Kevin O'Leary is kind of a dick

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is true, but why are North American companines agreeing to do business with these corrupt types? Put your captial into companies that treat their employees like human beings.

Because there is more profit in dealing with corrupt types than ethical businesses?

[Red John]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-...b_4326233.html

Smoking a pack a day is $300/month or more, five bucks a day at Wendy's is $150/month, and then she complains she's too ugly to get a waitressing job and can't afford to clean herself up?

Sad to see a woman work so hard (2 jobs + school) to try and create a better life and then can't stay out of her own way with awful lifestyle (and monetary) choices.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except that ignores the numerous indigenous cultures that lived in much harsher climates than the Northern Europeans.

And they didn't have the technological advances required to better their positions.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And they didn't have the technological advances required to better their positions.

Right, and that's also not to say that indigenous tribes weren't any less violent than Europeans. There's a lot of anthropological evidence to indicate they were just as violent, if not more so. So, I think scarcity may have played a part, but I also think that Europeans probably also benefited from greater access to trade routes in a more densely populated area of the world, but this is all guess work on my part. I certainly don't have the history or anthropology credentials to back any of it up.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Red John

Smoking a pack a day is $300/month or more, five bucks a day at Wendy's is $150/month, and then she complains she's too ugly to get a waitressing job and can't afford to clean herself up?.

Not going to argue the pack a day part of it, but fast food is probably some of the cheapest food you'll get. When that whole "McDonald's assumes you can get by only if you take another job" debacle came out, I did some calculations and it's really hard to get by on other foods. The lowest I tried was a pure Mac and Cheese styled diet and it's within range of a fast food diet.

This seems to be good reasoning behind why some studies claim obesity is tied to poverty in: you can't afford to spend much on food, so you buy cheap, unhealthy food. Such food isn't intended to be eaten 3 times a day every day, so you eat levels above what you should and pack on pounds.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by kirant

Not going to argue the pack a day part of it, but fast food is probably some of the cheapest food you'll get. When that whole "McDonald's assumes you can get by only if you take another job" debacle came out, I did some calculations and it's really hard to get by on other foods. The lowest I tried was a pure Mac and Cheese styled diet and it's within range of a fast food diet.

This is ridiculous. You honestly couldn't think of a cheaper diet than McDonalds?

How about this -

Breakfast: Box of cereal ($5) + Carton of milk ($6) = $11 for a week's worth of breakfast.

Lunch: Loaf of bread ($3) + 5 apples ($6) + 200g sandwich meat ($6) = $14 for a week's worth of lunch

Dinner: Bag of potatoes ($7) + bag of carrots ($4) + package of 5 chicken breasts ($15) = $26 for a week's worth of dinner

That's $51 for one person in a week, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It's not terribly exciting and not amazingly healthy but it's far cheaper and far more healthy than a fast food diet.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

This is ridiculous. You honestly couldn't think of a cheaper diet than McDonalds?

How about this -

Breakfast: Box of cereal ($5) + Carton of milk ($6) = $11 for a week's worth of breakfast.

Lunch: Loaf of bread ($3) + 5 apples ($6) + 200g sandwich meat ($6) = $14 for a week's worth of lunch

Dinner: Bag of potatoes ($7) + bag of carrots ($4) + package of 5 chicken breasts ($15) = $26 for a week's worth of dinner

That's $51 for one person in a week, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It's not terribly exciting and not amazingly healthy but it's far cheaper and far more healthy than a fast food diet.

I was just going to address this, thanks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20373171

Fam Med. 2010 Apr;42(4):280-4.
Cost of eating: whole foods versus convenience foods in a low-income model.

McDermott AJ, Stephens MB.
Author information

• Department of Family Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. andrew.j.mcdermott@gmail.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

Financial limitations in low-income populations, those at highest risk for poor health outcomes, may preclude adherence to recommended dietary guidelines. We examine the financial burden of shopping for foods to meet national dietary recommendations in a supermarket compared to eating primarily in a fast-food restaurant.
METHODS:

Using a single-parent, low-income model, we obtained whole food costs (healthy) from local supermarkets and from fast-food outlets (convenient). Using cost per calorie as a metric for comparison, we used estimated single-parent, low-income living expenses to determine the relative costs of meeting national dietary guidelines.
RESULTS:

Average food costs for healthy and convenience diets accounted for 18% and 37% of income, respectively. Dairy products and vegetables accounted for the largest cost percentages of diet costs (36% and 28%, respectively). The cost per calorie of a convenience diet was 24% higher than the healthy diet. Both models resulted in net financial loss over the course of a year for a single-parent, low-income family.
CONCLUSIONS:

Food costs represent a significant proportion of annual income. Diets based heavily on foods from convenient sources are less healthy and more expensive than a well-planned menu from budget foods available from large supermarket chains

[kirant]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

This is ridiculous. You honestly couldn't think of a cheaper diet than McDonalds?

