American school lunches are the perfect metaphor for laissez faire capitalism, actually:
they used to be much better, but due to a combination of deregulation and maximizing for profits over quality of living for the general population, they’ve gradually declined to the point that it’s only due to the heroic efforts of severely overworked and underpaid workers that they’re even edible and nonpoisonous.
The food is trash because its supplied by a competitive process that try’s to minimise cost.
Cafeteria competes with other prospective suppliers of cafeterias, but the children have no agency in who supplies that cafeteria. Only the local authority or whoever runs the school gets to choose.
Minimizing cost doesn’t work in a competitive environment because everyone will go to the competition that makes better stuff. The children have no agency to pick a different cafeteria.
You’re smoking the bad stuff dude. Quit picking sides and start looking at the mechanisms.
then why are companies in all industries reducing cost?
It’s to maximise profit, which is the goal of every company, also the consumer of a product is not necesarily the one who pays for it, there are enough catering services that provide high quality food, but the reason the cheapest is chosen is, because in the example of school lunches both, the service provider and customer are trying to minimise cost, the company in order to increase profits and the school/city because they’re underfunded
You think you’re gonna make a lot of money producing garbage? Who’s going to buy it? Maybe communist schools where the people in charge don’t have to eat it.
You think you’re gonna make a lot of money producing garbage? Who’s going to buy it?
As always, the people either given no other choice or no other choice that they can afford. In other words, tens of millions of people.
Maybe communist schools where the people in charge don’t have to eat it.
You DO know that school lunches are for the children only, right? And that the ones selecting suppliers aren’t actually children? Please tell me that you’re able to comprehend that through the fog of neo-McCarthyist delirium…
Oh yes I forgot bidding out contracts to multiple suppliers that are private companies is … Communism?
It’s literally a failing of capitalism (cheapest bidder usually wins the contract) that the lunches aren’t better. Be mad about it if you want to, we all should be, there are absolutely problems with school lunches in many districts.
Now you could talk about how there isn’t a lot of competition and there are monopolies like Sysco in the food service industry, but still the suppliers for school lunches are privately owned companies in the USA.
Dude … Yeah the customer is the school and the decision is to go with a lower bidder, usually. It depends on the factors the customer, in this case a school system, wants to prioritize and any rules and regulations around it.
You’re just playing at semantics at this point.
Like it or not this is a private market we’re talking about. Also, I’d challenge the notion that private schools automatically have better cafeterias than public ones. It very much depends on school funding and what they can budget for.
Most educators would prefer better school lunches but the money has to come from somewhere and the way we find schools in the USA by using mostly property taxes, in most states, really causes a lot of inequality. So there is a give and take, like everything else.
At the end of the day a lot of the guidelines boil down to x calories consisting of something that has XYZ nutrients (vitamins/minerals). Whether that’s a slice of nutra-loaf or an actual meal is up to who is implementing the guidelines and the money they have.
“The school” is still the customer. They are staffing the cafeteria and paying it with their money. If they don’t achieve expectations they are fired or their contract isn’t renewed and “the school” pays someone else to do the job.
Yes. You don’t choose which school you go to. That’s decided by where you live. There is no competition, and you’re not paying to go. Funding comes from government and decisions are made by centralized authority. Communism. Everything about it is communism.
Who TF do you think you’re fooling? You already know you’re wrong and just pushing some bullshit. This isn’t a matter of style, but means of funding. Wtf do you even want? Dig your heels in and stack your fallacies as high as the moon and at the end of the day that’s all you have.
The food is trash because the budget was cut down to the bone (“muh taxes”) and the cafeteria workers have to bulk purchase out a bunch of prepackaged ingredients made by companies that lobbied the government to reclassify tomatoes as vegetables so they can squeeze out a little more profit. You’re right about one thing though; there’s no competition. The game was rigged by corporations from the start.
Tbh, the way schools run is more akin to communism than capitalism. That food is trash because the school cafeteria isn’t competing with anyone else.
American school lunches are the perfect metaphor for laissez faire capitalism, actually:
they used to be much better, but due to a combination of deregulation and maximizing for profits over quality of living for the general population, they’ve gradually declined to the point that it’s only due to the heroic efforts of severely overworked and underpaid workers that they’re even edible and nonpoisonous.
What does that mean?
You’re going to have to be 100% more specific.
Laissez faire capitalism.
The food is trash because its supplied by a competitive process that try’s to minimise cost.
Cafeteria competes with other prospective suppliers of cafeterias, but the children have no agency in who supplies that cafeteria. Only the local authority or whoever runs the school gets to choose.
