As someone who experienced this first hand growing up. I consider how someone feels about free school lunch, a basic test of their humanity.
If you think kids should go hungry or be embarrassed at school because of their parents finances… we can’t be friends, nor acquaintances. IMHO, you are subhuman at that point and not worth my time.
My dad believed that because he paid taxes he shouldn’t have to pay the school to feed me. I begged, borrowed, and stole spare change to pay. He’d chip in once in a while, but once you are so far in debt they won’t feed you anymore (at least they didn’t at the time). I remember going to the lost and found every day to check the pockets of the clothes in there. I learned how to pick the locks on the gym lockers and would steal money from other kids pockets. I sometimes left school so I could go steal lunch from a grocery store near by. I got caught once, but after the lady knew what was up, she conveniently was always looking away from me during mid day of I came in. From the bottom of my heart I hope she receives every possible blessing in this life.
No child should have to do that. Ever! Happy to pay taxes to and live in a state that has solved this problem!
>If you think kids should go hungry or be embarrassed at school because of their parents finances… we can’t be friends, nor acquaintances. IMHO, you are subhuman at that point and not worth my time.
Contemporary politics is "you are human garbage for not thinking the same way as me and your seed should be wiped from the Earth"
While I wholeheartedly agree that no child should ever go hungry and school lunches should be free (from a EU country, this isn’t even a thing here), if you call people subhuman, we can't be friends, nor acquaintances.
This is wild to me. In Estonia school lunches are free for everyone, paid by the taxpayer. Doesn't matter if you are poor or wealthy, everybody gets the same food.
In the Netherlands we packed our lunches or we cycled home to eat lunch with our parents and then cycled back to school. Lunch was one of the most favorite times of my day. A break from school during school hours. What a treat!
The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother. In your case, it sounds like your dad was maybe capable of paying but wanted to freeload.
So as long as you're going to charge for lunches, you need to have some kind of enforcement mechanism. Embarrassing the kid ideally would not be part of it.
California pays for it all, but California is a pretty rich state. And if you're a poorer state, you have the choice between eliminating this problem, or addressing many other types of educational need.
Just roll it into property taxes and call it a day. This is not a political issue in my mind, but a basic humanity issue. A child with hunger pangs isn’t focused on learning, if you can’t cover the basic need, the rest is a waste. The haves, selfishly don’t want to help subsidize the have nots. Which I get, BUT these are kids, we as adults should leave them out of it, sack up, and deal with it.
You are correct, my dad was a civil engineer, he very much could afford it. I guess he thought high end alcohol and golf were better expenditures. I found it interesting that the article mentions a lot of the debt isn’t from the lowest income brackets.
> Just roll it into property taxes and call it a day.
It's what my district does and the benefits are obvious - there's no "gimme your lunch money" kids who have it hard at home & trying to supplement their diets.
The school even hands out a free breakfast, which serves as monitored childcare for the parents who need to drop their kids off before 8 AM, to get to work. The highschool also gives out double servings for kids who come off the morning sports practice sessions.
The cynic in me says the biggest beneficiary will be the US Army, who can reliably look for a stream of well fed kids from families which aren't doing well enough to pay for college.
There are no moral hazards when it comes to social welfare programs. People really think there are, but every time we look we find practically no freeloaders. This idea that we have to threaten people with literal starvation to get them to be productive members of society is ironically deeply impoverished.
And if we really think that's true, why do we let people accrue wealth at all? Why do we then think that the most productive people in our society are also the richest? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I struggle to see the pillars of this moral structure in any other way than "poor people are a different breed and need stricter rules to keep them in line". Which again is super wrong! TFA cites research that shows that these kids' parents work, but their wages/bills are too low/high. Does anyone want to guess how bad those parents' jobs are? Do we need to detail the struggles working people go through (lack of health care, wildly inconsistent hours, sexual harassment and assault, etc)? The nicest thing you can say about this kind of thinking is that it's out of date.
And what is "freeloading" anyway? Kids of all backgrounds and parenting situations get to eat? Bring on the freeloading then. Who do I make the check out to?
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother. In your case, it sounds like your dad was maybe capable of paying but wanted to freeload.
I say this as an IT worker making what most would consider an absurd amount of money and pays 0.55*absurd money in taxes, a dad, a human, etc... what the fuck does any of this matter.
If a child is hungry, the only concern is feeding that child. A child is, pretty much by definition, incapable of fully caring for themselves. If their parents fail to care for them, we have various mechanisms for the state to step in in their stead up to and including taking them away and giving them to someone else.
"Sorry, Johnny, your dad has the money to pay for lunch but chose not to so we're punishing you with going hungry until he wises up."
Full stop no.
If a child is hungry, they get fed. Politics can dictate that adults who are less valuable deserve to starve to death. Politics can dictate that adults who can afford to feed their child but choose not to need to be punished, taxed more, or anything else.
But we, as a society, have the means to ensure that no child ever has to go hungry. Every decision that leads to hungry children is offensive, and anyone choosing to punish adults by starving their children is a monster.
Downvote, flag, or come fight me. I'll die on this hill: Neglecting children is bad and anyone who could help and doesn't is at fault.
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother.
So what? Assuming you have a progressive tax system in the first place, the people that are capable of paying are, in fact, actually paying for the service in any case. Why charge them again?
> So as long as you're going to charge for lunches, you need to have some kind of enforcement mechanism.
Yes, and one of the reasons for free universal public programs paid for by progressive taxes are often better than means-tested programs is that enforcement isn't free (and neither, in the case of school lunches, is handling money for payment for the people that your means-tested free lunch program now means are required to pay for the service) so you end up spending a whole lot more between payment processing and eligibility verification and enforcement than you save by excluding the people actually paying for the service by higher taxes from receiving the service.
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother.
I quite frankly don't care about that type of arguments anymore. If someone wants to be a bad person they are free to do so. I don't care, it should not stop the 95%, or more, that want to do the right thing.
We continuously make more and more convoluted rules, which are a nightmare for decent people to navigate, but which are just ignored by the assholes. I don't care about fighting the assholes for what is minor amounts, if it means overburdening good people with rules which weren't meant for them anyway.
Moving it to taxes essentially does the same thing. The assholes weasel their way out of paying their fair share, while those who want the best for society and everyone is stuck paying the full amount.
This is why we have taxes. Because we can assess how much each person can afford to pay, and then make collective decisions that can't be made by inefficient free market mechanisms.
Even if you want to look at it from a purely selfish point of view... if you want to live in a good, prosperous society, this starts with childrens education. A well fed, happy, well slept child is an ideal here to get them the best education they can.
Not wanting each child to get the best possible start in life makes absolutely no sense to me.
"Not wanting each child to get the best possible start in life makes absolutely no sense to me."
Maybe to lower the chances of other children against your own (wealthy) offspring? So from a very selfish individualistic perspective there is sense? I suspect that might be the base motivation, even though you likely won't find many openly stating that or even are aware of it.
I could have, and did on occasion, but that would have required my dad to go buy lunch food and keep it on hand. But he didn’t need to do that… the school needed to feed us!
I did learn around 7th grade that I could steal his cigarettes and sell them. I guess he did pay for more lunches than I realized, now that I wrote this.
It is classically American to say "I pay taxes. They should use that to solve the problem" while paying so few taxes that it could not possibly solve the problem.
"My dad believed that because he paid taxes he shouldn’t have to pay the school to feed me."
I understand this is not what is meant here... but in a sense he's right. In a normal society where everyone pay taxes and they are well spent, it should be indeed the Government that's in charge of feeding kids at school
He’s right but if everyone around you tells you you’re wrong, you’re also in a very bad spot.
If your kids are hurting because you stand on the moral high ground… you get your cigs stolen from, by your children no less. All for the psychological comfort of being right.
You could say he was right, just early: this is also known as very wrong in e.g. financial markets.
Taxes aren't magic, you pay some money and receive some services. It's obviously possible to fund meals with tax money, but would he accept a higher tax rate to cover for it?
Absolutely, and more states are starting to realize this. Covering basic needs for the most vulnerable is a cornerstone of community and a sign of success.
On the off chance you're interested in school lunches I highly recommend watching videos of Japanese school lunches on YouTube. There's a bunch out there now and if you were raised in the American system it will probably blow your mind. The idea that lunches can be freshly made, on site, out of healthy ingredients and children are active participants in serving and cleaning up is just crazy. When I encountered it for the first time I felt like a big part of my childhood had been sold to the lowest bidder.
Maybe this wasn't all over the US, but in the 90s I helped serve and clean up our elementary school lunches. There was a rotation through all of the older classrooms.
It wasn't just sold to the lowest bidder, the subsidized lunch program is specifically not to subsidize the kids, but to bail out farmers growing crap nobody wants.
> The idea that lunches can be freshly made, on site, out of healthy ingredients and children are active participants in serving and cleaning up is just crazy.
> When I encountered it for the first time I felt like a big part of my childhood had been sold to the lowest bidder.
....I share the sentiment, but I also see the chasm between the requirements to get to what's desired, & what's actually given to meet those requirements (which is almost nothing).
To have this program exist requires children that can be trusted to not waste the food that they're given, to behave, & to learn about preparing their own meals.
It's a bootstrapping problem, trust problem, & expectations problem, all at once.
Japan was able to do this by pressuring its citizens & youth to pay the cultural toll needed to get there, and it was a toll that *everyone* had to pay into. No exceptions.
Whilst there can be pockets of local communities that can do this, the probability that the same thing can happen *everywhere* in the US is close to zero, given the cultural emphasis placed on individualism.
It is also from this emphasis of individual exceptionalism where there can be no guarantees that *everyone* will pay the cultural toll. It must be *everyone*, or this proposal won't work: It'll just be another form of subsidization by another name.
------
Note: This doesn't mean that it can't happen, just that the amount of effort needed to get there is monumental, and that certain axioms have to be relaxed significantly to do so.
> To have this program exist requires children that can be trusted to not waste the food that they're given, to behave, & to learn about preparing their own meals.
>
> It's a bootstrapping problem, trust problem, & expectations problem, all at once.
In Austrian civil service I worked with kids who had special needs and were predominantly from poor social backgrounds. I made homework with them, drove them to school and back from day care in a bus, and I prepared food with them, had them deal with the dirty dishes, etc.
Most of the kids totally crazy behavior immidiately made sense once you met the parents. In fact there were only two kids where this wasn't the case and the first had PTSD of a life-changing magnitude (fled the Syrian war) and the other had good parents but a mental condition (I suspect severe ADHD).
Most of those kids would have been classified by the general public as hopeless cases.
I cooked with them, did the dishes, baked, regularily. Even kids that get beaten at home or were riddled with war trauma are surprisingly reliable if you just give them a task they understand. And turns out tasks they do every day are easy to understand after a week.
If those kids could make it, I am not the least worried about kids in better circumstances. Will it always be 100% perfect when kids do it? Will every kid be at it with full effort every day? Will a new kid grok it instantly? No. But that is okay. What is the worst that can happen? They go without food as a consequence? Other Kids show them how?
You're making it sound as if preparing food together is some unnatural herculian challenge while preparing food together was probably the most common act humanity has ever shared doing throughout its history.
No it must not be everyone. Prepare food? Get food. Pretty simple. Waste food? That was yours. And the other kids also don't like to see that.
The rason for having a society is to deal with those kind of differences. If you teach kids how to get structure into their lives and how to eat healthy the wasted food will easily be saved in future costs in the health and social systems.
Also: my kids could do this, US kids can't. What does thst mean for the US economy 4 decades down the line in comparison? You really think the US can afford to "educate" kids that way?
It's not, they are different things. Diversity refers to people of various biological backgrounds, mental makeups and opinions, financial powers, etc. Individualism refers to the idea that everyone lives for their own benefit primarily, and for "the group" (town, country, club, etc.) secondarily. (In Japan, one lives for the group primarily — barring exceptions, of course. Just like you have exceptions to individualism in the West.)
You could have a society that's diverse but not individual, or a non-diverse one that's individual. Though there is a correlation.
Many people, especially in our subculture, tend to feel like if they can't solve an entire problem forever, if they can't Change The World, what they're doing is futile and pointless
But most people can't change the world. Most individuals shouldn't have the power to change the world. What we can do is be a force for good in the lives that are proximal to us. If we can make a few people's lives better, we should rest easy knowing that we've done our part.
If we can do more than that, then great. But never let the overwhelming hugeness of the entire world cripple your ability to make your little dent. Most people only get the chance to make a little dent - if that - and there's nothing wrong with that.
> "I was in the Air Force a while, and they had what they call 'policing the area,' and I think that’s a pretty good thing to go by. If everyone just takes care of their own area, then we won’t have any problems. Be here. Be present. Wherever you are, be there. And look around you, and see what needs to be changed."
> To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order; we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.
Isn't this also the tragedy of the commons problem though? It only takes a few bad actors to not take care of their own area and over time, those that are doing extra to make up for them eventually feel like they're being taken advantage of.
I feel like in Japan it works because the culture adds enough social pressure that those not doing their part fall in line - or something. I don't think most western culture has that social pressure any more nor do I expect it can by added back
I find it really challenging to get people to notice these things, let alone actively take even small actions for positive change.
I'm interested in what the community thinks are some of the methods I could use to improve these things, and why people quickly become inured to these kinds of problems.
I'm thinking, specifically, about peeling paint, litter, dirty signs, the kind of thing that even a passing effort, a hammer and a nail, or a bit of soap and water can fix for a surprisingly long time (~months, certainly).
It's one of the things I think is an interesting contrast between "first world" countries and many of the places I've been that are poorer - less wealthy places seem to put a significant effort into basic maintenance, because replacing things are so expensive compared to the cost of living.
Part of the reason people don't do those kinds of things where I live is that the municipalities specifically prohibit any kind of alterations, including repair, on municipal property. If something is broken, they will tell you that you must wait until the municipality feels like fixing it
If you pay government 40-50% of your income to government to manage common areas, you think you have already paid for this. You would feel foolish to spend even more of your resources on this. It is someone else's job, not yours.
In places where there is not such a strong governance structure, what you see is people doing more of what comes naturally to everyone. The communal idea arises naturally for things that people want to do. Sure, it's messier without town planning officers, etc, but the governance structure doesn't stop things getting done.
You say they are poorer but gdp, salary or whatever is not the only metric one can use to measure meaning in life. Time is the real money.
South Korea started dabbling in free school lunches around 2001 - when a few schools started it. It gained momentum, and then it became a huge debate in 2011, when Seoul's mayor somehow decided he hated free lunches so much that he arranged a referendum, and said he would quit if people didn't agree with him on the matter. He did quit.
Fast forward to 2025, and now free school lunches are nearly ubiquitous. Once people experience it, few want to go back. Because it's a much more efficient and hassle-free system.
Yes, of course the money is coming from tax: in other words, if you're a middle-class parent, nothing changed. You're still paying for your kids' lunch one way or the other. But you don't have to pay for a gratuitous system of bureaucracy that keeps track of which kids' parents are making how much money, and whether each kid is "eligible" to eat lunch today, so your money is actually being used more efficiently with less overhead.
> Seoul's mayor somehow decided he hated free lunches so much that he arranged a referendum, and said he would quit if people didn't agree with him on the matter. He did quit.
As someone from Europe, I had heard before about bankrupting ambulance rides, slavery in prisons, and food deserts. I did not expect to add “lunch money humiliation ritual” to that list. I’ll think of this next time I complain about my 50% income tax.
I still have vivid memories of getting the 'reduced cost' meal ticket for school lunch. They made all of us with the reduced tickets stand in line and wait for the other kids to get their food first, where all the other kids had to walk past and stare at us, and once everyone else was served, they'd put the food away that was given to the other kids, then hand out shitty plastic-wrapped sandwiches that were half the size of the barely-adequate meals the 'full' sized lunches got.
It was all on purpose, too, to make us ashamed for not paying the full amount.
The adults that chose this path were fucking evil ghouls, the lot of them. Of all the things I want my tax money to go to, ensuring that no one (and especially growing children) need to feel hunger pangs while trying to learn is close to top of the list.
50% sounds manageable still. Currently paying ~65% of whatever I bill, in taxes and that hurts quite a lot. Assuming no costs to deliver, I need to bill 10K€ to net ~3,5K€. It makes exports uncompetitive with other lower taxed countries. Despite this, seeing a general practitioner can take months for issues that aren't-killing-you-right-now.
New York State just passed universal free lunch and breakfast for public school students. Of all the things that we spend our tax dollars on, this feels like a no brainer. Making sure children are fed should be at the top of the list.
Stuff like this seems like such a dividing line to me. Like, in theory when people believe things that are morally wrong, I want to reach out to them with compassion and respect and try to gently persuade them to my side because we're all, in theory, on the same side. But if you don't want kids to be fed, I really am not sure we're actually on the same side any more and I really am not sure what to do with that.
Even outside of morality it's a straightforward issue. Investments in children benefit the whole economy and society, for decades. If a person can't see that then they could be immoral but they might just be stupid.
You can want kids to be fed and fully believe that the government giving out free meal to all kids will eventually lead to kids not being feed. I can think of lots of arguments
Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. The "give a man a fish he eats for day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime", type of thinking. Some people might believe it encourages parents to be irresponsible. Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent.
I'm not saying I buy those arguments but I can see them as valid arguments.
Helping directly is not always helpful. There's plenty of examples of that. Whether that's true in this case I don't know.
> Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient
To be clear, the subject is still children, right? Refusing to feed children to "teach" them self-sufficiency is, IMO, right up there with a non-ironic "the children yearn for the mines". What could a self-sufficient 6th-grader even do for money? Steal baby food and small electronics from Target for fencing?
I feel it on those concerns, though after all, I think the point of some people's stances is that everybody should be able to take free (and dignified) student lunches for granted, as sensible as the fish-vs-how-to-fish adage is in general.
I think the concern about entitlement better applies when looking out for vultures taking advantage of these campaigners' goodwill by trying to wedge themselves into the middle of any cashflow for as-optimizably-marginal-as-possible contribution to those pipelines. Of course, I'm thinking of this more in some context of if there was a sort of centralized campaign to scale up efforts, say, statewide or nationwide (pardon my U.S-centric perspective), to solicit donations to pay off a bunch of schools' lunch debts in a region.
I'll play devil's advocate, and you tell me the immorality of the position.
Say you have no children. Is it an acceptable position to hold that 'those people who have children should also be the ones to look after them'? Shouldn't you have considered these sorts of expenses and being able to meet them, rather than expecting to receive handouts?
You are not denying food to the parents, you are denying food to the children. They did not choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose the fiscal responsibility of their parents.
