly won’t be able to choose it). That is the first step to dealing with this problem, not the last. After that you have all the other factors affecting food choices, from cultural habits to work schedules to bad teeth. I have a co-worker who is currently existing on Boost and Ensure due to having all teeth extracted and waiting for dentures. Lacking dental insurance for all of one’s adult life might contribute to tooth loss, who knew? Prior to the dental extractions - having to be paid off over time with interest because this person wasn’t able to save up enough to pay for it all up front - this person wasn’t eating a lot of healthy, crunchy stuff because if biting into Wonder bread can result in a lost tooth you won’t be eating a lot of raw carrots and apples.
So - having the fruits and vegetables available, transportation, health issues, long standing habits… it’s not a one-dimensional problem.
Provided, of course, the zoning and other laws allow for a profitable enterprise of that sort and they aren’t being constantly robbed. I’m sure there are other factors at work, too, but those are two that come to mind beyond pure supply and demand.
Theft. Armed robbery. Difficult rules and regulations. The grocery business has a very small profit margin, so high rents and utilities can be a problem. Scale becomes an issue - it’s harder to keep your prices low if you’re only purchasing small quantities yourself, and then if you’re in a poor neighborhood where, even if there’s demand, there’s not a huge amount of money for purchases it’s a problem.
Have you ever tried to carry a substantial load of groceries two miles on foot?
I don’t own a car because taxi/maxis/buses are cheap and omnipresent(I’m not in the US), but groceries are a big deal and a burden. Not only the weight of carrying them but you can only buy what you can put in your lap or between your legs or pay for an extra seat and set them there.
Can we agree on a few things…
-
Food dessert neighborhoods do exist. But that is not a universal problem for the poor.
-
Some people do not have any access to information and knowledge, and don’t even have the skills to ask. That is not a universal problem for the poor.
When someone has one of these issues - no knowledge and skills, no way to gain them, and/or no good solutions for getting decent food because there are a lack of local markets - that is indeed a problem.
When those services are provided and your social worker will set you up with someone to teach you to cook and shop, when their are supermarkets - or even smaller markets (which aren’t included in food dessert data - only supermarkets are) like ethnic markets - then people (poor or middle class) need to take some responsibility for their own food issues.
Likewise, to the broader stupid financial games - when you don’t have enough income to get buy, making smart financial decisions really isn’t helpful - you don’t have enough income to make smart ones - the circumstances put you one paycheck away from tragedy. But plenty of middle class and upper class people have plenty of money to get by, and yet live life one paycheck away from tragedy because they don’t choose to change their behavior. And yes, they may not know, and yes, they may be carrying emotional burdens around money (don’t we all), but at some level, they are making choices - just like an addict makes choices about whether to be an addict. Just like a type ii diabetic makes choices to be compliant or non-compliant with his treatment plan.
I live next to one of those low income food desserts and my kids are friends with some of the people who live there without good incomes. And life has dealt them a tough hand. But when they choose not to shop at the Aldi’s that is within a mile of most of the housing in that food dessert (the southern part of that food dessert is a park surrounded by not at all affordable housing, the northern part has low income housing and two supermarkets and an Aldi’s) because they don’t LIKE it and its easier to feed their kids through the drive through window…that’s a choice.
[anecdotal alert]
I am very skeptical “good access” to healthy food would make any difference. At the Walmart where I shop, I would estimate most of the shoppers are obese. Their carts are filled with desserts and fatty/frozen junk food. I look at their carts and say to myself, “How can they eat that crap?” This same Walmart has a very nice selection of fresh fruits and vegetables. When I’m in this section, there’s usually no other shoppers there.
I have friends and relatives who have lost their teeth at a relatively young age. Each whines about not having dental insurance, and they rarely went to the dentist. (FTR, I have never had dental insurance either.) I always found it interesting, though, that they could afford cigarettes, alcohol, fancy cell phones, game consoles, big-screen TVs, and vacations, but “couldn’t afford” to go to the dentist every six months.