How about this -

Breakfast: Box of cereal ($5) + Carton of milk ($6) = $11 for a week's worth of breakfast.

Lunch: Loaf of bread ($3) + 5 apples ($6) + 200g sandwich meat ($6) = $14 for a week's worth of lunch

Dinner: Bag of potatoes ($7) + bag of carrots ($4) + package of 5 chicken breasts ($15) = $26 for a week's worth of dinner

That's $51 for one person in a week, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It's not terribly exciting and not amazingly healthy but it's far cheaper and far more healthy than a fast food diet.

Fair enough. I stopped really quickly in terms of numbers crunching. I did mean "Mac and Cheese" at a literal level; the quick calculator test was to see the difference in cost and Macaroni and Cheese was my compared food. Using that food was probably the mistake.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I was just going to address this, thanks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20373171

Excellent read.

[burn_this_city]

Being born in Canada is winning the birth lotto. It's difficult for me to wrap my head around how fortunate I am just being born here. Even the girl in that blog is living a life that so many truly impoverished people would trade for in a second. People here don't seem to grasp that no matter how crappy their lives might be, 90% of the world would probably trade with them in a heartbeat.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

This is ridiculous. You honestly couldn't think of a cheaper diet than McDonalds?

How about this -

Breakfast: Box of cereal ($5) + Carton of milk ($6) = $11 for a week's worth of breakfast.

Lunch: Loaf of bread ($3) + 5 apples ($6) + 200g sandwich meat ($6) = $14 for a week's worth of lunch

Dinner: Bag of potatoes ($7) + bag of carrots ($4) + package of 5 chicken breasts ($15) = $26 for a week's worth of dinner

That's $51 for one person in a week, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It's not terribly exciting and not amazingly healthy but it's far cheaper and far more healthy than a fast food diet.

That's not really enough food to survive on though. Just doing some quick math and that looks like 8000-10000 calories which is only about 4 days for the average person.

I do agree with the premise that you can eat real food for about the same price as fast food, but cost of food is only one part of it. The bigger issue is people who aren't equipped to actually plan and cook healthy meals. If you're brought up living off of junk you're probably going to live like that as an adult as well.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not really enough food to survive on though. Just doing some quick math and that looks like 8000-10000 calories which is only about 4 days for the average person.

If my interpretation is right, I think that's also 5 days of food given the 5 apples.

I think one way to look at this is calories per dollar. Looking online, someone did the math for me.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=0

Rice seem to the best at just under a dollar per day if you ate it pure. Of course, cleaning or washing rice in any way will likely drop that to a more reasonable value. The calculation I had for the "Mac and Cheese" diet I alluded to before was 780.

Originally Posted by opendoor

I do agree with the premise that you can eat real food for about the same price as fast food, but cost of food is only one part of it. The bigger issue is people who aren't equipped to actually plan and cook healthy meals. If you're brought up living off of junk you're probably going to live like that as an adult as well.

Certainly this is a huge effect. Every time I've been to the US, I've been shocked by the easy accessibility of fast food.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I really don't see an alternative though. If we refused to use products manufactured in 3rd world countries, it would be almost impossible to live above the poverty line in a country like Canada (try getting a half-decent job that doesn't use tools or electronics made by poor people).

We could all protest and demand better salaries for indentured laborers in 3rd world countries I suppose, but that would also raise our cost of living to an unmanageable point. I hate to say it, but if you aren't beating them, you're joining them.

Not that I agree with the current wealth distribution or think it is just, but I just don't see how the average person can break it without sacrificing themselves and their family. Honestly, humans (and most animals) are not wired to do things against self-preservation.

That's pretty much it for me. I hate it that half of the stuff in my house was made by slaves. But what can I do about it?

I'm not gonna go full out Amish and make all my own stuff. I'm not going to be moving to Bangladesh to build schools anytime soon.

I'm skeptical about fair trade goods. I absolutely love the concept but I am worried that it is just another scam like "carbon neutral" or organic farming. These scams don't do any good. They are only there to relieve us of guilt and make someone rich.