Maybe there is room in there to shame the parents or give them a slap on the wrist, but the kids are blameless and denying them food makes you probably a monster.
I would not deny food to a starving child, but, as an emergency, that's an entirely different proposition from whether everyone (even the childless) should be on the hook for all children's lunches.
And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear?
How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.
Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
An adult can either be a net tax contributor or a net tax burden over their lifespan. The probability of them being a net contributor is much higher if they are well educated and not malnourished. The effect is stronger at younger ages. It’s good ROI for the tax payer.
People generally don't want the Federal government involved, thats where the consensus has been lacking.
this is exhibit A of showing that these country sized states are fully capable of handling their own affairs and universal access to things, the same as the 21st century developed nations that do the same thing
You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial, there are many funding sources if its deemed important, keep the federal government out of it
This is simply not true. Multiple states have tried and failed to pass state funding for universal free lunches - because in each state there are groups who argue giving free lunches to all kids is bad. It’s not an argument about where the money comes from.
I'm not sure how the observation that other places also lacked consensus at the state level discredits anything.
Some people dislike it on the federal level, and are fine with it at the state level, as they are two different organizations. My comment was only about them.
Except none of that is actually true. Unconvinced? Go look at a heat map of poverty in the US and then check out which states get bulk of federal assistance dollars. Note none of those states is running a massive budget surplus. While I have you I'd like to also point out that "hrrr federal government bad" is not only tautological, as an ideology it's deeply stupid . States frequently encounter problems that require a bigger budget than they can muster to solve (see also: disaster recovery).
Please don’t respond with a fake quote; double quotation marks are for direct quotes (which are assumed to be from the parent unless otherwise attributed). If you’re going to make something up, please use single quotes, and make it clear that the parent didn’t actually say that.
"hrrr federal government bad" is not my argument. I don't think the federal government is bad. I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions.
Disaster recovery is also not the topic nor does it provide any introspective ability on this topic.
yes, I agree if something is not within the budget, and there is also no consensus, then it won't happen. I'm not sure that even needed to be said, but I am familiar with people that would try to make programs happen in those situations too. I would vote no on those proposals in those cases.
It’s not that I don’t want kids fed. It’s that I know deep in my soul that $100 will be spent per child, with $99 extracted along the way by various politicians / consultants / unions, and $1 of disgusting food will (sometimes) be provided to a child.
Guess how I know?
And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge
> And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge
The problem is that leftists have more real life knowledge then far right, maga and Trump.
It was not leftists who voted for administrations that blow up deficits the most while complaining about deficits. It was leftists who were 100% correct about what conservatives plan and do. And it is not the left who pointificates about health and education ... while actively making them worst and actively slashing ways to measure how they are performing.
> It’s not that I don’t want kids fed. It’s that I know deep in my soul that $100 will be spent per child, with $99 extracted along the way by various politicians / consultants / unions, and $1 of disgusting food will (sometimes) be provided to a child.
If you oppose any actual steps to feed kids, then you don't want the kids fed. The rest of this is just you justifying why you don't want the kids fed.
If you want the program to feed the kids to be efficient: guess what, the left wants that too, and we're really happy to work to make that happen.
But the fact is, the right is happy to simply throw out the program and let the kids starve rather than tolerate any inefficiency. And notably, that inefficiency is often created by right-wing policies which attempt to prevent anyone perceived as not deserving aid from receiving aid.
If you vote Republican because you want the government to be more efficient, you're piling on even more bullshit. The national debt consistently increases more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones[1]--the perceived austerity of conservative government is entirely nonexistent. This problem is only worse under Trump: DOGE has made things less efficient by firing and rehiring half of the workers in government without even a basic understanding of how the programs work and or could be improved[2].
> And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge
I'm well aware these programs are inefficient, though they're certainly not 1% efficient as in your made up numbers. It's just that I'm not willing to stop helping people because it's inefficient. I'd like to make it more efficient, but it's pretty hard to make programs more efficient when people like you are constantly trying to get rid of them and defund them.
I feel like this has already been discussed before one million times more than the simplicity of the issue should require.
Any income etc based coupon system is inefficient and automatically excludes a big portion of children that such measures are supposed to be for, eg because a lot of them come from families that are too dysfunctional to apply for those, ignorant of them due to language and other barriers, or because of (perceived or not) social stigma. And while adults are considered responsible for their own lives, it is a total moral bankruptcy for a society to have their children starve for their parents dysfunction. At the same time, providing free lunch to children at school solves/eases a lot of social, health and other issues all at once, for a cost that is basically peanuts compared to how impactful it can be.
"it is a total moral bankruptcy for a society to have their children starve for their parents dysfunction."
Sounds like child services should take those children then? If they can't apply for the lunches, then surely they aren't getting food at home, nor the proper medical care.
> Sounds like child services should take those children then?
This is a HUGE, dangerous leap.
> If they can't apply for the lunches, then surely they aren't getting food at home, nor the proper medical care.
Plenty of parents (and plenty of people generally) just aren't aware of social services but are quite aware that they're supposed to feed and care for their children. Plenty more forget to fill out paperwork and return phone calls. Many states' governments actively make applying for welfare and support difficult or inconvenient - plenty of parents can't take the time to return paperwork in person, make phone calls during the workday, etc. Needing support - either welfare or just kindness and assistance - is not a moral failure and not a sign of a bad parent.
Beyond that, CPS wouldn't necessarily provide a great life for the child. There is a lot of difference between an imperfect parent and a danger to a child. Oh, and of course, CPS is a lot more expensive to run than a few meals. Giving out free meals at school is a lot easier if we want kids to be fed.
As an anecdote, I was laid off from my job once, and someone asked me if I applied for unemployment within my state. I didn't know it existed, nor that I was eligible until months later when a barista told me during small talk. The whole time I managed to remember to feed myself (and my family). I sure hope no internet commenter would look at that and decide to take my children away!
My wife was one of these kids. She knew then (and I know now) how and why she tried desperately to get into a state program and away from her drug addict parents. Living in the desert, in a broken trailer, 2 adults and 2 children, only a water tank (reuse that bath water), miles of flat hard (or wet slick) brown dirt in 120 degree heat in every direction. No money, no radio, sometimes TV rabbit ears.
Begging for food from grocery store clerks as her parents bought beer and toilet paper inside, drugs outside. She grew up thinking they were derelict because of the drugs. As they got older and had to quit the drugs or die, she found they were just unfit people.
Lots of people in the world are unfit to care for the children, but the children often persevere and society absorbs the damaged alongside the deaths.
This colors my views of the world, as much as anything I experienced.
The world is not black or white, there are many reasons that parents may not apply for that, and deciding how child services should intervene in each case is much harder and time consuming problem than just providing free lunch to kids. It makes no sense to not solve the easy problem first.
How many assistance programs have you applied for? Frankly, if you haven't applied for any, your opinion is uninformed. Even people who are told how difficult it is, underestimate how difficult it is to apply for many programs.
I've helped a bunch of homeless folks apply to assistance programs (not for school lunches, but for a lot of other aid) and almost universally, applying for aid is extremely difficult. I've walked at least 30 people through the process of applying for housing aid and I'm pretty sure exactly none of them have actually received aid. The only program's I've seen people actually successfully apply for were medicaid and SNAP. It is the norm for it to take over a month to receive medicaid, and it's the norm for it to take over 6 months to receive SNAP. Meanwhile people are dying of medical conditions and starving.
Now add in all the reasons people are in this position in the first place--these people are struggling. It's hard to apply for these programs, and it's harder when everything else in your life is going poorly as well.
And after all that, you might discover that you don't qualify even though you clearly have need. In the OP the author notes that many families with lunch debt were right above the income line for receiving aid.
Some political forces are concerned that people will take advantage of these programs who shouldn't, and others simply don't want these programs to work so that they can have an excuse to cut them, and as a result there are numerous hurdles set up before you can obtain any sort of aid.
I’m thankful I live in a state that uses my tax money to make all school breakfast and lunches free. I wonder what percentage of state taxes is actually required to pay for all school breakfast and lunches? Making sure kids aren’t inhibited from learning because of empty stomachs seems like a no brainer.
The other important part of this policy is that it normalizes kids not paying for lunch. This is important because they realized many kids who couldn't afford lunch were still skipping their free lunch because they were embarrassed to get a free lunch. When everyone gets a free lunch then nobody is embarrassed.
I've heard of some schools going out of their way to make it obvious which kids were receiving free lunch and which weren't; however, that wasn't universal to all programs.
Our school just had "lunch tickets." There was a register on a different floor from the lunch room where you could go buy them, pick them up if your parents bought them by check, or pick them up if you were on the assistance list. Once you had them they were all the same. Only the person at the register would know your status.
None of my friends who got that ever were embarrassed in any way about using them as they were the only ones to know.
Meanwhile, the proposed U.S. defence budget is ~ $1 trillion and the Department of Education is slated to not exist. This tells you much of what one needs to know about that country, and why having hungry children is perfectly ok.
There should be a dialectic around individualism and communitarianism but with some number of citizens endorsing a polar position, including the solipsist-in-chief, it’s hard to see a way forward on social issues that require thinking on a moral, noneconomic plane.
DISD ( Dallas Independent School District ) has had free lunch for as long as i can remember. Free breakfast too. On school holidays you can still goto school and get a meal. I want to say they do this on weekends too. Granted, MREs from an Army surplus store are better than school lunch but it is free. I don't think my kids have ever eaten a school lunch.
During COVID my wife and I got a EBT (food stamps) card in the mail from the school district with like $2,000 on it for food. It was basically the dollars spent on school lunch for the time the kids were not in school.
For anyone from places in the US or abroad who can't understand why a society would subject children to this sort of situation, here are some of the attitudes that give rise to it:
"I shouldn't have to pay to feed other people's kids"
"If you don't shame the kids, the parents will never take responsibility for them"
"A lot of those [poor] kids are overweight anyways"
Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free lunches with no strings attached?
Without reading into lunch specifically, I'd very much be inclined to say yes.
The reason is, I spent many hours researching the fair structure of my transit agency. Fares that have, obviously, been in the news for being harming to low income citizens. What I found was that the city spent almost 1 billion on upgrading their collection systems, whereas the yearly revenue from those same systems amounted to 1/10th of that. It is very likely that these new systems will actually reduce revenue, as the agency has admitted. Not to mention the operational overhead of waiting for people to tap as they get on.
I strongly believe in social democracies, but our governments are awful at spending our money.
One of the "don't say the quiet part out loud" with transit fares (which would NOT apply to school lunches) is that transit fares are a convenient way to remove unwanted transit enjoyers.
It is somewhat hard to define "being disruptive on the subway" but it's easy to define "doesn't have a ticket".
A solution that I have seen implemented and discussed is a flat, very low fare. High enough to keep people off public transit that are disrespectful of it, but low enough to allow almost anyone to take it thus increasing ridership. An added bonus is when using a transit card to tap on and off, the statistics of ridership are still readily available for governments to better plan infrastructure.
If you pick a low enough price you even decrease the number of fare dodgers, which means that enforcing is not as important or costly.
Here in Queensland we just paid $400 million for a ticketing system that is now used entirely for 50c tickets. The marketing line is that the fee is necessary for analytics, but the cynic in me says that it's probably a combination of secret contract negotiations with a pay-per-tap component, and sunk cost fallacy.
Even before the bots, I remember MvM being unplayable if you weren't with enough friends to make votekick impossible (and that wouldn't stop them from trying, but they'd ragequit themselves when no one votes yes, and leave you down a player).
I've not been in a place with a functional transit system where fares were high enough to prevent disruptive people from boarding. I've seen rich people get onto Acela trains obnoxiously drunk.
I have, on the other hand, seen transit operators (bus drivers, mainly) kick people who had paid fares off for being disruptive. The definition of "being disruptive on the subway" does not seem to be the barrier you think it is.
Did you mean no? The question was about whether the bureaucracy was worth it and you said yes, then show an example where bureaucracy is not justified.
Schools seem amazing at spending on lunches, when they can feed people for less than $5 a meal. I can’t eat for that amount, even when cooking at home these days. I’m not seeing clearly what your transit agency’s payment system upgrade has to do with school lunches or why that somehow supports the idea that they’re not spending prudently.
The question was asking if making them free actually saved the government money. I provided an anecdote suggesting that this might very well be the case, by providing an example of a place where the government is burning money in order to collect less money than they burned.
Wrong. The question asked the opposite; it asked if the means testing saved the government money.
You answered "yes" in your original comment, but your supporting arguments imply "no" so I can see why people are confused.
Read the original question again:
>Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free lunches with no strings attached?
The specific problem is that the alternative in the case of school lunches does not involve upgrading the payment system. Just because transit might benefit in the short term from not upgrading doesn’t mean school lunches would.
TBH I’m a little skeptical of the payment system story, it sounds oversimplified and might be agenda driven. All our transit systems need payment system maintenance and upgrades over time. Riders want & demand tap to pay, for example. All costs cut into and balance against incomes, but that doesn’t mean they can opt out, nor that it will save taxpayers in the long run. Keeping the old payment system might have rising costs and lead to reduced ridership over time, costs which may not have been assumed in the story you shared. I doubt the payment system is very significant compared to train cars, rails, crossing lights & gates, employees, etc.
We tend to cherry-pick and arm-chair debate individual budget items without seeing the big picture, in order to justify the preconceived claim that governments are bad at spending. Making families pay for school lunches is pretty funny when taxpayers pay for the building, books, teachers, and janitorial and food staff, the sum of which is literally thousands of times more than lunch. Debating the funding of school lunches is missing the forest for the trees, right?
Hi, your last point makes me think that we’re in agreement that it’s not worth making students pay for lunch.
As for your other points, without annualizing it’s actually a fairly significant line item — their budget is about 3 billion. Annualized it’s not as bad, but that is hardly relevant as the fact of the matter is it costed 934 billion. Why did cost that much? My best answer is that a bid was held and cubic transportation systems won. This does not mean that the price was reasonable, only that cubic won. As for the new income, yes, that’s true. Trains will run slightly faster as people can board on many doors above ground (free system also does this). Ridership may increase thanks to tap to pay. I discuss this. But they also have, on numerous occasions, drastically overestimated the new revenue. Newer estimates show that the systems enable more fare evasion than before, cutting into profits.
My best guess as to why is mismanagement. After this was approved the MBTA’s management was overhauled for being a circus.
If you want to write a data driven counter argument, I would be more than happy to link to it at the top of my piece and offer rebuttals
Maybe I am too sick right now to understand your comment, but isn't this an argument for actually making public transit free or sth? If merely upgrading the system costs 10 times the revenue? Isn't it what is actually argued about for school lunches?
I suspect the only real benefit is a change in behavior of some passengers. They _paid_ for a thing and therefore feel more respectful towards it.
Which would be related to the other symptomatic reasons such a barrier might be sought. As a society my country (USA) sadly has low respect for the commons generally. There's a lack of investment (not none, but not enough), a sense of 'me-ism' entitlement in the population (as if sharing and consideration of others shouldn't mutually be the priority for a public space), and unwillingness to address national scale issues that lead to blights upon the commons (mostly thinking of people society has failed).
None of those are easy enough to fix that a reasonably sized reply could even begin to adequately cover a solution, but those problems are some reasons why a gated access to a public resource might be sought other than as a form of funding.
At some point we have to face the truth that the only well organized and ran country in the world is Singapore. European governments had barely any right influence and they manage to evolve their own disfunction quite well. It seems that for some reasons the states after WWII just lost their capacity to build things. If you watch Oppenheimer - one of the things in the background is how staggeringly competent were the administrative guys. There is no such things now. Any government project both big and small is expected to be cost overrun, delayed and if ever finished is a cointoss if it will make things better or worse. It is a global malaise.
While I do not deny that this might very well be a problem, it feels fallacious on the part of the American public.
One, they are indirectly paying for it already by way of taxation. Two, I'd argue it is much better to be respectful towards things you didn't pay for.
Yes, 100%. Another 'me-ism' I've been thinking a lot about recently is the collective unwillingness to ensure short term pain in exchange for long term prosperity, for instance in regard to climate policy. Likewise, there is no intuitive fix, especially when such prosperity will mostly extend to future generations.
> but our governments are awful at spending our money.
No. They're really good at it. There's a lot of kick backs, deal making, and free tickets behind that purchase. You know how hard it is, from the inside, to push through a billion dollar long shot like that? Nearly impossible. Whoever did this pulled a miracle to make that happen.
Our governments are bad at punishing corruption and graft.
It's nominally 20 pages but the first five are boilerplate and ToC and the last ten are a listing of how much each school district received, so you could reasonably read all the actual report.
The report used 2014-2015 numbers, where the cost of lunches for elementary students was $102 million and the participation rate was 57%. It estimates that universal free lunch would cost the city an additional $5.2 million. Part of the costs would be offset by federal reimbursements, so the full estimate is higher than $5.2… the details are in the report.
So yes, it would cost more to make it free for everyone. I still think it should be free for everyone, but it is hard to argue that you can save money that way.
In the current moment, I agree that "the state" can't save money by making it free for everyone. However, it is a lot harder to quantify how much other savings are realized by having healthier kids and reduced healthcare costs. Plus we know kids do better in school when fed well and that long term taxable income, better colleges, business job generation, etc. could eventually pay for itself. Obviously this is a much more complicated thing to calculate and quantify.
Not quite. The argument then becomes about pointing out that our accounting systems are stupid, brutish and terrible at modelling second order consequences - social, economic, even moral.
In fact they seem designed to hide these consequences, both good and bad. The features we tag profits and losses are right out front, while other important features are labelled "externalities" and essentially ignored.
This is very obvious in the differences between US and other Western attitudes to infrastructure spending. In the EU, public transport is heavily subsidised. It isn't expected to be profitable because it provides both direct and indirect returns.
No one rational - who isn't a chef - expects their fridge or cooker to be a profit source. Big public infra projects are no different. They're a kind of giant public appliance. You buy them to provide a service.
In the US and UK, the goal of infrastructure spending is usually to create private profits. This certainly creates returns for a small class of people, but it only seems rational because it's pretending other kinds of returns don't exist.
> Not quite. The argument then becomes about pointing out that our accounting systems are stupid, brutish and terrible at modelling second order consequences - social, economic, even moral.
Are you disagreeing with me, or just reframing the discussion? Pick one mode of discussion, please, I find it hard to follow if you start off disagreeing but then switch gears and decide to reframe the discussion.
