WP: ‘It’s embarrassing to the kids’: Students who owe lunch money will get only a cold jelly sandwich, district says

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

This is not a liberal or conservative issue. No child should be publicly humiliated for having ****ty parents. And anyone suggesting a kid being segregated to be fed a allergy free PB&J sammich at lunch isn't going to get bullied for that should put the ****ing pipe down.

 

Unless your school is going to a very strict dress code (like I mean the dress code is something like they have to wear a burlap sack), on what brands/types of school supplies the can buy, and what types of entertainment they have access to away from school, kids are being bullied for having ****ty parents and good parents.  If you think that eating a allergy free PB&J sandwich is changing that significantly, then you need to put down the pipe.

 

I generally don't think there would be a lot of bullying or negative stigma attached to it happening for a day or two as parents with money have to be reminded to refill the lunch account.  I'd be against children from low income families being only sold certain lunches based on income.

 

(I will make a related point here too.  School lunch (at least, I suspect at most schools) isn't like when I went to school where everybody knew who had free or reduced lunch.  You have a lunch code today.  You punch it in, and you get lunch based on your account and money on it.  Kids getting free lunch, put in their lunch code and get their free lunch.  There's no need to single people out as getting free lunch or reduced lunch today.  At that level, the ability to apply a stigma to poorer people based on lunch has declined compared to when I was a kid. 

 

And even when I was kid, people didn't get bullied over getting free or reduced lunch.  Clothes were a much more popular choice.)

Edited May 8, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

I guess they need to raise taxes and make meals “free”

 

seems to be the only way we “solve” problems anymore. Let the people that can’t afford it get it for free and let the people that can afford it pay for their own and have their taxes raised for the others. 

 

 

 

I thought they already did that?

https://texas-benefits.org/free-meal-programs/eligibility/

 

 

[Simmsy]

The so called "best country in the world" wants to punish children for being poor? I'm shocked.

[Riggo-toni]

I am all for humiliating our pansy-ass youth, so count me in as a supporter of this policy.

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Do you really think so? 

 

1. I don't think too many people go into having kids thinking it'll be easy or inexpensive

2. Many who don't have the means to support a child and have one anyway, likely won't be listening to a PSA

3. There are plenty of cases where people had children when they had the means but suddenly are in a different financial situation

1.  Too many people have "accident" pregnancies.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/01/almost-half-of-pregnancies-in-the-u-s-are-unplanned-theres-a-surprisingly-easy-way-to-change-that/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bbd654a59ddf

 

2.  I dunno.  I think it could at least make a sizable dent.

 

3.  True.  I get not everyonen fits into my statement.  

 

 

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What is the minimum income necessary to obtain a Baby making license? And what happens if 3 years down the road you loose your job and fall off the rails? Does your baby get repo’d... 17th trimester abortions?

 

Wow.  I was worried my comment might make someone go way high and right.  Glad it didn't.  

 

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

  Should be encouraging people to have kids, not making it miserable for trying.

 

Why exactly?  Not like we have a shortage of people or anything. 

 

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Which gets me back to my original point.  Do you have any real suggestions?

 

I always enjoy discussions with you.  We can disagree yet have thoughtful discussion without disrespecting the other.  

 

Education is a major part of it.  And that won't be a quick fix.  I also think less "glamourizing" (not the best word but a better one escapes me; and I'm not actually sure that was even a real word) having kids would help also.  Remind people that you can have a meaningful life without the 2.5 kids.  Also, encourage adoption more.  Fine, you want your 2.5 kids go ahead.  Doesn't mean you have to make them.  Though adopting the .5 kid could get messy.  Lastly, ****-slap all these people trying to make abortion so difficult.  

 

3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Then support women's and girl's bodily autonomy and stop fighting against abortion. This particular fight only really affects poor girls and women since it doesn't apply to the wealthy.

 

When did I not support it?

 

I've been on record stating that I personally am pro-life.  But I want pro-choice laws.  I don't think that is a place for me to force my own personal morals on another person.  To each their own.

 

3 hours ago, Busch1724 said:

 

Two suggestions: education and compassion. Peter, this isn't a personal attack to you. I'm just answering the question in general since it's a great discussion point. You're one of the most knowledgeable people here and capable of having a deep meaningful conversation.

 

Like most arguments and discussion points, many people want immediate fixes. It's a nuanced conversation and unfortunately as a society we don't do that. There's no quick fix. The barriers presented to individuals in poverty are hard to overcome. There's too many to mention here. It's easy to say don't spend money on this or that. Suggestion one is listening and talking to understand the actual problem. Hell, even take some time to experience the problem. We don't really want to understand one another's problems. We need that. 