If we were to somehow go to a more "fair trade" system I really don't think that the standard of living would be affected as much as you think. It would mean that we would have to live with less stuff. Maybe a new computer every 5 years instead if every 18 months. Maybe the kids get 10 hot wheels for their birthday instead of 50. Maybe we would have to make our own Christmas tree ornaments. We have been tricked into thinking that we need all of this stuff, but the reality is that we don't need all of this junk and it doesn't make our lives any better.

So I just try to buy less. I make my own furniture whenever possible. I have a friend who has been to Haiti 11 times, and I give him a bit of cash directly whenever he is leaving on a mission. Not much, I know. But I think it's more productive than pointing my fingers at the 85 wealthiest people in the world.

[Coach]

What we need is this guy...

[jayswin]

nm

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is true, but why are North American companines agreeing to do business with these corrupt types? Put your captial into companies that treat their employees like human beings.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Because there is more profit in dealing with corrupt types than ethical businesses?

yup cheaper for both business and consumer.

But there is a lot of selection and for example, for fashionable clothes I order from La Canadienne.

http://www.lacanadienneshoes.com/?__...election=ca_en

It's stylish and Canadian made. I don't need to buy a tonne of crap, I just need a few nice outfits for work.

It's consumerism these days. Every teenaged girl think she needs 100 cheap outfits when we in high school just had a few. And all the downtown people just run to Holt Rewfrew buying whatever luxury item.

And get off my lawn!

[chummer]

Originally Posted by troutman

Hard to understand how anyone "earns" billions of $. That is such an immense number.

These fortunes depend on placing an idea or a product successfully into a huge market.

IIRC, Sting earns $60K US per day for Every Breath You Take. One song. Probably wrote it in a day. And this is peanuts to what the billionaires bring in.

May only be $2K per day:
http://www.rttnews.com/2249110/sting...-you-take.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sting-all-this-time/

So that's like 7 cents for every breath he takes.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

yup cheaper for both business and consumer.

But there is a lot of selection and for example, for fashionable clothes I order from La Canadienne.

http://www.lacanadienneshoes.com/?__...election=ca_en

It's stylish and Canadian made. I don't need to buy a tonne of crap, I just need a few nice outfits for work.

It's consumerism these days. Every teenaged girl think she needs 100 cheap outfits when we in high school just had a few. And all the downtown people just run to Holt Rewfrew buying whatever luxury item.

And get off my lawn!

You just posted links to a website where the cheapest gloves they have are $165 and the coats range from $995 to $2,695.

Not everyone can play in that pool.

[GirlySports]

I know and I can only afford a piece here or there then isn't it better to buy here then to run to Holt Renfrew for that $3000 GUCCI handbag.

Every women owns expensive clothing.. even if it's 1 expensive pair of shoes.

It's a choice.

[Jonrox]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

This thread is talking about the 3.5 Billion people. None of them live in this country and the Brothers you work for were never one of them. Of course in Canada, or the US, or Europe you can pull yourself up if you really go for it. Even the people living in this country under the poverty line supporting a family on $12,000.00 a year probably make 10 times the amount that any one of these 3.5 Billion people do.

Why is everyone talking about what you can do if you work hard here, in the western world. None of that applies to the 3.5 Billion that the report talks about.

Is that really true? This study uses wealth, not income, to describe the "problem". The common definition of wealth is assets net of all liabilities. If Oxfam uses this definition, then thousands of people in this country and millions of Americans are among the "poorest" people on the planet.

6.4 million households in the US find their mortgages underwater to the tune of almost $400 billion in negative equity. Add in all the people with huge amounts of consumer debt and this number grows further. It takes a lot of people with minimal wealth just to make up for all of this negative wealth to get this number back to break even.

The starving families living in the slums of India don't have much for assets, but not much for debt either. Depending on the definition of wealth used, you could twist these statistics to say a homeless man with no debt and a garbage bag full of cans has wealth greater than millions of Americans combined. Although they're quite poor, these examples can't come close to contributing as much as the negative wealth of a family finding their mortgage hundreds of thousands of dollars underwater.

It takes a heck of a lot of people living in the world's poorest countries to erase this huge amount of negative equity that was racked up by North Americans and Europeans.... Maybe around 3.5 billion of them or so.

[Jonrox]

To add, I looked at Oxfam's summary of the study and couldn't find how any terms were defined or how the numbers were calculated. If anyone can link me to the data, I'd like to see it. I'd love it if I'm wrong, because I'd hate to think anyone would actually twist the facts the way I did and pass it off as a real example of the problems in the world.