I encourage you to speak as much as you want about the fact that our accounting system sucks at dealing with externalities. However, we are still slaves to accounting, somewhat. Nobody rational expects a fridge to be a profit source. But if you take taxes, people expect an accounting of how the taxes are spent. “This program costs money but has benefits that outweigh the cost” is pretty easy to understand. The program doesn’t pay for itself because we don’t have a way to put better outcomes on the books.
We also don’t have an accounting system that lets me show a net positive for buying a movie ticket.
the problem is that "it pays for itself" is true in the overall societal sense, where a few more kids don't end up in jail or psych wards or something, but there's no way for the school to capture that value when deciding "do we want to feed kids at school?" and so we usually don't do it :/
It is worth keeping in mind that the broader effects might still be positive. But, I think the original poster was just asking about the direct cost of determining who gets the free lunches (that’s why they frame it in terms of the overhead).
While I agree that a full analyst of the social benefit would be better, and I bet it would almost certainly end up being a net positive (and also, the possibility that kids are just not getting fed because of record-keeping screw-ups, missed paperwork, or incomplete programs is just unconscionable), the question the asked about the overhead does have the benefit of being a lot more answerable and direct.
So maybe $5M on a NY state education budget of nearly $40B, or less than two hundredths of one percent. Isn’t it weird that we pay for everything else but keep the food in a separate accounting budget?
You’re comparing the NY state education budget against a program for elementary school students in NYC using numbers from different decades.
If you want better numbers, a good place to start would be to take total cost per student for a given year and the cost per lunch for the same year, and multiply cost per lunch by number of days and some participation rate %.
Which decades? Are you saying the $5M number is too small because this article was from 2017, and I used budget from 2024? Okay, the NY state budget in 2017 was a bit over $25B. That actually still leaves the answer at two hundredths of one percent, since I rounded up and left lots of room for error. ;)
I was more or less trying to do what you suggest, but without getting stuck doing research until next week. I could be off by a factor of 10 or even 100 without the point having a significantly different summary, right? Even if we did exactly what you suggest, and even if the numbers were more accurate, the outcome doesn’t change: it’s weird to account for lunch outside of the rest of the system, when lunch is such a tiny minuscule cost, it could be funded without blinking.
I found $23,884 expenditure per child in 2014-2015, which is when the $4.30 school lunch cost is from. With 180 instructional days, lunch would be $4.30/day x 180day/year / $23884/year = 3.2%.
> I was more or less trying to do what you suggest, but without getting stuck doing research until next week. I could be off by a factor of 10 or even 100 without the point having a significantly different summary, right?
You were off by a factor of 150, about. Kinda big. I guess you could be stuck here doing research until next week. I searched “nyc cost per student school 2014” and plugged some numbers into a calculator. I made sure to put all my numbers up there with units in case you disagree with the numbers or disagree with the formula. If you want to use newer numbers you can do that, but I think it’s important to use numbers from the same time, more or less.
These “off by 3x, 2x, 4x” errors add up to orders of magnitude if you make enough errors like that. I was disagreeing with your estimate because there were too many errors. Just kind of a gut feeling.
I see the problem is I used your $5M number which is NYC, and divided by the state budget. However, I don’t think the $5M number is referring to the total cost of providing lunch, and that’s what you’re comparing it to in your calculation. Apples, oranges. Because the schools are already providing free and subsidized lunches, the additional cost isn’t that much and I’m not off by a factor of 150. I am wrong, but not by that much. And I still stand by what I said - even if the total addition cost is 3%, which it’s not, and even if I was off by 150x, which I’m not, the outcome still points at lunch being cheap in the big picture. And even if it does cost more, it doesn’t explain why we’ve decided to make families pay directly for lunch when we provide all the rest, right? I am agreeing with your top point that we (the US) ought to just provide the lunch as part of the elementary school education.
I was replying to an “it pays for itself” comment and looking for the most favorable possible numbers for the most limited incremental change to the program, to show that even then, it doesn’t pay for itself. That’s where the $5M comes from—it’s the incremental cost, to the city, of providing free lunches to an additional 35,000 elementary school students, after the federal government reimburses $3.24 per lunch, using data from 2015.
I think the comment I was replying to believed that some big chunk of the cost was due figuring out which students deserve free lunches or not. That’s untrue.
The lunch program is substantial and can’t really be hidden by burying it in some much larger budget.
I get the argument “this is valuable, we should do this” but I don’t buy the argument “this cost is small”.
I agree with you that the cost of lunch food adds up and is more than the cost of accounting. Substantial is a subjective word but true if looking at the number by itself, and feeding 2 million kids in NY state will obviously be a big number compared to most people’s salaries, which is why it seems substantial. But it’s still a small fraction of the cost of education, and food is a single line item in a much much bigger budget. We can’t actually separate the lunch costs, when you include the cafeteria. It seems very strange that we don’t ask families to pay for books or bus rides but do ask them to pay for lunch. It very much feels like a conscious choice to ensure the poor kids are identified.
There was a scandal in the neighborhood I live in because one school tired of lunch debt was making the hot lunches, letting the kids pick them up, and then taking them away and throwing them in the trash, to make a big show of parents not paying their lunch bills. That saved no dollars and punished the children for what the parents did, poor children disproportionately. Even though most of the kids’ families could afford the lunches, that’s just a shitty thing to do.
The cost actually is small, in the big picture. The truth is that the U.S. can easily afford to pay not just for lunch but for all of education, both elementary and higher education, and it pays for itself many times over, if we look at the extra income tax people with degrees pay over people who don’t have any higher education. We are choosing to not give our kids college degrees by default, and we are choosing to withhold hot lunches from elementary school kids, and it is not because it costs a lot, it would be trivial to fund (and we already proved that during COVID.) It’s because we have politics and a social belief system that is allergic to the idea of free lunch, regardless of the costs.
That's assuming everyone would sign up for the free lunch. We have 2 kids in public schools and pack their lunches even though we could sign them up for free lunch (our state makes it available to all families). We're not alone in that either. (We're also not rich, but we put a high priority on healthy food.)
I feel like there's the administrative overhead, but also every child having food when they are learning is sure to be a profound positive externality. The only outcome of having kids to go to school hungry or receive substandard education is keeping the poorer classes of society "in their place." This is very gross.
To make it worse, I believe that there have been incidences where people have tried to do similar (pay off school lunch debt) and the School District has refused, citing reasons from "processing overhead" to "privacy".
The issue is that the positive externality is really hard to measure, and penny-pinching policies only care about what is easily measured, it's just another instance of the McNamara fallacy.
As a non-American, reading about the welfare rules in the USA feels absurd, there are so many overlapping programs with distinct qualifications, rules, payouts, it simply cannot be efficient to keep track of all of that for recipients. It feels like the design is to make it as hard as possible to keep track of what one is eligible to, it's designed to be painful and unreliable.
There is a cultural thing in the USA about punishing poor people, as if it's only through their own failure of character that they are poor, instead of trying to help lift the less fortunate ones the approach seems to be to punish them in the hopes that will force them out of their precarious position through some heroic individual action. It simply isn't reasonable or has any basis in reality, probably some weird cultural leftover from the religious nuts who founded the country.
You shouldn't have to measure the fact that feeding children does good, and you should push back against anybody who thinks you should (because they clearly don't want all children to eat, a strong signal of fucked up morality).
This so much. My HCOL area uses a hybrid approach: kids can always eat regardless and can run up huge $$$ tabs. The parents get pestered once it gets over a few hundred.
> It feels like the design is to make it as hard as possible to keep track of what one is eligible to, it's designed to be painful and unreliable.
This is an understatement. Florida's unemployment system for example was designed intentionally to fail when too many people tried to file for benefits to prevent them from having to pay out. This of course blew up into a whole scandal during covid when a bunch of people were suddenly unemployed and all tried filing at the same time which is how it officially came out that the system was designed from the start to function like this.
This program replaces free & reduced-price lunch for qualifying kids, with "free for everybody".
They directly cite reasons like increased participation and better service (faster lines). It also cuts down on administrative overhead (don't need to separately qualify each kid). Another benefit is kids are not shamed for getting free lunch, since everybody gets a free lunch.
I would say yes. In our state all public school kids are eligible for free lunch by just signing up. What's the worst that can happen? Some parents who could afford lunch get it for free? I'd rather my tax dollars go to that than going to a whole bureaucracy designed to ensure that only those who "deserve" it get it.
As far as "rich people are getting free lunches!!!" argument. 1) rich people for the most part send their kids to private, not public schools. 2) rich people who can afford better lunches than the school lunch are going to send their kid to school with a lunch.
I don't have kids, and will never have kids, but even so I don't see people whose children are being denied food as a problem that the children's parent's caused.
I see hungry kids who can't learn because they're distracted by hunger as the problem, and I will gladly pay taxes to see that they don't go hungry.
Without kids living and being born and learning and becoming productive members of society your lifestyle would not exist and current economic models would collapse in a handful of years.
You are shooting everyone including yourself in the foot because you personally don't need to walk places.
I would agree that current models are crap, but what kind of alternative would actually be viable with dumber, less healthy, and a shrinking population? We could do with one of them, maybe two if we are just scraping by for time, but all three? That is a one way ticket to a collapse that wouldn't be overcome for many generations.
Child labor was legal until 1930. It has been a part of society for longer than it hasn't. I think your calculus is a little off.
> your lifestyle would not exist
Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough? Which, again, has been a norm in our society for longer than it hasn't. We didn't fully get rid of horses as beasts of burden in agriculture until the 1950s.
> you personally don't need to walk places.
Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem.
Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job.
We live in a world of odd incentives. There is no point at which abandoning the middle way will benefit you, regardless of how pretty those ideas sound.
They said "without kids", not without this particular program.
> Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem.
> Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job.
These are children. Someone is carrying them no matter what.
Yes. I'm calling into question the idea that modern treatment of children is responsible for the world we live in. Clearly it is not given the relative scarcity of it in our history. I'm not saying we shouldn't give children a free lunch just that the OPs reasoning was rather lofty and detached from history.
> They said "without kids", not without this particular program.
They're replying to someone with the obvious implication that this program is in some way critical to children "learning and becoming productive members of society."
> Someone is carrying them no matter what.
Now are you serious? Do parents consider it their career to raise their own children? Does this career have the effect of increasing the number of children they care for in exchange for greater profits?
Which is why I invoked incentives. The tragedy here being that schools consider their primary obligation to the child and not to the family. So when parents are in a situation where they cannot care for their children successfully, for whatever reason, we completely ignore the core problem and instead patch over it. Worse it can sometimes create negative stigma for the child and work to further destabilize their living situation.
One of the best ways to reduce crime and drug addiction is education. Hungry kids don't learn well. Feeding kids so they can concentrate on learning prevents problems not creates them.
> It's making people who didn't cause the problem subsidize the people who did cause the problem.
Hate to turn into Helen Lovejoy here, but won't you please think of the children? The victims of the problem are the children. You're trying to punish the parents, and the kids get caught in the crossfire.
The entire economic future of you and all the taxpayers depends on those kids growing up.
Our entire economic structure is a ponzi scheme at global scale. It depends on kids growing up and cashing into the stock market so people can cash out of their 401ks.
So why not ensure those little gremlins and nice and plump when they grow up so we can retire more easily.
> Shifting the cost from the parents who had the kids onto the taxpayers is not solving the problem.
No, but it's well documented that students who eat lunches generally perform better.
> It's making people who didn't cause the problem subsidize the people who did cause the problem.
Sorry buddy, but you won't find a lot of sympathy from people who actually care. School lunches *are not expensive*, and there are plenty of parents who are in poverty and literally cannot afford to pay for their child's lunch.
Should the child starve? No. I strongly believe that anyone who thinks a child should starve, for whatever reason, does not belong in civilized society.
> That's not solving the problem.
You're right, it's not. But you also don't offer a different suggestion. How will you solve poverty? How will you solve neglect?
Until you offer suggestions for that, your comment strikes me as coming from someone who (at best) is sociopathic in a bad way and (possibly) someone who does not belong in civilization.
> It's making sure there will be more problems.
Perhaps.
But you could also consider it as several different types of investments in the future.
An investment, at the mere cost of one child's meal per day, is an investment whose return is in the form of that child's future taxes; the lack of investment is instead the death-by-starvation of that child and loss of that child's future income and/or business taxes.
An investment, at the mere cost of one child's meal per day, is an investment in that child's care for their fellow person. Children who have been there (in poverty and starving); who have literally had only one meal per day, are more likely to be more empathetic to the plights of the people (not just children) around them in similar situations. You should hope that, if you're in such a situation, that you could find someone who would be willing to help you.
An investment, at the mere cost of one child's meal per day, does solve problems. Most parents are happy to be able to afford that investment themselves, but some parents -- through pride or neglect or other reasons -- are unable to afford that much. Why do you think you shouldn't help them?
It's astonishing this is a thing. I'm thankful to live in Massachusetts where all kids can get lunch for free with no questions asked. Where I live, kids can get breakfast too, however I've heard that isn't universal in the state.
The article points out another issue that is so widespread. Often times, being right above or below a cut off line can make a huge difference and it's kids just above the cut off line here that are suffering. I have a brother with disabilities and there are "lines" drawn all the time with funding that are either all or nothing. If you cross a line, you lose funding. It encourages them to work less, save less money, and be more reliant on state funding. Why haven't we figured out gradients yet? For example, above this line you get 90% of costs covered. Above this line 80%. Above this line 70%. etc... etc... etc...
Gradients introduce a tremendous measurement problem.
It's more efficient to provide services gratis (think of community-funded fire, police, education, and parks services), and apply the measurement problem to the revenue side through progressive taxation of income or assets (wealth).
This also creates a larger political constituency for the service as everyone benefits. This was the thinking behind a universal social security system, rather than providing a needs-based system.
There's a fair argument for abandoning free market principles when one considers both that children are literally outside the market (they have no independent wage or income), and that the positive externalities of rearing and educating children redound on the local community. (Well, net of out-migration / brain drain, which is in fact A Thing, and not a minor consideration in many cases.)
Oh, and there's the deadweight loss of those who would qualify for a benefit (under law) but fail either to jump through the proper bureaucratic hoops, or who do hoop-jump, but are still denied benefits, whether through bureaucratic error, inefficiency, corruption, or other reasons.
TFA describes the first circumstance.
Patio11 has noted that the optimum level of fraud is non-zero, a point picked up by Cory Doctorow as well:
Means-tested benefits are something you really want to think through before advocating. Gradient-benefits or sliding-scale benefits are forms of means testing.
I don't know if there's well-developed theory of when means-testing should or shouldn't be applied. There are some surprising arguments from surprising positions (a quick glance at the beginning of this National Affairs article, from a conservative position, is against means-testing, though it's also critical of social welfare programmes generally: <https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/means-te...>).
I'd suggest that means-testing / sliding scale works better or is more appropriate where:
- It's applied locally rather than globally, to small populations in regular contact and where even eyeball assessments are likely roughly accurate.
- Where resources and/or services offered are limited.
Provision of sliding-scale services (healthcare, dental, vision, legal assistance) often falls under such cases. School lunches might, but the risks of abuse and long-term community harm are high.
During COVID, school lunch was free, and most school served free bag lunches over the summer too. That ended in June 2022. Congress could've kept it going for a pittance, but alas...
State government, local government, and local philanthropy (like the chamber of commerce, etc.) could also buy lunch.
I'd rather keep the dysfunction of national politics away from my kids' food, personally. At least I can reasonably move if local dysfunction goes past tolerable levels.
My significant other work at a school during Covid where they were giving free breakfasts and lunches.
The waste I witnessed from it all was atrocious, due to the fluctuations from day-to-day how many students would come in. The staff always wanted to err on the side of caution, because they didn’t want any kids to miss out. We’re talking sometimes over 200 lunches that were discarded in a day. Some things could be reused, but a lot was thrown away.
It was against the rules to do anything but either give them to a student, or throw them away.
It sounds like there were a few problems identified.
* Against the rules to hand them out to non-students (even after some priority window)
* Operating in an unusual context where relative load is highly unpredictable
* No system of reservation to try to forecast load
There's also a bunch of data that's absent, like any potential causes for the variable load. Plausibly it might have been weather related, or related to families participating in a cultural event that's special even if they were celebrating in quarantine at home.
The first is food regulation and safety law; the same applies to restaurants who serve buffet style as well.
The second isn't going away. Attendance is spotty at best in underperforming schools, in particular the ones that need free lunch the most. Many kids also won't eat some foods. The amount of waste just gets shifted from "too much prepared" to "not enough served food was eaten".
The third is just an attempt to solve the second, but if there was a system of reservation in place, it would still be part of the problem- after all, what we're trying to solve is that parents aren't utilizing the already available free lunch programs because going through the means testing is too much effort for them.
This is a problem. If you roll out a program to deal with an extraordinary circumstance, some people think it should go on forever even when the extraordinary circumstance is over. They think it should be a welfare benefit forever.
Next pandemic, no government programs. None. We've seen how it goes.
No benefits next time. People just try to turn it into eternal government welfare programs.
I don't want eternal government welfare programs to deal with temporary problems. Next time, no. No "temporary" government programs.
Is it? There are situations where it makes sense to avoid a rise and stay in the tax bracket. Like if with 5k rise you loose a 10k childcare benefits provided by local municipality.
Yes, the anecdote about misunderstanding a particular thing may be broken if you introduce additional factors.
The absurd thing in your scenario is the steep cliff on the benefit...this doesn't change the observation that some people have absurd beliefs about how progressive taxes are implemented.
There may be some cases--if a person is on the edge of being eligible for SNAP, or for SSDI for a dependent adult in their houshold, where getting a raise might actually make them poorer. It's wrong to say people do this because they're too stupid to know about marginal tax rates.
My state fixed this so the marginal rate was never over 100%, but there is a rather wide range where the marginal rate is about 75%. For every dollar you earn, you keep 25¢, and are paying in 75¢ in the form of getting fewer refundable tax credits, food stamps, energy bill assistance, and so on. (If I include the energy bill assistance, the marginal rate is 85% in a few bands.)
Indeed, any decent modern society should provide free quality education, and that should include free quality meals. Especially the richest country in the world.
America provides food stamps that provide groceries to those who need it.
However, I'm not sure it is the responsibility of a "decent modern society" to provide free quality meals to the populace. How far does this go? Does the government need to run restaurants? Vouchers to use at restaurants? I'm not convinced restaurants are even serving necessarily "quality meals".
I think a program providing groceries is a good idea, with some additional support for the rare cases of people who are completely unable to prepare meals from groceries.