 

Suggestion two: as a society we need to change how we relate to one another on a human level. The rich keep too much money, the poor are too lazy to do anything, and the middle class takes it up the you know what. How often have we all heard these refrains? We degrade segments of the population all the time. There's a systemic change that must happen. That starts with education and opportunity. Right now, we are not an educated society, nor are we trained and skilled in what the job market currently demands. That's the second part of how to you change these issues. Changes like this can take up to one generation if not more. 

 

Much more to say and could expand on this quite a bit more, but have a meeting to run to. 

 

Great post!

Edited May 9, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz
Spelling

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Why exactly?  Not like we have a shortage of people or anything. 

 

 

It's economics, you want a youthful population to balance out the older one.  Russia's population is about to start falling, as is Japan, same as China but specifically because of their one-child policy.  

[Springfield]

How do they even do school lunches any more?  

 

My lower middle class mom packed my lunch every day.  Bologna sandwich, small bag of chips, Ho hos, and a juice box.

 

Had to have been pretty cost effective.  How much does it cost to buy lunch for your kids?  Is it really cost prohibitive?

 

I feel like all the kids who bought school lunches were the poor ones who got shamed.  Don’t kids do Uber Eats or Grub Hub for lunch these days?

[twa]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

 

My lower middle class mom packed my lunch every day.  Bologna sandwich, small bag of chips, Ho hos, and a juice box.

 

 

 

The health nazi's would shut that down now.

[TheGreatBuzz]

48 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's economics, you want a youthful population to balance out the older one.  Russia's population is about to start falling, as is Japan, same as China but specifically because of their one-child policy.  

I'd be interested to see if that is still the line of thinking when considering global warming, food availability, effects of automation on job availability, or such related issues.

[Springfield]

27 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The health nazi's would shut that down now.

 

For real?  They don’t monitor what the kids are eating from home in schools these days do they?

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'd be interested to see if that is still the line of thinking when considering global warming, food availability, effects of automation on job availability, or such related issues.

It is, just gotta follow folk like the UN and World Economic Fourm, they talk in that kinda context all the time.

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

For real?  They don’t monitor what the kids are eating from home in schools these days do they?

 

No, they don't. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

For real?  They don’t monitor what the kids are eating from home in schools these days do they?

 

some are.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/05/can-schools-regulate-what-kids-bring-for-lunch.html

and then there are allergy concerns, my GK cannot bring any peanut  based food and a couple other things.

[twa]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

No, they don't. 

 

• School says no to Oreos in child's lunch (USA Today)
• Chicago Public School Bans Bag Lunches (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Texas School Lunch Cameras to Monitor French Fries (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

some are.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/05/can-schools-regulate-what-kids-bring-for-lunch.html

and then there are allergy concerns, my GK cannot bring any peanut  based food and a couple other things.

 

It is a private pre-school.  Private schools can clearly do what they want.

[twa]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

It is a private pre-school.  Private schools can clearly do what they want.

 

my gk is not in private school and they restrict his.

 

more examples

http://school-bites.com/should-schools-regulate-packed-lunches/

 

what does kabosh mean here?

 

Quote

 

Moore said she has put the kibosh on sodas in sack lunches, and routinely includes child nutrition information in her weekly newsletter to parents. 

https://www.tulsaworld.com/archive/tps-in-junk-food-fight/article_5b71d6c4-f12c-5a33-9dbe-451b38e10e0f.html

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

When did I not support it?

 

I've been on record stating that I personally am pro-life.  But I want pro-choice laws.  I don't think that is a place for me to force my own personal morals on another person.  To each their own.

 

My post wasn't specifically addressing you, Buzz. It's meant for those who continue to want to deny bodily autonomy for females.

[TheGreatBuzz]

40 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It is, just gotta follow folk like the UN and World Economic Fourm, they talk in that kinda context all the time.

I will not pretend to be an expert on the subject.  I've read a few articles but not in depth research.  The issue I have is that there always seems to be a reason for expanding population but never an explanation as to what is the number to stop at. When does the planet hit max capacity? 

[China]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

How do they even do school lunches any more?  

 

My lower middle class mom packed my lunch every day.  Bologna sandwich, small bag of chips, Ho hos, and a juice box.

 

Had to have been pretty cost effective.  How much does it cost to buy lunch for your kids?  Is it really cost prohibitive?

 

I feel like all the kids who bought school lunches were the poor ones who got shamed.  Don’t kids do Uber Eats or Grub Hub for lunch these days?

 

OK, we all need to reveal the lunches we had.  I would often get brown bread and cream cheese sandwiches (this was gross as brown bread is bread from a can, see below), a bag of carrots and olives and a can of apple juice (this was before juice boxes existed).  Juvenile delinquent note:  The apple juice cans were good for making Polish canons using a squash ball. About the size of the can on the left below they had a peel off mylar tab rather than a pull tab:

 

 

And this is brown bread:

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

When does the planet hit max capacity? 

