On The Topic Of School Lunch Shaming

[Ethel mermania]

In the US a family of 4 making less than 180% of the poverty line is not paying much if anything in taxes.

And, again, this whole issue would go away if no families at all had to buy lunches. Schools should be funded by taxes and willing donations, not by nickel and dimeing families.

I am not unsympathetic but there has to be a point where something gets paid for, and if it's not paid for you get called out for it. You want to raise the subsidized lunch to 200% ok I can go along with that, but end of the day there has to be a line.

You are entirely unsympathetic.

That said, raising the line from one arbitrary percentage to another isn't going to solve the issue of it being a line (with which reality is rarely so obliging as to comply). Get rid of the fee for school lunches. Include it in the tuition (IE: The taxes that are supposed to be funding public schools).

Lunch Shaming isn't really a thing, and if it is- it's not a big deal. I for one, went without eating lunch for nearly the entire time I was in K-12 out of choice. School food is nasty, no one eats it unless they don't have options for something better, like from home or off campus. It's a waste of money to be buying lunch from school.

I used the time wasted on a Lunch hour, to get plenty of homework done ahead of time. At a job, I wouldn't be using a lunch hour either. I'd want to keep working.

You... didn't read past the title, did you?

Nah, you want to be holier than thou you pay for it yourself, and call yourself saintie and pat yourself on the back about what a woke boy you are, feel free.

The school system is not obligated to feed all kids, while I dont mind paying for kids who cant, I have no desire or responsibility to feed those who can feed themselves.

[Katganistan]

You also have a better job and benefits.
Please understand that some of these folks do not. They may be working multiple jobs to make ends meet -- and still might not be able to do it. Some are working AND still in shelters because they can't make the rent.

Until our school started providing a bagged free breakfast and free hot lunch for everyone, I had students -- some of whom were not mine -- approach me and ask if I could get them a roll at the corner store because they had not had dinner and there was nothing to eat in the house the next morning either.

I've bought bacon, egg and cheese and an OJ for someone else more than once. It's terrible that we give money and rebates and handouts to corporations and let kids go hungry.

I am not unsympathetic but there has to be a point where something gets paid for, and if it's not paid for you get called out for it. You want to raise the subsidized lunch to 200% ok I can go along with that, but end of the day there has to be a line.

Agreed. The line ends at kids not being hungry.

[Katganistan]

Lunch Shaming isn't really a thing, and if it is- it's not a big deal. I for one, went without eating lunch for nearly the entire time I was in K-12 out of choice. School food is nasty, no one eats it unless they don't have options for something better, like from home or off campus. It's a waste of money to be buying lunch from school.

I used the time wasted on a Lunch hour, to get plenty of homework done ahead of time. At a job, I wouldn't be using a lunch hour either. I'd want to keep working.

Saiwania, your decision not to eat lunch is not the topic, and saying 'it's not a thing' when there are dozens of news reports about it just in the last year is ignorant.

[Saiwania]

You... didn't read past the title, did you?

My belief is that "skipping lunch" is a solution for people from most social classes- even the poor. The fact is, even those on minimum wage can afford food if they know where to look, but might have to make do without something else like healthcare. Its very basic. If you can't afford food for you and your family, you're not doing well enough to begin with; to warrant being a parent. It is important for someone in that situation to figure out how to raise their income. Not going to be an easy process to become more career skilled to switch to a better job, but that is harsh reality.

The options for the poorest is to have a breakfast which will last for the day, or to have their kid rely on free school lunch/food stamps/whatever else for the food insecure people. School food isn't usually of the best quality anyways. Its worthwhile to find a way to get better food if you can.

Contrary to popular belief, going without food for most of the day isn't starving yourself provided you still get enough. Intermittent fasting of 18 hours or so, has been correlated with increased longevity. Something about the cells of the human body not dividing as fast if your usual rations aren't filling. You age somewhat slower in eating less overall.

[Katganistan]

It exists.

[Jebslund]

And, again, this whole issue would go away if no families at all had to buy lunches. Schools should be funded by taxes and willing donations, not by nickel and dimeing families.


You are entirely unsympathetic.

That said, raising the line from one arbitrary percentage to another isn't going to solve the issue of it being a line (with which reality is rarely so obliging as to comply). Get rid of the fee for school lunches. Include it in the tuition (IE: The taxes that are supposed to be funding public schools).