Free education means no one will value it. Education should not be free, just cheap. However there should be help and assistance to people who wants to get an education but cannot afford it.
Same with food. Subsidize it for everyone. Cannot pay? Serve few hours to the local community and get a meal. There should be no starving people anywhere in the world.
It's rarely cruelty. It's usually bureaucracy and unintended consequences and trying to be "nice".
Often you have a program created, with "free below X, sliding scale until no subsidy at Y" - done right, this is "perfect" in that each marginal dollar is lightly "taxed" (losing a subsidy is the same as a tax, from the worker's perspective).
This is great! Though let's say (theoretically) that the end result is a 1% "tax" for our family, so each dollar they increase income costs them a penny of subsidy. They probably have other subsidies besides school lunches, like WIC, or ACA, or whatever. Those are also sliding down at various amounts, which can cause it to start to get annoying. But it works.
Then the program is expanded, to be "nice" - even nicer! Now the subsidy is 100% below X, but they're going to also cover 100% up to Y! That's great! Everyone is better off now ... except now you have the situation where at Y + 1, you earned one more dollar, but lost potentially thousands in subsidy. This is NOT ACTUALLY WORSE than before, because at Y + 1 in both scenarios you have no subsidy, but it hurts much more in the second because the subsidy wasn't slowly being drained.
While this is generally true of a certain American political party, you see hard cutoff lines even in states like Massachusetts, where the majority of voters and politicians seem to be actively trying to make things better for people.
The real answer is that gradients are hard, and clear lines are easy. A shocking number of Americans don't understand how our income tax brackets work; they believe that if you cross the line into a higher income bracket, your entire income is taxed at that new, higher rate, and you end up losing money overall.
Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage of college educated citizens in the entire country, also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard.
You’re making the mistake assuming a political party is flawless or that a political party having power somehow obviates the need to be responsive to constituents who might take issue or be swayed to take issue with the policy changes you try to enact.
People like the ones I described exist in both parties but I think it’s telling that people assumed I’m talking about one political party because it made those slogans it’s brand. The hard lines vs gradient doesn’t make sense in terms of public because this doesn’t raise to the level of public discourse.
Also Massachusetts is a bad example because they enacted free lunches across the board. They may have gradient issues in other welfare programs but school lunches is something they’ve solved for now.
As for RCV being shot down, I don’t think it’s an education issue. I personally prefer approval voting as it’s simpler to explain and faster results. Not wanting to switch to RCV (specifically IRV) can have all sorts of reasons and claiming it’s because the electorate is dumb is the wrong take I think.
> Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage of college educated citizens in the entire country, also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard.
That's the ostensible reason - the reality is that Blue MAGA also really hates power challenges. Look no further than CA where they also shot down (even the possibility for local elections to consider) ranked choice voting.
> Massachusetts ... also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard.
The math wasn't "hard" - it was wrong. The decision process was to be instant runoff voting, which has significant problems. IRV is basically what people stuck in the two party mindset think they want so they can express support for a third party. But once a third party gains enough traction to become viable, perverse incentives (strategic voting) shows right back up again. What we really need is Ranked Choice ballots with Ranked Pairs decision process. This satisfies Condorcet which means that a winner is preferred by the majority of voters.
I'd definitely take that as well, but it's a much bigger change. Especially of deep government dynamics like how singular executives then get chosen by the representatives.
If only those people knew the hardships some people face with mental issues which hinder their ability to function normally on a day to day basis. Some people cant pull themselves out of bed let alone their bootstraps.
The types of people who are against these social safety nets don't care. Unfortunately, they will only care if it directly affects them.
These people hold the mindset that if you are not disabled and don't have any learning disabilities, you should be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
There isn't any room for nuance with them, they will just call people who are neurodivergent "lazy" and "welfare queens".
The goal isn’t to make it easy for you to escape the system but more difficult under the theory that then you’re more self sufficient. It’s a stupid philosophy of course.
The simpler and more convincing explanation is that lawmakers write bad laws, regulators write bad regulations, and everyone votes on hot button issues like the economy, immigration, and trans athletes in sports. School lunch policy details don't get enough attention.
> everyone votes on hot button issues like the economy, immigration, and trans athletes in sports
Everyone votes emotionally on issues they don't even understand (e.g, there is ~1 trans athlete out of 10,000 NCAA athletes right now, so why the hell is it even a minor issue, let alone a national debate?).
Because there is only room for 1 gold medal. Only room for 1 silver medal. This is in Pool, which almost a best case scenario for women to beat men and yet, in the UK, its two former men gunning for gold and silver.
If you truly believe transwomen are women, then its great. For anyone who doesn't share that arbitrary idea, it looks like women's sports is basically over, at least at the high end. Might as well get back in the kitchen, huh? Even women's sports is a man's game now.
Sports governing bodies in the UK are rapidly rewriting their policies to stop these men from competing in women's sports, after a recent Supreme Court judgement ruled this amounts to unlawful sex discrimination against women. So hopefully this ongoing insult to all the women who've worked so hard to compete in their sport of choice will soon be over.
That said, the ideal outcome would be apologies to every female athlete affected by this, and for these men to be retrospectively disqualified and stripped of any medals or titles, with these instead being awarded to the women who would have won had these men not been competing. I doubt this will happen any time soon, but if those running these competitions had an ounce of integrity and sense of fair play, they would do.
The problem is that sharp drop offs instead of gradients are a known and well documented problem as is the desire to get rid of the welfare state by one party. You don’t need to assume best intentions here when the GOP has consistently made it clear where their priorities lie on this topic. Oh and the GOP has constantly taken “starve the beast” and weaponized incompetence approaches to try and kill the programs they don’t like.
That’s okay, because “teaches you self-reliance” is just a fig leaf. They don’t care if it actually happens or not, the point is to have something to point to, so when they’re criticized they can hit back with “Why are you against people learning self-reliance? Why do you want them to be dependent on the government?”
It's way too simple to categorize behavior like this into good/evil. It's a worthwhile thought experiment (and habit) to assume that everyone is trying to do the right thing, and try to understand how they might come to a different viewpoint than you.
Sorry, but my imagination is clearly not robust enough to even begin to steelman a policy that puts children into debt over near zero-cost food at school, often publicly humiliating the child at the same time, without just sounding like a cruel cartoon villain.
I don't believe any of this, but I'll try. Please note that the below is not my personal belief, just an attempt to understand the "other side":
The attempt to steelman the policy probably comes down to encouraging personal responsibility (the libertarian way). Forgiving debts without consequence promote a culture of non-payment, undermining the sustainability of school meal programs.
The steelmanned version of why lunches require payment is likely down to sustainability of the program in general (ie: school budgets are already stretched to the limit, so parent contributions are necessary).
Now, this could obviously be solved by just budgeting for the entire thing to be included in the overall taxes of the state, but then you've got to surpass the hurdle of tax raises being insanely difficult in the states.
Honestly, this exercise kind of makes me see (yet again) how broken the whole USAmerican system is. "I've got mine and I don't want to give any more away for something I don't need"
OK, so you endorse a policy which not only creates human suffering now but harms society and creates more human suffering in the future. The cost of fixing it is minuscule and outweighed by the future benefits.
What are the good faith arguments in favor of this?
I absolutely don't endorse it. I just find it counterproductive to say things like "malice is the point".
I do have trouble finding good faith arguments in favor of this policy. It is cruel. But the people who decided to implement it aren't "other". They're humans who think they're good people (aside from a small minority of people who really don't care) and much as we'd like to think so we're not that different than them. If we can understand their justification, that's a step toward actually convincing them there is another way. And yes, I have changed many people's viewpoints with this level of patience, not everyone is too stupid/mean/insult of your choice to change their minds.
assuming good will is the only way to get others to listen and eventually change their mind. because only if we have good will in common we are able to come to a solution that satisfies both sides.
it's the continuous assumption of malice that prevents people from listening to each other. and that is still the case even if there is actual malice. almost by definition, if you do not present the assumption for good will to the other side, they will have difficulty attributing good will to you, no matter whether they themselves are acting are maliciously or not.
The people who decided to implement the policy believe that cruelty will create deterrence.
Persisting in this line of thinking despite centuries of cruelty and no end to the undesired behavior is what leads to sayings like “the cruelty is the point.” Psychologically, it’s well understood there are those who really get a kick out of making people suffer.
I really wish people would exercise more imagination while applying the adage.
A cafeteria worker is likely doing what they're told to do from the principal and board of education. They're doing what they're told because of laws that have been passed. At any point along this chain of human beings, someone could be relying on their job to keep one of them family members alive.
I know I'm throwing out a random scenario, and that doesn't make it true, but there IS a story here, and it is one that none of us will ever know. There are so many human things that happen that people attribute directly to malice, especially when they have very little information.
Anyways. Point is. I really have a hard time blaming any individual here (except perhaps lawmakers) no matter how depressing the whole fiasco is. It is simply another unfortunate consequence of rigid policies that have serious impact.
>I really wish people would exercise more imagination while applying the adage.
It will never happen because additional analyzing would pretty quickly make it obvious that the problems are systemic and cannot be easily described by the kind of partisan quips and advocacy for "obvious" or "easy" solutions that dominate discussion of topics like this.
Basically any serious effort to understand and solve these problems precludes general audience participation and will therefore not be popular.
Have you started a local movement to pay for kids schools lunches?
If not, should we assume its due to malice as you know there is a problem and "don't do anything"?
> If you were cynical you might think that is precisely why some favor that solution.
On the contrary. Many people favor individually managed efforts because they disagree with your premise, and believe that such efforts scale better than centrally managed ones.
There have been so many studies as to why... I mean basically the entire social safety net in the United States, back to front, doesn't work at all for any of it's stated goals, that anyone who still believes this is the way it should be run, just wants poor people to suffer. Or they're too lazy to read.
There is deep, culturally entrenched ideas here about how wealth is equated to goodness and righteousness, signs of $diety's blessings on you, etc. etc. and nobody, absolutely nobody is trying to unwind that. It's as American as Apple Pie and Baseball.
It's not the people peddling cruelty, it's the system. Though obviously people who personally are ok with or like that will be better represented in such a system.
> Or said in their parlance, it teaches you self reliance or to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Rephrased another way you're basically saying "it's not my team doing that, it's the other team." And this is exactly the kind of divisive garbage that perpetuates the system.
What these systems teach in practice is "don't you dare step an inch out of line, no, intent doesn't matter, out of line is out of line and will be punished" which in a perverse way is exactly the kind of thing government schools will wind up teaching because every bit you make those future adults more likely to comply will pay dividends in reduced enforcement over their lives. Support for that sort of crap generally crosses party lines, as does opposition.
That's right. "The system" didn't just appear out of nowhere. It's built by people--increasingly built by people who believe the government should be used as a tool to exact cruelty and humiliation on outgroups they don't like.
The cost of living isn't a single number. A state like Massachusetts, with a high cost of living for people with high income living in or near Boston, can also have large social services, like subsidized housing, good-quality public education, free healthcare, and free school lunches.
It is true that this can end up having a donut hole effect, where the middle classes are squeezed out of areas that they cannot afford, and yet are too wealthy to qualify for social services.
the cool thing about cost of living is taxes tend to track cost of living, so the ability for government to pay for school lunches is likely similar anywhere.
In Texas, schools are primarily funded through property taxes. That means wealthy neighborhoods have well funded schools that can easily afford free lunches, poor neighborhoods do not.
The thing I find more hilarious even than the -4 that my original comment got, is that I wasn't talking about taxes, but "cost of living". I was under the mistaken impression that the term refers to the cost of groceries, housing, fuel, utilities, and so forth, rather than taxes. But I must have touched a nerve. Guess they don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.
No one gets to live in that state unless they earn far more than I do, or suffer the misfortune of having been born their to parents too impoverished to leave decades ago.
Because it's strange to call the lunches free, when it costs so much to live there. If I (for some reason) wanted to move to Massachusetts to live there for the rest of my life, you know, for those "free school lunches"... how much would those cost me? Turns out that it's alot. And it's magical thinking to suggest that for people already living there that the cost is zero, they're already paying that cost and have been for a long while. I can't prove it, but these free school lunches are probably really expensive.
Do you use the word "free" to describe them? Do you use that word ("free") even to mean that the recipient of the lunch gets the lunch for no cost at all?
Gradients would impose a significant burden on the bureaucracy. It's already complicated enough to figure out where a person's unique circumstances place them on various thresholds. Add gradients and the complexity grows exponentially. The net result would be a 100x increase in the number of public servants.
You can reapply whenever your income changes (and generally you are obligated to report such). At least in my state, the system to do so is mostly automated, although they do have a caseworker manually review such things. A good deal of people who receive government benefits aren't filing taxes at all, and they qualify for programs based on other proof, like a pay stub.
I think steep gradients are OK, as long as they are not over 100%. When someone is working and earning very little, they need all the help they can get. As they earn more, they need less help, and should start to shift to instead contributing to helping others. There is probably some ideal "ramp" that provides the right set of incentives. I think 75% is probably too high.
100x? I think this deserves a bit of a deeper insight. The inputs are the same, which means the verification steps are also exactly the same. The only change might be volume, but I highly doubt it would be 100x.
Outputs would change from bool to float between 0-1. That much is relatively easy given a calculator.
I don't think you should be getting downvoted, you are right. I don't think it's "100x more", but more complicated rules require more resources dedicated to their management.
It's one of the reasons people push for UBI. Welfare programs waste a lot of money trying to make sure the "right" people are getting it; UBI just gets rid of the waste.
The solution is simply: Make school lunch free for every student.
why? income number input results in output number of support. or you know it could just be a of their part time income % with a fixed min and max. or something like a reverse income tax.
This article doesn't seem to really explain how this whole debt thing works. What I'm guessing happens is some kids go to the cafeteria and get food, and then their parents are supposed to pay the bill later, and they can't afford it so they don't (and maybe their parents told them they can't afford and they're supposed to bring a lunch to school but they didn't listen, or their parents didn't tell them). So then the lunchlady has to act like a debt collector and go take their food away and replace it with something cheaper (not sure why they just don't decline them the hot lunch food in the first place).
I can only speak for my own schools in the USA, but this is not quite right. As a student, you were expected to pay for lunch at lunchtime. If you were privileged enough to afford it, generally your parents would give you enough money to fill your lunch account for 1-2 weeks.
If you did not have enough money in your account to cover the meal, which was a set price for staples with extras (i.e., extra side dishes, snacks, drinks aside from water/milk) adding to the price, you would be required to have no more than a ham sandwich and milk, or if the cashier was feeling nice allow you to accrue debt/take the lunch for free. From what I have heard, this is how it was generally when I was in school.
The movie stereotype of the bully "coming for your lunch money" while fairly anachronistic in my school years was not a completely unheard of scenario.
Because the US is run by wealthy people and highly corrupt. If it isn't a problem for those with money, nothing will change. Look at all the major problems the US has and nearly every one of them can be easily walked around if you have a lot of money. Expensive healthcare? Well I got money. Overzealous police force? Well in an expensive neighborhood cops don't dare harass/extort random citizens. Harsh and exploitive justice system? Money will bleed to courts dry until they give up. Shitty local schools? Private education. Shitty infrastructure? Buy large SUV and generator. Polluted water? You can get good water delivered or run a whole-house reverse osmosis system.
It is highly inefficient, but if you are on top of the wealth pyramid none of that matters to you. Average citizens however can't afford all of that.
Same reason they have expensive university, extremely expensive healthcare, for profit prisons, etc, I guess. There's a dog-eat-dog mentality over there which is quite puzzling to us Europeans.
Europe has quite a bit individualism too. Maybe even more when people can freely express themselves without judgment, you know.
But to have individualism for everybody, everybody needs to eat and have a dignified life.
Cutting less lucky people's food and healthcare for penny pinching, or worse religiously followed ideology isn't individualism. It is sadist selfishness. It kills individuality of large swaths of people for a tiny minority's extravagant and boringly repetitive habits.
There's a significant number of people in the US who view any safety net as a handout and don't want others to get something for free that they themselves aren't getting.
Very little at primary school level is controlled federally. It’s mostly state and school district based. That has both good and bad ramifications but it’s just how it is.
In the US, schools are managed at the state level, not the federal level. There are occasional grants given to states to run certain school programs, but states really run the show.
Which is why I'm actually not sure why certain states don't do this. Like richer states like Maryland, Virginia, New York, California.
>Which is why I'm actually not sure why certain states don't do this. Like richer states like Maryland, Virginia, New York, California.
Not sure about other states, but...
All NYC public school students can have free meals[0]:
"New York City Public Schools offers free breakfast, lunch and afterschool meals to all NYC public school students during the school year."
As for NY State -- well, better late than never[1]:
"Universal School Meals: Governor Hochul Announces Free Breakfast and Lunch for More Than 2.7 Million Students in New York as Part of the 2025 State of the State"
To be fair, free and reduced price meals were already available across NY state, but with a means test[2]:
The School Breakfast and Lunch Programs are federal programs providing free,
reduced or full priced breakfast and lunch at participating schools
throughout New York State. In New York State the New York State Department of
Education administers these programs, and local schools operate the programs.
The meals are the same for all children regardless of payment category, and
schools are not permitted to identify students who get free or reduced-price
meals.
Eligibility Meal Categories Eligibility
Free Income up to 130% of poverty ($39,000 for a family of 4 annually)
Reduced (no charge to student) Income up to 185% of poverty ($55,500 for a family of 4 annually)
Full price* - paid by family Income over 185% of poverty ($55,500 for a family of 4 annually)
If Moldova were a US state, it would be the 35th largest state, by population.
Most of these programs are done state-by-state in the US. Because the US is so large, it takes a large amount of political willpower to push programs out at the federal level. Education is mostly handled on a state-by-state basis. The funding split is around 90%/10%, with 90% handled by the state and 10% federal. (That may be changing.)
As a rule of thumb, it makes more sense to compare countries in Europe against individual states in the US, rather than comparing countries to countries.
My rich country that is often accused of "socialism" (Canada) has no real lunch program at any school level. Kids pack and bring their own lunch, though a lot of high schools have a bespoke cafeteria where you can buy some fries or a burger, it operates more like a restaurant than a meal plan, and elementary/middle schools don't have kitchens at all.
With four kids I've made a lot of lunches over the years.
More recently schools have started "nutrition club" kind of things for kids that fall through the cracks, but it is mostly just things like nutrigrain bars or apples.
So it kind of varies.
I don't want any child to go hungry, but it is unfortunate that school meal programs usually seem to involve prison-style terrible food. I did see a program on Italian lunch programs and that stuff was just amazing.