[/anecdotal alert]
This statement makes zero sense. “I am living from paycheck to paycheck, therefore it doesn’t make sense to be smart about how I spend my money”.
So what? A rich person has resources to recover from a stupid decision. A poor one doesn’t. Therefore, it is more important for a poor person not to make stupid decisions because the consequences are going to be more severe.
Yes. It’s a choice. It’s not something they are forced into by circumstance.
Regards,
Shodan
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that poverty causes poor decision-making.
Poverty strains cognitive abilities.
It’s almost impossible to expect someone who lives under the chronic fear of homelessness and hunger to make wise decisions. If you’re stressed out because the bus is running late and you’re already on strike 2 at work and they’re threatening to turn off your lights and Mama is sick and you don’t have food stamps to get you through the month and your oldest is in trouble with the law and they think your youngest has ADHD and you’ve got a toothache but no money to see a dentist…then you aren’t likely to have the cognitive strength left to weigh the pros and cons of spending $5 on fried chicken gizzards and a bottle of soda for lunch.
It’s great to tell poor people they have to plan for the future. But if you are always focused on putting out the multiple fires burning right under your nose, when do you ever get a chance to think about how to avoid future fires?
As Broomstick said, it’s not just about food deserts. It’s not just about lack of education or a welfare system that penalizes saving. It’s about how all of these things and more create a very stressful existence–one that promotes poor decision making (which in turn perpetuates the stress and the poverty).
Not necessarily. In business never underestimate the principal of making the money as quickly and easily as possible. Grocery stores are not high profit businesses.
And sometimes even educated middle-class people make financial decisions that just make no damn logical sense. My mother, who has a college degree and is semi-retired (and used to be a social worker, so she certainly knows what resources are available and uses them appropriately) is a prime example now and again. She isn’t destitute, but she doesn’t have a ton of spare cash either. So she is thrifty sometimes to a point that makes no sense. Like putting $5 of gas in her car instead of a full tank, at a time when her gas gauge didn’t work (I’ve had to rescue her from far-off parking lots more than once when she ran out of gas).
Or a couple of weeks ago, I was going to Costco and Mom asked me to pick up toilet paper for her (she doesn’t have a membership). I said sure, and she commented that she hated to give other stores the amount of money they want for a case of toilet paper, so she just buys a small package, even if it’s more expensive per unit (double or more). I pointed out that she certainly has the space to store a Costco-sized package (she lives alone in a 2-bedroom condo with a room-sized basement storage locker), it doesn’t go bad, and it’s something she needs and will use anyway, so why not spend less per unit on it? She had no sensible reply.
(Sometimes I will split large quantities of nonperishables with Mom to save her a few bucks, or just give her part of the amount that we are buying anyway…but I will never understand that logic.)
I know not everyone can use Costco quantities, but I boggle at people I see buying those quantities and more at the grocery store, repeatedly. If you’re a family of four or more, buying bulk household goods alone can save many hundreds a year - and if you get used to shopping in bulk, it can be many thousands. Some things aren’t too different in price, but many are.
I’d guess, conservatively, that we save $3-4,000 shopping at Sam’s and Costco every year. That’s save, not spend. It’s well worth the time spent making the trip - and fewer of them, in the end, and not running out of things all the time. We used to live about a mile from one of each store and I could hit them for small purchases as easily as the grocery store. Now it’s a 15-mile trip to Sam’s (no Costco for 40+ miles) but that’s also the hub with Home Depot, Lowe’s, Target and other “essentials” discounters.
I wouldn’t think of buying everything locally, with one of each kind of store and correspondingly high prices. It would kick a hole in our standard of living.
What are the good things to buy at Costco or Sams? A few years ago I did some comparison shopping and it didn’t seem like there were any actual savings involved–but it could be I was looking at the wrong stuff?