You... didn't read past the title, did you?

Nah, you want to be holier than thou you pay for it yourself, and call yourself saintie and pat yourself on the back about what a woke boy you are, feel free.

The school system is not obligated to feed all kids, while I dont mind paying for kids who cant, I have no desire or responsibility to feed those who can feed themselves.

And we again come to the point where you fail to realise that that group is larger than you think and the nuance in serving that group while "valiantly" holding the line against children whose parents can afford to pay extra for lunches getting free food is more trouble than the maybe-a-dollar a year savings to your taxes over feeding every child is really worth.

[Jebslund]

You... didn't read past the title, did you?

My belief is that "skipping lunch" is a solution for people from most social classes- even the poor. The fact is, even those on minimum wage can afford food if they know where to look, but might have to make do without something else like healthcare. Its very basic. If you can't afford food for you and your family, you're not doing well enough to begin with; to warrant being a parent. It is important for someone in that situation to figure out how to raise their income. Not going to be an easy process to become more career skilled to switch to a better job, but that is harsh reality.

The options for the poorest is to have a breakfast which will last for the day, or to have their kid rely on free school lunch/food stamps/whatever else for the food insecure people. School food isn't usually of the best quality anyways. Its worthwhile to find a way to get better food if you can.

Contrary to popular belief, going without food for most of the day isn't starving yourself provided you still get enough. Intermittent fasting of 18 hours or so, has been correlated with increased longevity. Something about the cells of the human body not dividing as fast if your usual rations aren't filling. You age somewhat slower in eating less overall.

You definitely didn't read past the title. Come back when you've actually read the OP.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Just serve free meals. Not that expensive, and maybe stop giving sweet contracts to companies that seek pizza as a “vegetable”.

[US-SSR]

Just serve free meals. Not that expensive, and maybe stop giving sweet contracts to companies that seek pizza as a “vegetable”.

Vermont has a proposal to do exactly that.

[Rojava Free State]

Just serve free meals. Not that expensive, and maybe stop giving sweet contracts to companies that seek pizza as a “vegetable”.

Schools be like "BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THE TEACHER'S UNION! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

ALSO WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD CAUSE FUCK ACADEMICS!"

[The Black Forrest]

Just serve free meals. Not that expensive, and maybe stop giving sweet contracts to companies that seek pizza as a “vegetable”.

Schools be like "BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THE TEACHER'S UNION! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

ALSO WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD CAUSE FUCK ACADEMICS!"

Now now. Teachers like the idea of the kids getting fed.

[Saiwania]

Schools be like "BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THE TEACHER'S UNION! ABSOLUTELY NOT! ALSO WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD CAUSE FUCK ACADEMICS!"

Most people don't care too much about teachers, except teachers. And in any case, the teachers that earn the big money (relative to others in their profession) are working for a fancy university and not at the K-12 level.

Academics count for astonishingly little in the real world. More people are more impressed with accomplishments/extracurriculars and not your grades. Most people want the so called "well rounded" individual over someone who put too much of their energy into maintaining a great GPA/honors. Sports bring in more money than funding the fundamental subjects, so I can see why most schools like funding athletics. It brings them name recognition and outside sponsors/prestige/or a better reputation. And can boost morale if they win state championships or whatever else, such as a spelling bee or chess tournament.

The general public likes that more than a school simply having higher test scores/good GPAs where they live.

I recognize now that lunch shaming exists in plenty of places within the US, but I'd contend that its nothing traumatic. Again, most people can always skip lunch or eat when not at school. I'd propose that anything that is left over (that'd get thrown away anyways) should go to anyone who really wants it at the end of the lunch hour. The most natural state of affairs, is that those who don't pay or want the free version- get the stuff that nobody else wants or the leftovers that're really leftover last.

[Rojava Free State]

Schools be like "BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THE TEACHER'S UNION! ABSOLUTELY NOT! ALSO WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD CAUSE FUCK ACADEMICS!"

Most people don't care too much about teachers, except teachers. And in any case, the teachers that earn the big money (relative to others in their profession) are working for a fancy university and not at the K-12 level.