I have the same observation in Canada. There seems to be way less "benefits" in terms of things like the food stamps program in America. I am a bit appalled at the situation with some acquaintances of mine in Ontario who simply struggle to afford food each month; they don't make a great deal of money but they just do not qualify for any assistance. Food banks are not well stocked either.
Meanwhile in my quite red state, a family at the 20th percentile of household income with 1 kid will get $480 in food assistance per month, which is basically enough to afford groceries to stay afloat.
My son's school is private but has a "free lunch" program (apparently paid for out of grants and involving the local grocery store's deli); we send him with a lunch we pack ourselves because we prefer he not eat Goldfish and apple juice boxes every day.
I am in the states, my elementary school had excellent cooked food, the middle school was slightly less good, but it had a great salad bar.
High school was like eating at a truck stop. But it did have a salad bar that was excellent, although myself and Lisa Simpson were the only students that used it.
Surely it can't be that expensive to just provide every child living in our country that so desires/needs it three decent meals a day, regardless of their situation? That one has always confused me, if our country is actually prosperous and powerful, that something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide.
> something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide.
It's confusing (and embarrassing) because, in the grand scheme of government spending, it is something that could be (and should be) easily provided without any strings attached. If literal 10-year-old Richie Rich is dropped off at school in a helicopter, he should still be able to get a free lunch: that's how simple it should be. Adding means-testing of stuff like this is what cocks the whole thing up and makes it doubly expensive.
Yeah but we currently have a $2T deficit. We could do all sorts of good for "less than 10% of the DoD's annual budget", but we are already spending far more money than we bring in. The DoD's budget needs to be reduced by like 50% (along with a lot of other departments/programs) to have even a hope of getting debt under control, let alone introducing new "think of the children" expenses
Which is why I calculated an upper and lower bound. It's hard to argue it would be MORE expensive than McDonalds-for-all and hard to argue it would be much cheaper than a buck-o-meal.
As an Australian, I find it crazy that getting food from a cafeteria at school is the norm in the US.
In Australia you bring food from home 90% of the time. On special occasions or every now and then you order lunch from the canteen.
It seems almost against American individualism to have a communal meal where everyone is served up the same food and sit indoors in a dining hall. Maybe it is just strange to me but I can't be the only person to think this.
In Australia this is actually an issue for low-income/underprivileged children in schools. Some parents don't give their kids breakfast or lunch, because they can't afford it or they just don't care.
Some schools run a "breakfast club" that everybody's welcome to attend, where they provide things like toast or cereal to kids that don't get breakfast at home, and it's couched in shame-softening language, though most kids know that if you go to breakfast club it's probably because you can't actually afford breakfast.
Schools will often have some bread and spreads available in the office for kids who are sent to school without lunch. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but I know that in some schools this is just funded voluntarily by some of the staff who will pick up more bread or whatever when it's required, because they don't want to see kids go hungry.
I think the idea of having lunch provided as part of your school fees is actually a good one. No kid should go hungry, or be subject to humiliation and shame, because their parents can't afford or can't be bothered to provide them lunch.
Back in the 80s, everyone packed a lunch when I was growing up in Australia. One of my brother's classmates was of Malay background, and we were fascinated by the lunches he'd bring in, including a thermos containing fried rice which would still be hot when he'd eat it at lunch.
America is a place where we don't like the idea of people going hungry. The government provides a great deal of food assistance; 13% of the country receives food stamps. Government policy is that every American should be getting at least $291 of food; if providing yourself that would be more than 30% of your income after expenses like rent, the government makes up the difference. Groceries are cheap, relatively speaking - they're sure cheaper than what they cost in Australia. We have extra programs for pregnant/nursing moms which provide food like milk, eggs, beans, and fresh produce, or if they can't or don't want to nurse, we provide infant formula for them. (Income based, but about half of new moms qualify, although in turn only around half of those new moms bother to take advantage of it.) We have excellent food banks that (at least in my area) are well-stocked. They currently have "expanded eligibility" (meaning they don't screen you when you come in) because they aren't running out of food.
We don't like the idea of kids at school going hungry either, so first we had school lunches, and now we have school breakfasts in places. We also have "summer" food programs. My state decided to use the federal funding for this for "summer EBT", which means food stamp amounts go up by what would be the cost of providing school lunches. (Americans skip out of school for 3+ months in the summer.) The general trend is towards free lunches for everyone, instead of making it income eligible.
Whether any of this is a good idea is another question. We don't seem to be a terribly healthy nation, and we eat way too much ultra-processed food which does not seem to be good for us. Big Food and Big Ag have an incredibly strong grip on government. The amount of money involved is big money. To give you an idea of the dollars we're talking, the amount of food stamps spent in America on soda was around $10 billion. You can go ahead and guess which corporation lobbied to expand soda to be eligible for purchase with food stamps.
School-provided lunches in the US started in the first place in the 1930s and 40s because the sheer number of malnourished teenagers was making military planners nervous. The US is much wealthier now, but there's still about 20 million children who get free lunch for financial reasons.
It seems to have changed in past decades. When I was in school in 70s/80s, everyone brought their lunch. And we weren't in a well-off area or anything.
As a sibling comment noted, the National School Lunch Program started in 1946. [1]
The School Breakfast Program started in the 1960s/70s. [2]
More recently, in 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed which enabled the Community Eligibility Provision which lets low income area schools offer free food to all kids without individual application/qualification. [3][4]
Various schools I went to in the 90s/00s had some kids bringing their lunch, some kids paying the school for lunch, and some getting free lunch (because they were poor enough to qualify).
A political party in New Zealand just considered rolling back school lunches to only those in need, rather than every kid at a lower decile school. This article is a great response to why that is a bad idea.
My mother suffered severe post-partum depression when I was 7 so I got my 5 year old brother and I off to school most mornings in the 60's. Thankfully I grew up in California so we were never food shamed unlike some states that still think lunch debt is a moral failure.
A weird aspect of my childhood: I brought a sandwich to lunch every day when I was in school. At first, my mom made it, but very quickly it became my own job, not that it was particularly difficult.
The school had subsidized lunches and milk. I always brought a nickel for milk. The teacher collected everybody's lunch money at the start of the day. That way, it was utterly opaque who was getting it for free. A simple system, appropriate for the times.
But I remember that my lunch was always better than the grim school lunch, and I always wondered: Why can't they ditch the hot lunch, and just give everybody a nice sandwich, and a piece of fruit, which is better?
I'm sure there are good arguments for the hot lunch, but still it's counterintuitive to me. And 55 years later, I still bring a sandwich, or leftovers, for lunch, and skip the hot meal at the company cafeteria.
> It’s larger in that the entire structure of how we feed children at school is a tangle of federal programs, income thresholds, paperwork requirements, and local policies
If DOGE was anything other than an attempt to entrench executive control and execute performative cruelty, this is the stuff it would be tackling.
There are so many arbitrary conflicting policies that each only make things slightly less inefficient to the point where it doesn’t make sense to spend the energy fixing them, but put together they really add up to tangible and significant experiences in people’s lives.
An “all of the above” concentrated effort that looks at everything together, and then makes a list of suggestions to consolidate and harmonize policies that Congress can then pick through for the ones they agree upon on both sides of the aisle and pass quickly and unanimously would make a massive difference.
Sure, it may take a year instead of a few months to achieve this, but the changes would be beneficial, non destructive, and lasting, none of which can be said of even a generous perspective of what was actually done.
I might be misunderstanding the problem but in Australia the parents send the kids to school with packed lunches proportional to the household income… fancy lunches for rich kids, and rice or bread for poor kids.
Or proportional to the household eating habits. I'm definitely in the upper income bracket of my son's state primary school and he brings a sandwich and a piece of fruit like every other kid because it's a sensible amount of food for a small child.
I took a packed lunch to school almost every day. Later on I packed it myself. If I wanted the canteen had hot meals. Sometimes if you forgot your lunch they would give you 1 meal on credit.
IIRC there's a program in the absolute poorest aboriginal communities to provide free hot lunches at school, because it nearly guarantees attendance and works towards defeating malnutrition. I dont think yanks are that hard up yet but who knows.
Somehow the yanks are constantly demanding free lunches like there's no alternative or workaround?
There is a cafeteria at the school where students can purchase lunch, if they want to purchase a lunch but don't have any cash on hand they can use credit, if they hit their cap and want to purchase lunch on yet more credit they are given alternative meals or nothing. There is no "free lunch".
~75% of k-12 students bring lunch from home. If you are on assistance then your lunch is prepaid. Generally the food is so hilariously bad that most won't pay for it, but there are good schools here and there. 9-12 students generally are allowed to leave campus during lunch hours.
There may also be an additional "a la carte" system where you can buy single items either if you have extra money in your account or have cash on hand, but not on credit. Like a canteen.
Bravo to this guy. I’m donating. I hope he continues to help kids but then helps get the legislation changed such that school lunches are free. It’s an investment in the kids. With food in their bellies they can better focus on learning.
Why the f should a child have to pay for their food at school the purpose is to learn not be faced with the realization their families are poor every single day.
I'm confused about the mechanics of the process here. Could someone explain how paying off the lunch debt translates to hot meals? I'm confused because the fact that a continuous debt -- however the amount -- means your expenses exceed your revenue. So even if you pay it off... doesn't that mean when doors open tomorrow, there'll be new debt, and thus the problem will still recur? Or is the idea that the debt was decreasing?
When you're a student you get a card or pin or something to identify you to the school cafeteria.
You have a balance it charges against. In theory, when it hits zero, no more food for you.
But that's impractical because kids are bad about just about everything, and so denying food because they forgot to remind their parents to recharge the thing is harsh. So the system lets them go into "debt" and still get a lunch.
And it doesn't really stop, but the school will often put up a bit of a fight over final grades or diploma to try to get the debt paid off, but often it just gets written off.
Based on the article it seems like there is another level of enforcement here where once there is significant "debt", they take away the kid's hot lunch and give them a cold lunch instead. (and presumably this all happens at the cash register after the kid already has a hot plate of food in front of them)
The federal government provides money to schools so that schools can provide low-cost food in their the cafeterias. The food provided has to meet nutritional standards ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp ). The federal government also sends some actual food to the schools ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda-fis ). Honestly, even with the subsidy and supplies, it’s hard to imagine how the schools provide much food.
Students from low income families can qualify for completely free lunch, and others can qualify for drastically reduced prices for lunch.
I don’t know if there are any federal requirements about how to handle students who forget or lose their lunch money, or students who normally bring their lunches to school but somehow forget or lose them. Most schools will have a specific policy, such as providing the food to the student and requesting the money later. The “debt” in question is between the school and the student, not between the school and its suppliers.
There is a relatively new policy (maybe ten years old) that schools with a large number of low income students can provide free breakfast and lunch to all students ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/cep ), so school lunch debt would be an issue in areas doing just a little better than that.
>> But what if the truth is that we need all of these approaches simultaneously? What if paying off a specific child’s lunch debt today doesn’t preclude advocating for a complete structural overhaul tomorrow? What if the emotional resonance of specific, concrete actions is precisely what builds the coalition necessary for systemic change?
That might happen, but I hate to say that another possibility is people come to expect that someone will just pay the debt. Where unpaid bills may look like some kind of problem, a lack of unpaid bills looks like things are fine and no change is needed. Short term solutions are best implemented along with long term ones. But to the authors point, you gotta start somewhere or nothing will happen.
when i considered whether patching up the problem might be counterproductive i realized that the people who benefit from those payments and who might come to expect that the debt will be paid are not the people who would go out to fight for a solution anyways. the caterers are not going to lobby for a change, they'll just continue to refuse to feed children who haven't paid or they'll haunt the parents for payment because in their eyes it's the parents who are at fault. and those parents don't have any power or resources to change something either. they are busy making ends meet.
but patching up the problem involves new people. people who do have more resources and are thus actually capable of lobbying for change. and that's exactly what seems to happen.
also, a simple law change just to enforce that all children get the same food, whether it's paid or not, even without any funding moves the incentive for the caterers to lobby for more funding. so even that would be a win.
>[...] that another possibility is people come to expect that someone will just pay the debt.
The last few months are making me respond to that question with "so what?" I would rather that earnest efforts to reduce human misery accidentally benefit someone undeserving rather than to allow those problems to continually get worse.
Heck, I'm even ready for brand new unforeseen problems arising from those efforts. After decades of being lectured about the myriad slippery slopes that come with "too much" charity I'm ready try taking a slide down one or two for a change. We've been trying nothing for a long time and it doesn't seem to have much effect.
Please note that I'm absolutely not disagreeing with you and I apologize in advance if my tone comes across as strident.
I love stories like this one. It reminds me of my college years when I partook in a non-profit that was started by my aunt / uncle where we fed the homeless. I learned then that anyone can just step in and do something right in society, you don't have to waste hours, days, months, and years waiting for daddy government to do it.
These stories about acts of kindness like a recent one where a senior citizen was given a speeding ticket while taking his adult handicapped son to the doctor are really just stories about how the society in which they take is broken. If the system wasn't broken then we wouldn't need strangers to pay off student lunch debt and the senior citizen father would have someone to take his son to the doctor.
When Breaking Bad was on there was a comic strip about how in any other developed country Walter White would have went to the doctor, gotten the cancer treated, and went on with his life.
> When Breaking Bad was on there was a comic strip about how in any other developed country Walter White would have went to the doctor, gotten the cancer treated, and went on with his life.
As the saying goes, "Healthcare is such a complex problem that only 32 of the 33 developed countries in the world have solved it."
I don't get where the "33" number comes from and don't inherently agree, but the point? Yes. As someone who is or has been a citizen of the UK, EU, Australia and the US.
The scale at which governments can organise, and (despite much protestation to the opposite) the efficiency with which it can do so, really is unmatched.
Even the word's wealthiest individuals and families (save a few which function as states, e.g., the House of Saud, or some royal families) pale next to the level at which large advanced national governments can operate. The Gates Foundation, one of the largest philanthropic organisations in the world, is "rattled" by the present US administrations threat to its mission:
The NGO / non-profit space does do a great deal of good work, and as it's decentralised it's difficult to disable all of it all at once. Though curtailments of major benefactors, ironically national governments in the present moment, or should I more accurately specify one specific government, can wreak havok at international scale.
But NGOs are inefficient, often work at cross-purposes, suffer from corruption, and often have staggering administrative and overhead ratios, with only a minority of raised funds reaching active operations. The Tiny Spark podcast has been discontinued but has an excellent back-catalogue detailing many of the problems with philanthropic charities and welfare projects:
So, yes, you can strike out on your own, and I'd really hate to discourage anyone from doing so. But you can do far more if you link up with others. And governance is really the technical art of linking up with others.
When you target local issues, and don't wait for the behemoth to get to it, I think you'll agree, that you can be drastically more effective. Now if we could get people to do this at scale as discrete orgs, maybe that would prevent some of the churn and issues we see when orgs get too big.
In The Peoples Republic of Scotland, all primary kids get free lunches now, I think (Primary is aged 4/5 to 11/12).
When it was introduced, my son was in P1 or 2. We spoke to the head and asked if we could pay for our son's lunch as we didn't need the freebie. She said there was no way to pay for it: it was free whether you wanted it or not.
Crazy.
I'm a rampant capitalist, every man for himself and all that but there is something about denying kids the fundamentals, like shelter, food etc. that rubs me up the wrong way. There should never be a situation where they are denied proper lunches. Never.
School lunch debt is an adult-designed problem that we shouldn't be passing onto kids.
What I've seen which works decently well is an official policy of charging, and a policy of free for those in need, and then just cancelling or writing off the "debt" for those that didn't/couldn't pay.
One state's form of children's medicaid or whatever it is bills a "please pay this amount" each month, but the bill has a note that says "not paying this won't affect your coverage" and the coverage is granted not on whether you paid, but your financial situation. So the end result is the "bill" is actually an optional payment.
At least in the USA, if you ever think you were wrongly given a tax or other financial advantage, you can donate the largess back to the government: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454 (yay they take Venmo)
I couldn't find something directly for Scotland, and I know that assuming the UK is the same thing has caused spicy reactions before, but this does exist:
Do different kids get different meals in US schools? I mean for non-medical or dietary purposes? The article doesn't seem to be very clear on that... Is it that when the school's debt gets to a certain point, all kids' meals are replaced by "alternative meals"? Or do some kids' meals only get switched? If so what is the deciding criterion?
I believe the current rules ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp ) require the schools to make some effort to avoid certain allergens.
When my children were in school, their school said that anybody who didn’t have lunch would be given a “sun butter” sandwich and food from the cafeteria. I wasn’t familiar with sun butter; it’s peanut butter made from sunflower seeds, because people allergic to peanuts may not be allergic to sunflower seeds.
Varies enormously between states and school districts.
In our public elementary school, there are two or three options each day: a hot meal of some sort, some days a hot vegetarian meal, and a salad bar that kids can choose what they want from (which usually includes some options that you wouldn't call "salad").
It's not fine dining, but the quality and variety is generally pretty decent. The kids have accounts, and parents are expected to refill a negative balance, but every kid gets the lunch of their choice regardless.
It's not the school's debt, it's individual families. If they fall behind on lunch fees, their children have to eat cold meals.
> Do different kids get different meals in US schools? I mean for non-medical or dietary purposes?
Depends. US schools are run by the states, so it varies from place to place. As other commenters have said, some states just fund lunch so debt isn't an issue. I'm sure some accommodate dietary requirements & preferences more than others.
My experience was that if you have specific requirements that the school can't meet, you just bring your own lunch. If you're lucky enough to have organized parents.
It always felt strange to me that although the US is clearly a guilt-driven culture, it has shame-based mechanics of control when it comes to finances. May it be due to protestant christianity losing its former position of influence? So that more archaic forms of human behavior control take precedence?
It is capitalism. If you fail it is your fault. Don't question the system. You just need to work harder like those rich people who were born slightly less rich.
>May it be due to protestant christianity losing its former position of influence?
Nope. At least not AFAICT. In fact, it seems to have a lot to do with the Prosperity Gospel[0] which, IIUC is a Protestant thing.
The primary tenets of that are (others please do correct me if I mis-state this) that if you are a devout servant of Christ, you will be rewarded with riches on this Earthly pale. If however, you are not sufficiently devout, you will not be rewarded.
As such, if you're rich, you're a decent, devout Christian. If you're not, you are insufficiently devout or just downright evil and, as such, you deserve your poverty.
Nit: could not stand the writing style. It took 3-4x more words than it should have.
On the topic I agree and believe strongly that all kids should receive free food at school. It amazes me people will fight to prevent when to me the costs are small but the benefit can be huge for the next generation.