 

It doesnt come up because every attempt to enforce it has been a total stain on human history or completely backfired. You gotta look at the food producing methods of the Neatherlands to get why I'm not looking at that as a primary downfall, jus scratching surface of what we capable of.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/

 

Quote

One more reason to marvel: The Netherlands is a small, densely populated country, with more than 1,300 inhabitants per square mile. It’s bereft of almost every resource long thought to be necessary for large-scale agriculture. Yet it’s the globe’s number two exporter of food as measured by value, second only to the United States, which has 270 times its landmass. How on Earth have the Dutch done it?

 

[twa]

6 minutes ago, China said:

 

OK, we all need to reveal the lunches we had

 

 

I don't recall mine, but it sure never had juice in it.

they gave me milk money

[TheGreatBuzz]

12 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

It doesnt come up because every attempt to enforce it has been a total stain on human history or completely backfired.

 

I'm not suggesting enforcing some kind of one child policy.  Just a change in mindset.  Not everyone agrees that a declining birthrate is a bad thing.

 

Quote

But Sarah Harper, former director of the Royal Institution and an expert on population change, working at the University of Oxford, said that far from igniting alarm and panic falling total fertility rates were to be embraced, and countries should not worry if their population is not growing.

Harper pointed out that artificial intelligence, migration, and a healthier old age, meant countries no longer needed booming populations to hold their own. “This idea that you need lots and lots of people to defend your country and to grow your country economically, that is really old thinking,” she said

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/falling-total-fertility-rate-should-be-welcomed-population-expert-says

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm not suggesting enforcing some kind of one child policy.  Just a change in mindset.  Not everyone agrees that a declining birthrate is a bad thing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/falling-total-fertility-rate-should-be-welcomed-population-expert-says

1

True, but pretty much everyone agrees its going to negatively effect the global economy in the short-term:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/02/01/death-spiral-demographics-the-countries-shrinking-the-fastest/#23e47bfcb83c

 

Quote

There are several reasons these demographic shifts portend economic decline. First, a lack of young labor tends to drive up wages, sparking the movement of jobs to other places. This first happened in northern Europe and Japan will increasingly occur now in Korea, Taiwan, and even China. It also lowers the rate of innovation, notes economist Gary Becker, since change tends to come from younger workers and entrepreneurs. Japan’s long economic slowdown reflects, in part, the fact that its labor force has been declining since the 1990s and will be fully a third smaller by 2035.

 

The second problem has to do with the percentage of retirees compared to active working people. In the past growing societies had many more people in the workforce than retirees. But now in societies such as Japan and Germany that ratio has declined. In 1990, there were 4.7 Your Germans per over 65 person. By 2050, this number is projected to decline to 1.7. In Japan the ratios are worse, dropping more than one-half, from 5.8 in 1990 to 2.3 today and 1.4 in 2050. China, Korea and other East Asian countries, many without well-developed retirement systems, face similar challenges.

 

Finally, there is the issue of consumer markets. Aging populations tend to buy less than younger ones, particularly families. One reason countries like Japan and Germany can’t reignite economic growth is their slowing consumption of goods. This challenge will become all the more greater as China, the emerging economic superpower, also slows its consumption. The future of demand, critical to developing countries, could be deeply constrained.

4

 

 

I see what's going on with social security in this country as a bubble that we'll have to get over, but for other countries getting over the bulge of a large older population isn't what they are running into.  You're article mentions an estimated max population of 24 Billion that Earth with present technology can sustain, but most graphs don't have us reaching even half that by the end of this century.  We'll need to deal with the xenophobia of countries not wanting to allow needed immigration and their economies dragging ours down before worrying there's too many people to feed.  There's already too many people to feed based on present technology and implementation, but walmart is still open.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

There's already too many people to feed based on present technology and implementation, but walmart is still open.

 

The problem with feeding today's population is not the amount of food (or technology, and I'm not sure what you mean by implementation).  The issue is political and economic will.

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/200/population-and-feeding-the-world

 

And there's every reason to believe with vertical farming and artificial meat our ability to generate food is going to continue to get better (though the economics and politics of actually feeding people might not).

Edited May 9, 2019 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

36 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The problem with feeding today's population is not the amount of food (or technology, and I'm not sure what you mean by implementation).  The issue is political and economic will.

 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/200/population-and-feeding-the-world

 

And there's every reason to believe with vertical farming and artificial meat our ability to generate food is going to continue to get better (though the economics and politics of actually feeding people might not).

 

Why are you nitpicking like I'm clueless when I jus posted an article about the neatherlands food supply methods?  The current means of getting food to people despite their economic situation isnt working, especially in severe poverty situations.  Implementation of food programs by UN and US arent stopping deaths by starvation world over, theres no need for a correction in my understanding here.