Academics count for astonishingly little in the real world. More people are more impressed with accomplishments/extracurriculars and not your grades. Most people want the so called "well rounded" individual over someone who put too much of their energy into maintaining a great GPA/honors. Sports bring in more money than funding the fundamental subjects, so I can see why most schools like funding athletics. It brings them name recognition and outside sponsors/prestige/or a better reputation. And can boost morale if they win state championships or whatever else, such as a spelling bee or chess tournament.

The general public likes that more than a school simply having higher test scores/good GPAs where they live.

I recognize now that lunch shaming exists in plenty of places within the US, but I'd contend that its nothing traumatic. Again, most people can always skip lunch or eat when not at school. I'd propose that anything that is left over (that'd get thrown away anyways) should go to anyone who really wants it at the end of the lunch hour. The most natural state of affairs, is that those who don't pay or want the free version- get the stuff that nobody else wants or the leftovers that're really leftover last.

My school had good test results thanks to that 10% of students from middle class preppy backgrounds who were getting like 4.2 GPAs.

Didn't stop the other 90% from being fuckin dipshits

[Sundiata]

What is your opinion on school lunch shaming NSG? And what are some ways to prevent this type of shaming?

Ideally, a child's parents would have prepared food for them at home prior to the school day. However, not every child is so fortunate. The taxes we spend should cover nutritious meals for all people.

[Katganistan]

Just serve free meals. Not that expensive, and maybe stop giving sweet contracts to companies that seek pizza as a “vegetable”.

Schools be like "BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THE TEACHER'S UNION! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

ALSO WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD CAUSE FUCK ACADEMICS!"

Um, no, teachers themselves pay for their union dues.

Try again.

[US-SSR]

Schools be like "BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY THAT COULD GO TO THE TEACHER'S UNION! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

ALSO WE NEED A NEW FOOTBALL FIELD CAUSE FUCK ACADEMICS!"

Um, no, teachers themselves pay for their union dues.

Try again.

Public schools are funded by public money (taxes). That includes teachers' salaries. That includes the portion of teachers' salaries that is deducted for union dues, health coverage, pensions and all the other things that "teachers pay for themselves." The same thing applies to all public employees; taxpayers pay for their salaries, benefits, union dues, travel expense reimbursements, etc., etc.

[Katganistan]

By that logic, Macy's pays its worker's union dues.

[Atheris]

Dude, I wish I never had to eat school lunch. That shit's gross.

Then again, people in Hell wish they had ice water, so (shrug)

[US-SSR]

By that logic, Macy's pays its worker's union dues.

No, Macy's customers pay Macy's worker's union dues. They are in the same position vis-a-vis the workers as taxpayers are vis-a-vis public school teachers.

[The Republic of Fore]

No clue on the travel time, but about 13 Million people have multiple jobs.

And how many of them are getting government benefits? Really, there is no excuse for a parent or two-parent family with a child with an income above the poverty line to be unable to pay that nominal debt for student lunches other than personal irresponsibility.

Funny enough most Americans on welfare don't work at all. And yes, that does only include those who are capable.

[Drumon]

And how many of them are getting government benefits? Really, there is no excuse for a parent or two-parent family with a child with an income above the poverty line to be unable to pay that nominal debt for student lunches other than personal irresponsibility.

Funny enough most Americans on welfare don't work at all. And yes, that does only include those who are capable.

Vast majority of welfare is means tested which means, yes, they must work.

[US-SSR]

Funny enough most Americans on welfare don't work at all. And yes, that does only include those who are capable.

Vast majority of welfare is means tested which means, yes, they must work.

In fact Wal-Mart workers collect over US$6 billion annually in government benefits, all while the stores where they work take in over one-tenth of government-provided food stamps. Without this corporate welfare the Walton family would have to get by with something less than the combined wealth of 42 percent of Americans.

[Gormwood]

Vast majority of welfare is means tested which means, yes, they must work.

In fact Wal-Mart workers collect over US$6 billion annually in government benefits, all while the stores where they work take in over one-tenth of government-provided food stamps. Without this corporate welfare the Walton family would have to get by with something less than the combined wealth of 42 percent of Americans.

It's clear the Waltons exploit this by encouraging employees to apply for welfare. You'd think if the government actually wanted to crack down on welfare abuse and not just persecute the poor they'd leverage punishments on Wally World until they start providing employees sufficient healthcare and living wages.