It frustrates me when advocates get righteous about something that they only imagine and don’t take the time to see for themselves (while claiming it’s widespread and easy to observe):
“I never actually witnessed this scene myself, but I’ve interviewed enough lunch ladies, principals and kids to construct a sort of composite mental image that now plays on an endless loop between my ears. It’s become my own personal film of educational injustice, frame by frame, in high-definition slow motion: the momentary confusion on the child’s face, the hushed explanation from the cashier, the sudden understanding dawning in the kid’s eyes, the burning shame that follows.”
And from that, cooking up an opening paragraph precipitated on “witnessing” it, and Nuremberg-like somber intonations about the banality of “the ritual humiliation of second graders. It’s watching the adults in the room — ordinary, decent people who’d never dream of snatching food from a child in any other context — perform this strange ceremony with the mechanical resignation of DMV employees, while around them life continues uninterrupted, because this is just How Things Are.”
==
He didn’t witness this. He talked to people who were heartsick about it happening at all. Even in his imagined example, the kid doesn’t go hungry, the kid gets a sandwich instead of an institutional pizza slice.
The adults I remember from situations like this would absolutely go out of their way to treat kids with dignity—I remember foodservice workers seeking out any kids who still looked hungry to slip them leftover hot food from the line, and in some cases workers or counselors or teachers covering kids’ meals themselves.
Dunning lunch debt is probably a silly way to run a program, but there’s no honest policy assessment here. I don’t see why school lunch shouldn’t be free at the point of service, but I also don’t know why it isn’t under the status quo. I bet it’s not raw sadism. The pearl-clutching seems to focus on behaviors that are unsubstantiated at best.
he talked to kids. how many kids to you have to talk to before you can make a picture? maybe the kids didn't get hungry, but if they tell you they felt humiliated, then that is what happened. the kid still knows. the other kids know. it doesn't matter if people went out of their way to avoid that. it doesn't matter that the story given is just an anecdote. teachers covering for kids are anecdotes too.
you can be the most courteous about helping a kid out, and it may be that in many cases that avoids humiliation, but in some it doesn't. and that's enough to make that picture.
and don't think that people working in schools can't be humiliating. i have had to experience it at least once myself. not because of lunch money but something else, but that's besides the point.
also how exactly are they supposed to see for themselves? it's not like they can just walk into a school and hang out during lunch until they see it happen.
>the kid doesn’t go hungry, the kid gets a sandwich instead of an institutional pizza slice.
Unless it's gotten a lot better from when I was in grade school, the "alternative meal" was the bare minimum they could get away with (it was a piece of white bread with cheese, although it sounds like now the standard is a seed-butter sandwich). It doesn't exist to feed the kid, it exists to shame them, and any nutrition provided is a happy coincidence.
I had to get it once as a kid (although my parents didn't get a bill) and it was too embarrassing to even eat. Even at a table with all your friends you feel like an outsider through no fault of your own.
Because that's what makes it a "story" people will remember, rather than just a few more sad statistics about our society that people will see and then forget.
I don't know exactly why but I so much appreciated the 'average guy-ness' and humility of the author. Good job, man. I wish there were more good people like you, starting with me...
Childhood nutrition and Lead exposure are the two highest impact issues that can be easily solved to improve life-time outcomes, and yet we don't fix it.
It is mind boggling that we leave kids starving in america, and we are going to pay for it for decades.
I just popped over to Honda's website and clicked through on a new CR-V. I went with the EX trim which is the 2nd cheapest of six available trims. After clicking next on every screen without adding any upgrades, it offered me $33,745 MSRP with 36-month financing at 2.49% APR, which came to $1,035/month.
For 3 years? Yeah that makes sense, but if you do 40k (think SUV / upgraded mid-sized car) at 70 months, at 5% its in the 750 range a month, which is still not quite that high. I can't imagine most people do 3 year car loans.
Interesting, I think so far I've only had used cars, but even so my wife has a newer car than I do, bought it brand new, and she's paying below that threshold so it surprised me to hear that amount.
School lunch programs across the world get setup and perpetuated for a variety of reasons. They also have a variety of funding models.
For the US specifically, major federal programs began during the Great Depression as a two for one combo. It solved the direct problem of... people being poor and their kids not having food/lunch, and it also provided a reasonable supply sink for the government to buy out supply from farmers to help keep things going.
Anyhow, since then for a variety of reasons, subsidized/free lunches have stuck around. Primarily because the underlying problem (food insecurity) has not been adequately solved. School lunches also tends to be amongst the more politically palatable/defensible forms of welfare in the United States, since its very structure and beneficiaries make it harder to criticize.
So while expansion of SNAP or other programs that might help tackle general food insecurity might run into headwinds, most of those arguments tend to falter when it comes to feeding children directly at school. For example, it's hard to argue that getting free lunches at school would encourage "abuse and malaise" amongst students. Similarly, since the composition of lunches tend to be under control of the supplying organization, there's reduced concern of people spending their assistance on "luxuries".
And a 1971 PDF from the US Department of Agriculture (Dept. Ed. hadn't yet been created), "History of the National School Lunch Program" <https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history> [PDF]
icegreentea2's summary is brief but accurate. There was some earlier Progressive Era (~1890--1915) work largely at the city level (Boston and Phladelphia), and through volunteers and charities.
The Great Depression emphasized the scope of the problem, and WWII raised it to a level of national security (under-fed, malnourished, and poorly-educated children cannot grow to defend the country).
The period also parallels growth of secondary (high-school) education from a small fraction of children (~6% of 18-year olds claimed a high school diploma in 1900, that grew to roughly 95% by 1950, where it's largely held since: graduation rates and graduate test scores tend to balance off one another, as one rises the other falls, both are fodder for much political jawboning). Education statistics are presented in "120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrai" published by the US Department of Education (1993) <hhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/120_Years_of_American_E...>
The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically. If the school doesn't provide lunch, the kids would simply not eat any lunch. So they provide lunches, because it's easier than handling the fallout from some kids not eating, etc.
As a child I never had "provided lunch" but I also went to private school; we didn't even have any option through elementary (grade 8, about 12). High school had a greasy burger joint (think: high school football game concession stand) but that was it.
Providing lunches involves enough work that providing breakfast, too isn't much more expensive.
(The programs may have started for other reasons but the above is usually why they continue. It's also hard to stop doing something like "provide kids food" once you start.)
>The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically.
I'm a center-lefty, but America appears to be mostly right and I find it fascinating that this is just "accepted".
Why does America just accept that some (a large enough number that most schools have to feed them) people cant raise their kids?
We already have a system where the government can send "child raising inspectors" to your house and potentially take away your children. It's dysfunctional, yes, but it exists.
Nutrition is an important precursor to education. It saves time and effort of the parents providing individual lunches, as well as guaranteeing a certain minimum level. There's always a few kids whose education is impacted because they're not well fed, due to poverty or chaos at home.
at what time do kids in australia come home from school? for comparison in germany the average school day is 4-6 hours, depending on age. in the US it is 6-8 hours. in germany kids usually come home for lunch. in the US they usually don't. those two hours make a big difference in what kind of food the kids need to bring to school. in germany a snack is enough. that's easy for parents to accomplish. kids in the US need a real meal for their lunch break in school. but cooking food in the morning that kids can carry and eat 5 hours later? even wealthy parents don't have time for that.
Do you mean you always have to bring your lunch to school with you, in Australia?
I went to a weird high school in the US where that was the case. They just didn't have a lunch room, so everybody sat in the hallways at lunch time. But yeah, all the other schools I've heard of provide lunch. Most offer breakfast as well, as an option.
correct. most schools have canteens you can buy lunch from... but the "norm" is for every kid to bring recess and lunch foods every day. Keeping the bloody crows from getting into your bag and eating it is an added challenge that most rise to fairly easily.
note its also expected that you've already had breakfast before you arrive at school.
Where I went to grade school, I don't recall a peanut butter sandwich option. If you didn't bring a bagged lunch, and you wanted to eat lunch, you had to spend your recess time washing trays. Which I did sometimes.
Sometimes, adults want children to go through the same "character building" rituals that they did. For example, working some kind of job, to supposedly teach values about hard work and responsibility.
Other times, adults don't want to subject kids to "character building" that they went through. For example, enduring bullying. Or working a crappy job, while their schoolmates played sports, socialized, did extracurriculars, or got a decent night's sleep.
On this one, my opinion is: Just feed the children already. Stop stomping them harder with class inequality, and conditioning them to accept that as normal, from a young age. I'd rather have children be raised to reject class inequality -- as unfair, greedy, cruel, and dumb. And more immediately, I want children to be fed, and to get other basic care.
If I knew there was a debt like this for less than $1000 at a school nearby I’d probably pay it off. But the information just doesn’t seem to be out there.
One thing I don’t like about the free lunch but never mentioned is that it is by necessity very cheap food, and that means carbage.
Try getting a kid to eat vegetables when processed bread products are being handed out at school. Healthy eating pretty much stopped that year. Which is a shame because it’s not expensive.
That's very kind. Now if we can start getting some real food into American school instead of SNAP Slop. If France and South Korea can manage it, we can as well.
Pretty depressing.
I'm pretty right wing but kids should always be taken care of.
I'll happily pay more in property tax to cover school lunches and kids medical.
property taxes go to schools in your own area. would you also support that taxes be redistributed to other areas that don't have enough tax income and where people can't afford higher taxes? because as i see it, that is the real problem in the way schools in the US are funded. (i am hoping/assuming your answer is yes, but i think the distinction is important and needs to be pointed out)
Honestly my answer is no.
I want my property taxes to ensure that my kids get the best possible start.
My money supports my kids and those kids that live in my area.
I would say yes to paying more property tax to support my local schools to an even greater degree. I am in no way ok with my kids school funding getting reduced to fund other areas. I specifically moved to this area for the good schools.
I would be ok with an additional penny of sales tax to fund a statewide program to ensure all kids have access to food.
Paying off the debt doesn’t solve anything. They’ll get to buy one meal, go back into debt because their parent doesn’t top up the account, and get banned again.
This whole fight feels nonsensical. This isn't a money issue, it's just a convenience issue. It was the same way with my parents when I was in school; they made plenty of money, but it was a pain trying to fill a lunch card or give my cash to buy lunches.
There are a million programs for kids who are legitimately too poor to pay for lunches, not to mention bringing a lunch which is significantly cheaper and probably better for the kid. This guy just paid for lazy parents
As someone who experienced this first hand growing up. I consider how someone feels about free school lunch, a basic test of their humanity.
If you think kids should go hungry or be embarrassed at school because of their parents finances… we can’t be friends, nor acquaintances. IMHO, you are subhuman at that point and not worth my time.
My dad believed that because he paid taxes he shouldn’t have to pay the school to feed me. I begged, borrowed, and stole spare change to pay. He’d chip in once in a while, but once you are so far in debt they won’t feed you anymore (at least they didn’t at the time). I remember going to the lost and found every day to check the pockets of the clothes in there. I learned how to pick the locks on the gym lockers and would steal money from other kids pockets. I sometimes left school so I could go steal lunch from a grocery store near by. I got caught once, but after the lady knew what was up, she conveniently was always looking away from me during mid day of I came in. From the bottom of my heart I hope she receives every possible blessing in this life.
No child should have to do that. Ever! Happy to pay taxes to and live in a state that has solved this problem!
>If you think kids should go hungry or be embarrassed at school because of their parents finances… we can’t be friends, nor acquaintances. IMHO, you are subhuman at that point and not worth my time.
Contemporary politics is "you are human garbage for not thinking the same way as me and your seed should be wiped from the Earth"
While I wholeheartedly agree that no child should ever go hungry and school lunches should be free (from a EU country, this isn’t even a thing here), if you call people subhuman, we can't be friends, nor acquaintances.
This is wild to me. In Estonia school lunches are free for everyone, paid by the taxpayer. Doesn't matter if you are poor or wealthy, everybody gets the same food.
Interesting.
In the Netherlands we packed our lunches or we cycled home to eat lunch with our parents and then cycled back to school. Lunch was one of the most favorite times of my day. A break from school during school hours. What a treat!
I don't know what the correct answer is.
The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother. In your case, it sounds like your dad was maybe capable of paying but wanted to freeload.
So as long as you're going to charge for lunches, you need to have some kind of enforcement mechanism. Embarrassing the kid ideally would not be part of it.
California pays for it all, but California is a pretty rich state. And if you're a poorer state, you have the choice between eliminating this problem, or addressing many other types of educational need.
Just roll it into property taxes and call it a day. This is not a political issue in my mind, but a basic humanity issue. A child with hunger pangs isn’t focused on learning, if you can’t cover the basic need, the rest is a waste. The haves, selfishly don’t want to help subsidize the have nots. Which I get, BUT these are kids, we as adults should leave them out of it, sack up, and deal with it.
You are correct, my dad was a civil engineer, he very much could afford it. I guess he thought high end alcohol and golf were better expenditures. I found it interesting that the article mentions a lot of the debt isn’t from the lowest income brackets.
> Just roll it into property taxes and call it a day.
It's what my district does and the benefits are obvious - there's no "gimme your lunch money" kids who have it hard at home & trying to supplement their diets.
The school even hands out a free breakfast, which serves as monitored childcare for the parents who need to drop their kids off before 8 AM, to get to work. The highschool also gives out double servings for kids who come off the morning sports practice sessions.
The cynic in me says the biggest beneficiary will be the US Army, who can reliably look for a stream of well fed kids from families which aren't doing well enough to pay for college.
There are no moral hazards when it comes to social welfare programs. People really think there are, but every time we look we find practically no freeloaders. This idea that we have to threaten people with literal starvation to get them to be productive members of society is ironically deeply impoverished.
And if we really think that's true, why do we let people accrue wealth at all? Why do we then think that the most productive people in our society are also the richest? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I struggle to see the pillars of this moral structure in any other way than "poor people are a different breed and need stricter rules to keep them in line". Which again is super wrong! TFA cites research that shows that these kids' parents work, but their wages/bills are too low/high. Does anyone want to guess how bad those parents' jobs are? Do we need to detail the struggles working people go through (lack of health care, wildly inconsistent hours, sexual harassment and assault, etc)? The nicest thing you can say about this kind of thinking is that it's out of date.
And what is "freeloading" anyway? Kids of all backgrounds and parenting situations get to eat? Bring on the freeloading then. Who do I make the check out to?
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother. In your case, it sounds like your dad was maybe capable of paying but wanted to freeload.
I say this as an IT worker making what most would consider an absurd amount of money and pays 0.55*absurd money in taxes, a dad, a human, etc... what the fuck does any of this matter.
If a child is hungry, the only concern is feeding that child. A child is, pretty much by definition, incapable of fully caring for themselves. If their parents fail to care for them, we have various mechanisms for the state to step in in their stead up to and including taking them away and giving them to someone else.
"Sorry, Johnny, your dad has the money to pay for lunch but chose not to so we're punishing you with going hungry until he wises up."
Full stop no.
If a child is hungry, they get fed. Politics can dictate that adults who are less valuable deserve to starve to death. Politics can dictate that adults who can afford to feed their child but choose not to need to be punished, taxed more, or anything else.
But we, as a society, have the means to ensure that no child ever has to go hungry. Every decision that leads to hungry children is offensive, and anyone choosing to punish adults by starving their children is a monster.
Downvote, flag, or come fight me. I'll die on this hill: Neglecting children is bad and anyone who could help and doesn't is at fault.
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother.
So what? Assuming you have a progressive tax system in the first place, the people that are capable of paying are, in fact, actually paying for the service in any case. Why charge them again?
> So as long as you're going to charge for lunches, you need to have some kind of enforcement mechanism.
Yes, and one of the reasons for free universal public programs paid for by progressive taxes are often better than means-tested programs is that enforcement isn't free (and neither, in the case of school lunches, is handling money for payment for the people that your means-tested free lunch program now means are required to pay for the service) so you end up spending a whole lot more between payment processing and eligibility verification and enforcement than you save by excluding the people actually paying for the service by higher taxes from receiving the service.
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother.
I quite frankly don't care about that type of arguments anymore. If someone wants to be a bad person they are free to do so. I don't care, it should not stop the 95%, or more, that want to do the right thing.
We continuously make more and more convoluted rules, which are a nightmare for decent people to navigate, but which are just ignored by the assholes. I don't care about fighting the assholes for what is minor amounts, if it means overburdening good people with rules which weren't meant for them anyway.
Moving it to taxes essentially does the same thing. The assholes weasel their way out of paying their fair share, while those who want the best for society and everyone is stuck paying the full amount.
This is why we have taxes. Because we can assess how much each person can afford to pay, and then make collective decisions that can't be made by inefficient free market mechanisms.
> I don't know what the correct answer is.
I do.
> The tricky thing is, if you let anyone just choose not to pay, there will be plenty of people who are capable of paying who don't bother.
It isn't tricky. It's taxes.
There's not nuance here. There's only hate and spite for those less fortunate.
Even if you want to look at it from a purely selfish point of view... if you want to live in a good, prosperous society, this starts with childrens education. A well fed, happy, well slept child is an ideal here to get them the best education they can.
Not wanting each child to get the best possible start in life makes absolutely no sense to me.
But yes, no child should go hungry at school.
"Not wanting each child to get the best possible start in life makes absolutely no sense to me."
Maybe to lower the chances of other children against your own (wealthy) offspring? So from a very selfish individualistic perspective there is sense? I suspect that might be the base motivation, even though you likely won't find many openly stating that or even are aware of it.
Couldn't you have taken a packed lunch in? Make a sandwich and take it with you.
I could have, and did on occasion, but that would have required my dad to go buy lunch food and keep it on hand. But he didn’t need to do that… the school needed to feed us!
I did learn around 7th grade that I could steal his cigarettes and sell them. I guess he did pay for more lunches than I realized, now that I wrote this.
It is classically American to say "I pay taxes. They should use that to solve the problem" while paying so few taxes that it could not possibly solve the problem.
"My dad believed that because he paid taxes he shouldn’t have to pay the school to feed me."
I understand this is not what is meant here... but in a sense he's right. In a normal society where everyone pay taxes and they are well spent, it should be indeed the Government that's in charge of feeding kids at school
He’s right but if everyone around you tells you you’re wrong, you’re also in a very bad spot.
If your kids are hurting because you stand on the moral high ground… you get your cigs stolen from, by your children no less. All for the psychological comfort of being right.
You could say he was right, just early: this is also known as very wrong in e.g. financial markets.