Minimizing cost doesn’t work in a competitive environment because everyone will go to the competition that makes better stuff. The children have no agency to pick a different cafeteria.
You’re smoking the bad stuff dude. Quit picking sides and start looking at the mechanisms.
then why are companies in all industries reducing cost?
It’s to maximise profit, which is the goal of every company, also the consumer of a product is not necesarily the one who pays for it, there are enough catering services that provide high quality food, but the reason the cheapest is chosen is, because in the example of school lunches both, the service provider and customer are trying to minimise cost, the company in order to increase profits and the school/city because they’re underfunded
You think you’re gonna make a lot of money producing garbage? Who’s going to buy it? Maybe communist schools where the people in charge don’t have to eat it.
As always, the people either given no other choice or no other choice that they can afford. In other words, tens of millions of people.
You DO know that school lunches are for the children only, right? And that the ones selecting suppliers aren’t actually children? Please tell me that you’re able to comprehend that through the fog of neo-McCarthyist delirium…
Did you get what I said backwards?
Nope, you’re the one getting it backwards, thinking that a classic symptom of under-regulated capitalism is in fact communism.
no, actually underfunded capitalist schools, that are lead like a company and not like an educational institution
remember, the less money the city has to spend on school lunches the more they can overfund their police
You’re mislabeling. Public schools are government funded and centrally administrated. That’s communism, boi.
The private schools in the other hand, are doing very well. It’s just a shame that not everyone can afford them.
Police are definitely over funded. I’m not arguing about that. It’s just that literally nothing our government does is actually capitalism.
Nope, that’s one of the most basic functions of any form of government.
Not anarcho-capitalism ≠ communism.
YOU are the one mislabeling, to the point of absurdity.
You think you can do better?
Not only can I do better, but I literally have done better with the men’s shelter on Gest St in Cincinnati.
Edit: This isn’t relevant anyhow. We’re talking about economic systems.
Oh yes I forgot bidding out contracts to multiple suppliers that are private companies is … Communism?
It’s literally a failing of capitalism (cheapest bidder usually wins the contract) that the lunches aren’t better. Be mad about it if you want to, we all should be, there are absolutely problems with school lunches in many districts.
Now you could talk about how there isn’t a lot of competition and there are monopolies like Sysco in the food service industry, but still the suppliers for school lunches are privately owned companies in the USA.
When the bidding process is “whoever goes lower”, there’s no customer decision making. That’s not capitalism. That’s a simple rule.
Dude … Yeah the customer is the school and the decision is to go with a lower bidder, usually. It depends on the factors the customer, in this case a school system, wants to prioritize and any rules and regulations around it.
You’re just playing at semantics at this point.
Like it or not this is a private market we’re talking about. Also, I’d challenge the notion that private schools automatically have better cafeterias than public ones. It very much depends on school funding and what they can budget for.
Most educators would prefer better school lunches but the money has to come from somewhere and the way we find schools in the USA by using mostly property taxes, in most states, really causes a lot of inequality. So there is a give and take, like everything else.
At the end of the day a lot of the guidelines boil down to x calories consisting of something that has XYZ nutrients (vitamins/minerals). Whether that’s a slice of nutra-loaf or an actual meal is up to who is implementing the guidelines and the money they have.
“the school” isn’t eating the food.
Alright well now you’re just trolling or maybe you were all along. Or you’re honestly that dumb.
“The school” is still the customer. They are staffing the cafeteria and paying it with their money. If they don’t achieve expectations they are fired or their contract isn’t renewed and “the school” pays someone else to do the job.
Like it or not. This is still capitalism.
“The school” is deciding for the children. Authority choosing for me is communism.
Schools in America are… Checks notes… communist?
Yes. You don’t choose which school you go to. That’s decided by where you live. There is no competition, and you’re not paying to go. Funding comes from government and decisions are made by centralized authority. Communism. Everything about it is communism.
Show me you have no idea what communism nor public schools are in a paragraph! Mission failed successfully!
Who TF do you think you’re fooling? You already know you’re wrong and just pushing some bullshit. This isn’t a matter of style, but means of funding. Wtf do you even want? Dig your heels in and stack your fallacies as high as the moon and at the end of the day that’s all you have.
Show me you are a disrespectful fool in a paragraph! Mission failed successfully!
The food is trash because the budget was cut down to the bone (“muh taxes”) and the cafeteria workers have to bulk purchase out a bunch of prepackaged ingredients made by companies that lobbied the government to reclassify tomatoes as vegetables so they can squeeze out a little more profit. You’re right about one thing though; there’s no competition. The game was rigged by corporations from the start.
Real competition is the core of capitalism. There needs to be direct customer choice, and prices that aren’t just fixed.