Taxes aren't magic, you pay some money and receive some services. It's obviously possible to fund meals with tax money, but would he accept a higher tax rate to cover for it?
Absolutely, and more states are starting to realize this. Covering basic needs for the most vulnerable is a cornerstone of community and a sign of success.
On the off chance you're interested in school lunches I highly recommend watching videos of Japanese school lunches on YouTube. There's a bunch out there now and if you were raised in the American system it will probably blow your mind. The idea that lunches can be freshly made, on site, out of healthy ingredients and children are active participants in serving and cleaning up is just crazy. When I encountered it for the first time I felt like a big part of my childhood had been sold to the lowest bidder.
> The idea that lunches can be freshly made, on site, out of healthy ingredients and children
Excellent garden path sentence.
A friend who's a pre-school teacher has this excellent t-shirt (I LMAO the first time I saw it):
let's eat, kids.
let's eat kids.
punctuation saves lives.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/B1pppR4gVKL._CLa%7C2140%...
Shows up as a plain black shirt on my end
made my day! thanks for sharing =D
Maybe this wasn't all over the US, but in the 90s I helped serve and clean up our elementary school lunches. There was a rotation through all of the older classrooms.
In our case, sold to the bidder who gave kickbacks to the district supervisor.
It wasn't just sold to the lowest bidder, the subsidized lunch program is specifically not to subsidize the kids, but to bail out farmers growing crap nobody wants.
> The idea that lunches can be freshly made, on site, out of healthy ingredients and children are active participants in serving and cleaning up is just crazy.
> When I encountered it for the first time I felt like a big part of my childhood had been sold to the lowest bidder.
....I share the sentiment, but I also see the chasm between the requirements to get to what's desired, & what's actually given to meet those requirements (which is almost nothing).
To have this program exist requires children that can be trusted to not waste the food that they're given, to behave, & to learn about preparing their own meals.
It's a bootstrapping problem, trust problem, & expectations problem, all at once.
Japan was able to do this by pressuring its citizens & youth to pay the cultural toll needed to get there, and it was a toll that *everyone* had to pay into. No exceptions.
Whilst there can be pockets of local communities that can do this, the probability that the same thing can happen *everywhere* in the US is close to zero, given the cultural emphasis placed on individualism.
It is also from this emphasis of individual exceptionalism where there can be no guarantees that *everyone* will pay the cultural toll. It must be *everyone*, or this proposal won't work: It'll just be another form of subsidization by another name.
------
Note: This doesn't mean that it can't happen, just that the amount of effort needed to get there is monumental, and that certain axioms have to be relaxed significantly to do so.
Kids don't go to all schools: they go to their school.
So by fixing things in one school, any school, you're really fixing things for all the kids that go there.
> To have this program exist requires children that can be trusted to not waste the food that they're given, to behave, & to learn about preparing their own meals. > > It's a bootstrapping problem, trust problem, & expectations problem, all at once.
In Austrian civil service I worked with kids who had special needs and were predominantly from poor social backgrounds. I made homework with them, drove them to school and back from day care in a bus, and I prepared food with them, had them deal with the dirty dishes, etc.
Most of the kids totally crazy behavior immidiately made sense once you met the parents. In fact there were only two kids where this wasn't the case and the first had PTSD of a life-changing magnitude (fled the Syrian war) and the other had good parents but a mental condition (I suspect severe ADHD).
Most of those kids would have been classified by the general public as hopeless cases.
I cooked with them, did the dishes, baked, regularily. Even kids that get beaten at home or were riddled with war trauma are surprisingly reliable if you just give them a task they understand. And turns out tasks they do every day are easy to understand after a week.
If those kids could make it, I am not the least worried about kids in better circumstances. Will it always be 100% perfect when kids do it? Will every kid be at it with full effort every day? Will a new kid grok it instantly? No. But that is okay. What is the worst that can happen? They go without food as a consequence? Other Kids show them how?
You're making it sound as if preparing food together is some unnatural herculian challenge while preparing food together was probably the most common act humanity has ever shared doing throughout its history.
No it must not be everyone. Prepare food? Get food. Pretty simple. Waste food? That was yours. And the other kids also don't like to see that.
The rason for having a society is to deal with those kind of differences. If you teach kids how to get structure into their lives and how to eat healthy the wasted food will easily be saved in future costs in the health and social systems.
Also: my kids could do this, US kids can't. What does thst mean for the US economy 4 decades down the line in comparison? You really think the US can afford to "educate" kids that way?
> the cultural emphasis placed on individualism.
That's just a roundabout way to spell diversity, isn't it?
It's not, they are different things. Diversity refers to people of various biological backgrounds, mental makeups and opinions, financial powers, etc. Individualism refers to the idea that everyone lives for their own benefit primarily, and for "the group" (town, country, club, etc.) secondarily. (In Japan, one lives for the group primarily — barring exceptions, of course. Just like you have exceptions to individualism in the West.)
You could have a society that's diverse but not individual, or a non-diverse one that's individual. Though there is a correlation.
Many people, especially in our subculture, tend to feel like if they can't solve an entire problem forever, if they can't Change The World, what they're doing is futile and pointless
But most people can't change the world. Most individuals shouldn't have the power to change the world. What we can do is be a force for good in the lives that are proximal to us. If we can make a few people's lives better, we should rest easy knowing that we've done our part.
If we can do more than that, then great. But never let the overwhelming hugeness of the entire world cripple your ability to make your little dent. Most people only get the chance to make a little dent - if that - and there's nothing wrong with that.
One of my favorite quotes:
> "I was in the Air Force a while, and they had what they call 'policing the area,' and I think that’s a pretty good thing to go by. If everyone just takes care of their own area, then we won’t have any problems. Be here. Be present. Wherever you are, be there. And look around you, and see what needs to be changed."
-Willie Nelson
Reminds me of another one:
> To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order; we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.
Confucius, The Great Learning
Isn't this also the tragedy of the commons problem though? It only takes a few bad actors to not take care of their own area and over time, those that are doing extra to make up for them eventually feel like they're being taken advantage of.
I feel like in Japan it works because the culture adds enough social pressure that those not doing their part fall in line - or something. I don't think most western culture has that social pressure any more nor do I expect it can by added back
I find it really challenging to get people to notice these things, let alone actively take even small actions for positive change.
I'm interested in what the community thinks are some of the methods I could use to improve these things, and why people quickly become inured to these kinds of problems.
I'm thinking, specifically, about peeling paint, litter, dirty signs, the kind of thing that even a passing effort, a hammer and a nail, or a bit of soap and water can fix for a surprisingly long time (~months, certainly).
It's one of the things I think is an interesting contrast between "first world" countries and many of the places I've been that are poorer - less wealthy places seem to put a significant effort into basic maintenance, because replacing things are so expensive compared to the cost of living.
Part of the reason people don't do those kinds of things where I live is that the municipalities specifically prohibit any kind of alterations, including repair, on municipal property. If something is broken, they will tell you that you must wait until the municipality feels like fixing it
If you pay government 40-50% of your income to government to manage common areas, you think you have already paid for this. You would feel foolish to spend even more of your resources on this. It is someone else's job, not yours.
In places where there is not such a strong governance structure, what you see is people doing more of what comes naturally to everyone. The communal idea arises naturally for things that people want to do. Sure, it's messier without town planning officers, etc, but the governance structure doesn't stop things getting done.
You say they are poorer but gdp, salary or whatever is not the only metric one can use to measure meaning in life. Time is the real money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Thrower
South Korea started dabbling in free school lunches around 2001 - when a few schools started it. It gained momentum, and then it became a huge debate in 2011, when Seoul's mayor somehow decided he hated free lunches so much that he arranged a referendum, and said he would quit if people didn't agree with him on the matter. He did quit.
Fast forward to 2025, and now free school lunches are nearly ubiquitous. Once people experience it, few want to go back. Because it's a much more efficient and hassle-free system.
Yes, of course the money is coming from tax: in other words, if you're a middle-class parent, nothing changed. You're still paying for your kids' lunch one way or the other. But you don't have to pay for a gratuitous system of bureaucracy that keeps track of which kids' parents are making how much money, and whether each kid is "eligible" to eat lunch today, so your money is actually being used more efficiently with less overhead.
> Seoul's mayor somehow decided he hated free lunches so much that he arranged a referendum, and said he would quit if people didn't agree with him on the matter. He did quit.
It’s nice when things work out.
As someone from Europe, I had heard before about bankrupting ambulance rides, slavery in prisons, and food deserts. I did not expect to add “lunch money humiliation ritual” to that list. I’ll think of this next time I complain about my 50% income tax.
I still have vivid memories of getting the 'reduced cost' meal ticket for school lunch. They made all of us with the reduced tickets stand in line and wait for the other kids to get their food first, where all the other kids had to walk past and stare at us, and once everyone else was served, they'd put the food away that was given to the other kids, then hand out shitty plastic-wrapped sandwiches that were half the size of the barely-adequate meals the 'full' sized lunches got.
It was all on purpose, too, to make us ashamed for not paying the full amount.
The adults that chose this path were fucking evil ghouls, the lot of them. Of all the things I want my tax money to go to, ensuring that no one (and especially growing children) need to feel hunger pangs while trying to learn is close to top of the list.
50% sounds manageable still. Currently paying ~65% of whatever I bill, in taxes and that hurts quite a lot. Assuming no costs to deliver, I need to bill 10K€ to net ~3,5K€. It makes exports uncompetitive with other lower taxed countries. Despite this, seeing a general practitioner can take months for issues that aren't-killing-you-right-now.
New York State just passed universal free lunch and breakfast for public school students. Of all the things that we spend our tax dollars on, this feels like a no brainer. Making sure children are fed should be at the top of the list.
Stuff like this seems like such a dividing line to me. Like, in theory when people believe things that are morally wrong, I want to reach out to them with compassion and respect and try to gently persuade them to my side because we're all, in theory, on the same side. But if you don't want kids to be fed, I really am not sure we're actually on the same side any more and I really am not sure what to do with that.
Even outside of morality it's a straightforward issue. Investments in children benefit the whole economy and society, for decades. If a person can't see that then they could be immoral but they might just be stupid.
You can want kids to be fed and fully believe that the government giving out free meal to all kids will eventually lead to kids not being feed. I can think of lots of arguments
Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. The "give a man a fish he eats for day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime", type of thinking. Some people might believe it encourages parents to be irresponsible. Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent.
I'm not saying I buy those arguments but I can see them as valid arguments.
Helping directly is not always helpful. There's plenty of examples of that. Whether that's true in this case I don't know.
> Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient
To be clear, the subject is still children, right? Refusing to feed children to "teach" them self-sufficiency is, IMO, right up there with a non-ironic "the children yearn for the mines". What could a self-sufficient 6th-grader even do for money? Steal baby food and small electronics from Target for fencing?
I feel it on those concerns, though after all, I think the point of some people's stances is that everybody should be able to take free (and dignified) student lunches for granted, as sensible as the fish-vs-how-to-fish adage is in general.
I think the concern about entitlement better applies when looking out for vultures taking advantage of these campaigners' goodwill by trying to wedge themselves into the middle of any cashflow for as-optimizably-marginal-as-possible contribution to those pipelines. Of course, I'm thinking of this more in some context of if there was a sort of centralized campaign to scale up efforts, say, statewide or nationwide (pardon my U.S-centric perspective), to solicit donations to pay off a bunch of schools' lunch debts in a region.
In the specific case of free school meals:
- economies of scale in feeding an entire school
- recipients of the benefit (children) and delivery mechanism (kitchens) are already at the right place and time
- can guarantee money is spent on food rather than (for example) a parents gambling addiction
- reduces stigma for poor children to have universality
- can (in theory) deliver better food using school cooking facilities
- saves time even for parents who can afford to feed children
- teaching a hungry child is an uphill battle
I think the rebuttal to the majority of these arguments is “So you want children to go hungry to prove a point?”
I'll play devil's advocate, and you tell me the immorality of the position.
Say you have no children. Is it an acceptable position to hold that 'those people who have children should also be the ones to look after them'? Shouldn't you have considered these sorts of expenses and being able to meet them, rather than expecting to receive handouts?
You are not denying food to the parents, you are denying food to the children. They did not choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose the fiscal responsibility of their parents.
Maybe there is room in there to shame the parents or give them a slap on the wrist, but the kids are blameless and denying them food makes you probably a monster.
I would not deny food to a starving child, but, as an emergency, that's an entirely different proposition from whether everyone (even the childless) should be on the hook for all children's lunches.
And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear?
> Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear?
You can see the rates for this in Europe, Australia, Canada and South Korea here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit
> And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear?
Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.
How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
This is what humanity must aim for.
That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.
Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
'Most of Europe'? Really? Does everyone you know gets free meals, free housing, heating, etc and spending money? You're dreaming!
An adult can either be a net tax contributor or a net tax burden over their lifespan. The probability of them being a net contributor is much higher if they are well educated and not malnourished. The effect is stronger at younger ages. It’s good ROI for the tax payer.
Even with no children of your own, you still reap benefits from living in a society where children are fed.
People generally don't want the Federal government involved, thats where the consensus has been lacking.
this is exhibit A of showing that these country sized states are fully capable of handling their own affairs and universal access to things, the same as the 21st century developed nations that do the same thing
You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial, there are many funding sources if its deemed important, keep the federal government out of it
This is simply not true. Multiple states have tried and failed to pass state funding for universal free lunches - because in each state there are groups who argue giving free lunches to all kids is bad. It’s not an argument about where the money comes from.
Edit: look here is one now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957
and NY State is an example of where it is true.
I'm not sure how the observation that other places also lacked consensus at the state level discredits anything.
Some people dislike it on the federal level, and are fine with it at the state level, as they are two different organizations. My comment was only about them.
Naw. Not true.
Except none of that is actually true. Unconvinced? Go look at a heat map of poverty in the US and then check out which states get bulk of federal assistance dollars. Note none of those states is running a massive budget surplus. While I have you I'd like to also point out that "hrrr federal government bad" is not only tautological, as an ideology it's deeply stupid . States frequently encounter problems that require a bigger budget than they can muster to solve (see also: disaster recovery).
Please don’t respond with a fake quote; double quotation marks are for direct quotes (which are assumed to be from the parent unless otherwise attributed). If you’re going to make something up, please use single quotes, and make it clear that the parent didn’t actually say that.
"hrrr federal government bad" is not my argument. I don't think the federal government is bad. I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions.
Disaster recovery is also not the topic nor does it provide any introspective ability on this topic.
yes, I agree if something is not within the budget, and there is also no consensus, then it won't happen. I'm not sure that even needed to be said, but I am familiar with people that would try to make programs happen in those situations too. I would vote no on those proposals in those cases.
It’s not that I don’t want kids fed. It’s that I know deep in my soul that $100 will be spent per child, with $99 extracted along the way by various politicians / consultants / unions, and $1 of disgusting food will (sometimes) be provided to a child.
Guess how I know?
And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge
> And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge
The problem is that leftists have more real life knowledge then far right, maga and Trump.
It was not leftists who voted for administrations that blow up deficits the most while complaining about deficits. It was leftists who were 100% correct about what conservatives plan and do. And it is not the left who pointificates about health and education ... while actively making them worst and actively slashing ways to measure how they are performing.
> It’s not that I don’t want kids fed. It’s that I know deep in my soul that $100 will be spent per child, with $99 extracted along the way by various politicians / consultants / unions, and $1 of disgusting food will (sometimes) be provided to a child.
If you oppose any actual steps to feed kids, then you don't want the kids fed. The rest of this is just you justifying why you don't want the kids fed.
If you want the program to feed the kids to be efficient: guess what, the left wants that too, and we're really happy to work to make that happen.
But the fact is, the right is happy to simply throw out the program and let the kids starve rather than tolerate any inefficiency. And notably, that inefficiency is often created by right-wing policies which attempt to prevent anyone perceived as not deserving aid from receiving aid.
If you vote Republican because you want the government to be more efficient, you're piling on even more bullshit. The national debt consistently increases more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones[1]--the perceived austerity of conservative government is entirely nonexistent. This problem is only worse under Trump: DOGE has made things less efficient by firing and rehiring half of the workers in government without even a basic understanding of how the programs work and or could be improved[2].
> And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge
I'm well aware these programs are inefficient, though they're certainly not 1% efficient as in your made up numbers. It's just that I'm not willing to stop helping people because it's inefficient. I'd like to make it more efficient, but it's pretty hard to make programs more efficient when people like you are constantly trying to get rid of them and defund them.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-ha...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/21/doge-gove...
I feel like this has already been discussed before one million times more than the simplicity of the issue should require.
Any income etc based coupon system is inefficient and automatically excludes a big portion of children that such measures are supposed to be for, eg because a lot of them come from families that are too dysfunctional to apply for those, ignorant of them due to language and other barriers, or because of (perceived or not) social stigma. And while adults are considered responsible for their own lives, it is a total moral bankruptcy for a society to have their children starve for their parents dysfunction. At the same time, providing free lunch to children at school solves/eases a lot of social, health and other issues all at once, for a cost that is basically peanuts compared to how impactful it can be.
"it is a total moral bankruptcy for a society to have their children starve for their parents dysfunction."
Sounds like child services should take those children then? If they can't apply for the lunches, then surely they aren't getting food at home, nor the proper medical care.
> Sounds like child services should take those children then?
This is a HUGE, dangerous leap.
> If they can't apply for the lunches, then surely they aren't getting food at home, nor the proper medical care.
Plenty of parents (and plenty of people generally) just aren't aware of social services but are quite aware that they're supposed to feed and care for their children. Plenty more forget to fill out paperwork and return phone calls. Many states' governments actively make applying for welfare and support difficult or inconvenient - plenty of parents can't take the time to return paperwork in person, make phone calls during the workday, etc. Needing support - either welfare or just kindness and assistance - is not a moral failure and not a sign of a bad parent.
Beyond that, CPS wouldn't necessarily provide a great life for the child. There is a lot of difference between an imperfect parent and a danger to a child. Oh, and of course, CPS is a lot more expensive to run than a few meals. Giving out free meals at school is a lot easier if we want kids to be fed.
As an anecdote, I was laid off from my job once, and someone asked me if I applied for unemployment within my state. I didn't know it existed, nor that I was eligible until months later when a barista told me during small talk. The whole time I managed to remember to feed myself (and my family). I sure hope no internet commenter would look at that and decide to take my children away!
"This is a HUGE, dangerous leap."
If you're telling me they are "starving" then it isn't.
My wife was one of these kids. She knew then (and I know now) how and why she tried desperately to get into a state program and away from her drug addict parents. Living in the desert, in a broken trailer, 2 adults and 2 children, only a water tank (reuse that bath water), miles of flat hard (or wet slick) brown dirt in 120 degree heat in every direction. No money, no radio, sometimes TV rabbit ears.
Begging for food from grocery store clerks as her parents bought beer and toilet paper inside, drugs outside. She grew up thinking they were derelict because of the drugs. As they got older and had to quit the drugs or die, she found they were just unfit people.
Lots of people in the world are unfit to care for the children, but the children often persevere and society absorbs the damaged alongside the deaths.
This colors my views of the world, as much as anything I experienced.
The world is not black or white, there are many reasons that parents may not apply for that, and deciding how child services should intervene in each case is much harder and time consuming problem than just providing free lunch to kids. It makes no sense to not solve the easy problem first.
Lose your job, lose your children. Great policy ideas from the thoughtful HN crowd, as always.
That's not a real argument. There are plenty of assistance programs, including free school lunches.
How many assistance programs have you applied for? Frankly, if you haven't applied for any, your opinion is uninformed. Even people who are told how difficult it is, underestimate how difficult it is to apply for many programs.
I've helped a bunch of homeless folks apply to assistance programs (not for school lunches, but for a lot of other aid) and almost universally, applying for aid is extremely difficult. I've walked at least 30 people through the process of applying for housing aid and I'm pretty sure exactly none of them have actually received aid. The only program's I've seen people actually successfully apply for were medicaid and SNAP. It is the norm for it to take over a month to receive medicaid, and it's the norm for it to take over 6 months to receive SNAP. Meanwhile people are dying of medical conditions and starving.
Now add in all the reasons people are in this position in the first place--these people are struggling. It's hard to apply for these programs, and it's harder when everything else in your life is going poorly as well.
And after all that, you might discover that you don't qualify even though you clearly have need. In the OP the author notes that many families with lunch debt were right above the income line for receiving aid.
Some political forces are concerned that people will take advantage of these programs who shouldn't, and others simply don't want these programs to work so that they can have an excuse to cut them, and as a result there are numerous hurdles set up before you can obtain any sort of aid.
Yes, and while waiting for the child services to intervene then those children would still be starving.
I’m thankful I live in a state that uses my tax money to make all school breakfast and lunches free. I wonder what percentage of state taxes is actually required to pay for all school breakfast and lunches? Making sure kids aren’t inhibited from learning because of empty stomachs seems like a no brainer.
The other important part of this policy is that it normalizes kids not paying for lunch. This is important because they realized many kids who couldn't afford lunch were still skipping their free lunch because they were embarrassed to get a free lunch. When everyone gets a free lunch then nobody is embarrassed.
It seems it should be trivial to solve the differentiation problem too.
When I was a kid in Italy in the '90s we paid for lunch in middle school, but this was done through "lunch tickets".
You'd get those from the town hall, some of us paid for them, some got them for free, but you would not know about it when getting lunch.
(Still, free lunch for all kids should obviously be the default)
I've heard of some schools going out of their way to make it obvious which kids were receiving free lunch and which weren't; however, that wasn't universal to all programs.
Our school just had "lunch tickets." There was a register on a different floor from the lunch room where you could go buy them, pick them up if your parents bought them by check, or pick them up if you were on the assistance list. Once you had them they were all the same. Only the person at the register would know your status.
None of my friends who got that ever were embarrassed in any way about using them as they were the only ones to know.
Meanwhile, the proposed U.S. defence budget is ~ $1 trillion and the Department of Education is slated to not exist. This tells you much of what one needs to know about that country, and why having hungry children is perfectly ok.
There should be a dialectic around individualism and communitarianism but with some number of citizens endorsing a polar position, including the solipsist-in-chief, it’s hard to see a way forward on social issues that require thinking on a moral, noneconomic plane.
DISD ( Dallas Independent School District ) has had free lunch for as long as i can remember. Free breakfast too. On school holidays you can still goto school and get a meal. I want to say they do this on weekends too. Granted, MREs from an Army surplus store are better than school lunch but it is free. I don't think my kids have ever eaten a school lunch.
During COVID my wife and I got a EBT (food stamps) card in the mail from the school district with like $2,000 on it for food. It was basically the dollars spent on school lunch for the time the kids were not in school.
Wow that's amazing. I'm glad to hear they're doing it at least somewhat right somewhere.
It's just a way to indirectly say that the school food was not awesome.
> “That’s stupid,” she said with 7-year-old clarity. “Why don’t they just let them eat?”
We’ll spend the rest of that child’s life convincing them that the answer to that is complicated.
I think she'll learn the answer after she gets a job and needs to pay for food.
For anyone from places in the US or abroad who can't understand why a society would subject children to this sort of situation, here are some of the attitudes that give rise to it:
"I shouldn't have to pay to feed other people's kids"
"If you don't shame the kids, the parents will never take responsibility for them"
"A lot of those [poor] kids are overweight anyways"
I've heard all of these said in some form.
Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free lunches with no strings attached?
Without reading into lunch specifically, I'd very much be inclined to say yes.
The reason is, I spent many hours researching the fair structure of my transit agency. Fares that have, obviously, been in the news for being harming to low income citizens. What I found was that the city spent almost 1 billion on upgrading their collection systems, whereas the yearly revenue from those same systems amounted to 1/10th of that. It is very likely that these new systems will actually reduce revenue, as the agency has admitted. Not to mention the operational overhead of waiting for people to tap as they get on.
I strongly believe in social democracies, but our governments are awful at spending our money.
https://boehs.org/node/free-the-t
One of the "don't say the quiet part out loud" with transit fares (which would NOT apply to school lunches) is that transit fares are a convenient way to remove unwanted transit enjoyers.
It is somewhat hard to define "being disruptive on the subway" but it's easy to define "doesn't have a ticket".
A solution that I have seen implemented and discussed is a flat, very low fare. High enough to keep people off public transit that are disrespectful of it, but low enough to allow almost anyone to take it thus increasing ridership. An added bonus is when using a transit card to tap on and off, the statistics of ridership are still readily available for governments to better plan infrastructure.
If you pick a low enough price you even decrease the number of fare dodgers, which means that enforcing is not as important or costly.
Even a very low fare still needs a huge and costly infrastructure around to enforce it
Here in Queensland we just paid $400 million for a ticketing system that is now used entirely for 50c tickets. The marketing line is that the fee is necessary for analytics, but the cynic in me says that it's probably a combination of secret contract negotiations with a pay-per-tap component, and sunk cost fallacy.
We need votekick, but in real life. Clearly this is a concept that could have no practical downsides...
You're reminding me of Team Fortress 2 server nightmares from last year with all the hackers and bots
Even before the bots, I remember MvM being unplayable if you weren't with enough friends to make votekick impossible (and that wouldn't stop them from trying, but they'd ragequit themselves when no one votes yes, and leave you down a player).
Don't you already have that? They get kicked to El Salvador IIRC.
That's not VoteKick, that's AdminBan.
I've not been in a place with a functional transit system where fares were high enough to prevent disruptive people from boarding. I've seen rich people get onto Acela trains obnoxiously drunk.
I have, on the other hand, seen transit operators (bus drivers, mainly) kick people who had paid fares off for being disruptive. The definition of "being disruptive on the subway" does not seem to be the barrier you think it is.
Did you mean no? The question was about whether the bureaucracy was worth it and you said yes, then show an example where bureaucracy is not justified.
Schools seem amazing at spending on lunches, when they can feed people for less than $5 a meal. I can’t eat for that amount, even when cooking at home these days. I’m not seeing clearly what your transit agency’s payment system upgrade has to do with school lunches or why that somehow supports the idea that they’re not spending prudently.
The question was asking if making them free actually saved the government money. I provided an anecdote suggesting that this might very well be the case, by providing an example of a place where the government is burning money in order to collect less money than they burned.
Wrong. The question asked the opposite; it asked if the means testing saved the government money.
You answered "yes" in your original comment, but your supporting arguments imply "no" so I can see why people are confused.
Read the original question again:
>Is the overhead in deciding who gets free lunch and who doesn't and then managing the debt really saving more money than just giving all public school kids free lunches with no strings attached?
Oh, that’s my bad
I was going to be shocked if your case study actually found means testing worthwhile, so I read your entire comment, both others might not.
The specific problem is that the alternative in the case of school lunches does not involve upgrading the payment system. Just because transit might benefit in the short term from not upgrading doesn’t mean school lunches would.
TBH I’m a little skeptical of the payment system story, it sounds oversimplified and might be agenda driven. All our transit systems need payment system maintenance and upgrades over time. Riders want & demand tap to pay, for example. All costs cut into and balance against incomes, but that doesn’t mean they can opt out, nor that it will save taxpayers in the long run. Keeping the old payment system might have rising costs and lead to reduced ridership over time, costs which may not have been assumed in the story you shared. I doubt the payment system is very significant compared to train cars, rails, crossing lights & gates, employees, etc.
We tend to cherry-pick and arm-chair debate individual budget items without seeing the big picture, in order to justify the preconceived claim that governments are bad at spending. Making families pay for school lunches is pretty funny when taxpayers pay for the building, books, teachers, and janitorial and food staff, the sum of which is literally thousands of times more than lunch. Debating the funding of school lunches is missing the forest for the trees, right?
Hi, your last point makes me think that we’re in agreement that it’s not worth making students pay for lunch.
As for your other points, without annualizing it’s actually a fairly significant line item — their budget is about 3 billion. Annualized it’s not as bad, but that is hardly relevant as the fact of the matter is it costed 934 billion. Why did cost that much? My best answer is that a bid was held and cubic transportation systems won. This does not mean that the price was reasonable, only that cubic won. As for the new income, yes, that’s true. Trains will run slightly faster as people can board on many doors above ground (free system also does this). Ridership may increase thanks to tap to pay. I discuss this. But they also have, on numerous occasions, drastically overestimated the new revenue. Newer estimates show that the systems enable more fare evasion than before, cutting into profits.
My best guess as to why is mismanagement. After this was approved the MBTA’s management was overhauled for being a circus.
If you want to write a data driven counter argument, I would be more than happy to link to it at the top of my piece and offer rebuttals
Pardon my nitpick, but the “fair” -> “fare” typo is in this context more confusing than the average typo, so I thought I’d let you know :-)
Maybe I am too sick right now to understand your comment, but isn't this an argument for actually making public transit free or sth? If merely upgrading the system costs 10 times the revenue? Isn't it what is actually argued about for school lunches?
I suspect the only real benefit is a change in behavior of some passengers. They _paid_ for a thing and therefore feel more respectful towards it.
Which would be related to the other symptomatic reasons such a barrier might be sought. As a society my country (USA) sadly has low respect for the commons generally. There's a lack of investment (not none, but not enough), a sense of 'me-ism' entitlement in the population (as if sharing and consideration of others shouldn't mutually be the priority for a public space), and unwillingness to address national scale issues that lead to blights upon the commons (mostly thinking of people society has failed).
None of those are easy enough to fix that a reasonably sized reply could even begin to adequately cover a solution, but those problems are some reasons why a gated access to a public resource might be sought other than as a form of funding.
Disrespect of the commons has been a 50 year effort on the right to normalize ripping off the government to make it nonfunctional and illegitimate.
We are to celebrate those who get out of paying taxes by any means and looking the other way when others take from the commons.
At some point we have to face the truth that the only well organized and ran country in the world is Singapore. European governments had barely any right influence and they manage to evolve their own disfunction quite well. It seems that for some reasons the states after WWII just lost their capacity to build things. If you watch Oppenheimer - one of the things in the background is how staggeringly competent were the administrative guys. There is no such things now. Any government project both big and small is expected to be cost overrun, delayed and if ever finished is a cointoss if it will make things better or worse. It is a global malaise.
While I do not deny that this might very well be a problem, it feels fallacious on the part of the American public.
One, they are indirectly paying for it already by way of taxation. Two, I'd argue it is much better to be respectful towards things you didn't pay for.
We agree. Including to not respect things someone (indirectly) paid for through taxation. Part of the me-ism issue I called out in the larger post.
Yes, 100%. Another 'me-ism' I've been thinking a lot about recently is the collective unwillingness to ensure short term pain in exchange for long term prosperity, for instance in regard to climate policy. Likewise, there is no intuitive fix, especially when such prosperity will mostly extend to future generations.
"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People" -- https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to...
Such is the tragedy of the commons.
> but our governments are awful at spending our money.
No. They're really good at it. There's a lot of kick backs, deal making, and free tickets behind that purchase. You know how hard it is, from the inside, to push through a billion dollar long shot like that? Nearly impossible. Whoever did this pulled a miracle to make that happen.
Our governments are bad at punishing corruption and graft.
If you throw in the effects on school attendance and participation, yes.
Massachusetts extended the free school lunch (and breakfast) program to all students in 2023. Here's the report on 2024:
https://www.mass.gov/doc/universal-free-school-mealsfinal070...
It's nominally 20 pages but the first five are boilerplate and ToC and the last ten are a listing of how much each school district received, so you could reasonably read all the actual report.
You can look at stats from NYC:
https://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/if-no-student-pays-cost...
The report used 2014-2015 numbers, where the cost of lunches for elementary students was $102 million and the participation rate was 57%. It estimates that universal free lunch would cost the city an additional $5.2 million. Part of the costs would be offset by federal reimbursements, so the full estimate is higher than $5.2… the details are in the report.
So yes, it would cost more to make it free for everyone. I still think it should be free for everyone, but it is hard to argue that you can save money that way.
In the current moment, I agree that "the state" can't save money by making it free for everyone. However, it is a lot harder to quantify how much other savings are realized by having healthier kids and reduced healthcare costs. Plus we know kids do better in school when fed well and that long term taxable income, better colleges, business job generation, etc. could eventually pay for itself. Obviously this is a much more complicated thing to calculate and quantify.
I agree… and yet “it’s cheap, it’s the right thing to do, and provides massive benefits” is a different argument from “it pays for itself”.
Not quite. The argument then becomes about pointing out that our accounting systems are stupid, brutish and terrible at modelling second order consequences - social, economic, even moral.
In fact they seem designed to hide these consequences, both good and bad. The features we tag profits and losses are right out front, while other important features are labelled "externalities" and essentially ignored.
This is very obvious in the differences between US and other Western attitudes to infrastructure spending. In the EU, public transport is heavily subsidised. It isn't expected to be profitable because it provides both direct and indirect returns.
No one rational - who isn't a chef - expects their fridge or cooker to be a profit source. Big public infra projects are no different. They're a kind of giant public appliance. You buy them to provide a service.
In the US and UK, the goal of infrastructure spending is usually to create private profits. This certainly creates returns for a small class of people, but it only seems rational because it's pretending other kinds of returns don't exist.
> Not quite. The argument then becomes about pointing out that our accounting systems are stupid, brutish and terrible at modelling second order consequences - social, economic, even moral.
Are you disagreeing with me, or just reframing the discussion? Pick one mode of discussion, please, I find it hard to follow if you start off disagreeing but then switch gears and decide to reframe the discussion.
I encourage you to speak as much as you want about the fact that our accounting system sucks at dealing with externalities. However, we are still slaves to accounting, somewhat. Nobody rational expects a fridge to be a profit source. But if you take taxes, people expect an accounting of how the taxes are spent. “This program costs money but has benefits that outweigh the cost” is pretty easy to understand. The program doesn’t pay for itself because we don’t have a way to put better outcomes on the books.
We also don’t have an accounting system that lets me show a net positive for buying a movie ticket.
the problem is that "it pays for itself" is true in the overall societal sense, where a few more kids don't end up in jail or psych wards or something, but there's no way for the school to capture that value when deciding "do we want to feed kids at school?" and so we usually don't do it :/
It is worth keeping in mind that the broader effects might still be positive. But, I think the original poster was just asking about the direct cost of determining who gets the free lunches (that’s why they frame it in terms of the overhead).
While I agree that a full analyst of the social benefit would be better, and I bet it would almost certainly end up being a net positive (and also, the possibility that kids are just not getting fed because of record-keeping screw-ups, missed paperwork, or incomplete programs is just unconscionable), the question the asked about the overhead does have the benefit of being a lot more answerable and direct.
So maybe $5M on a NY state education budget of nearly $40B, or less than two hundredths of one percent. Isn’t it weird that we pay for everything else but keep the food in a separate accounting budget?
You’re comparing the NY state education budget against a program for elementary school students in NYC using numbers from different decades.
If you want better numbers, a good place to start would be to take total cost per student for a given year and the cost per lunch for the same year, and multiply cost per lunch by number of days and some participation rate %.
Which decades? Are you saying the $5M number is too small because this article was from 2017, and I used budget from 2024? Okay, the NY state budget in 2017 was a bit over $25B. That actually still leaves the answer at two hundredths of one percent, since I rounded up and left lots of room for error. ;)
I was more or less trying to do what you suggest, but without getting stuck doing research until next week. I could be off by a factor of 10 or even 100 without the point having a significantly different summary, right? Even if we did exactly what you suggest, and even if the numbers were more accurate, the outcome doesn’t change: it’s weird to account for lunch outside of the rest of the system, when lunch is such a tiny minuscule cost, it could be funded without blinking.
2010s and 2020s are the two different decades.
I found $23,884 expenditure per child in 2014-2015, which is when the $4.30 school lunch cost is from. With 180 instructional days, lunch would be $4.30/day x 180day/year / $23884/year = 3.2%.
> I was more or less trying to do what you suggest, but without getting stuck doing research until next week. I could be off by a factor of 10 or even 100 without the point having a significantly different summary, right?
You were off by a factor of 150, about. Kinda big. I guess you could be stuck here doing research until next week. I searched “nyc cost per student school 2014” and plugged some numbers into a calculator. I made sure to put all my numbers up there with units in case you disagree with the numbers or disagree with the formula. If you want to use newer numbers you can do that, but I think it’s important to use numbers from the same time, more or less.
These “off by 3x, 2x, 4x” errors add up to orders of magnitude if you make enough errors like that. I was disagreeing with your estimate because there were too many errors. Just kind of a gut feeling.
I see the problem is I used your $5M number which is NYC, and divided by the state budget. However, I don’t think the $5M number is referring to the total cost of providing lunch, and that’s what you’re comparing it to in your calculation. Apples, oranges. Because the schools are already providing free and subsidized lunches, the additional cost isn’t that much and I’m not off by a factor of 150. I am wrong, but not by that much. And I still stand by what I said - even if the total addition cost is 3%, which it’s not, and even if I was off by 150x, which I’m not, the outcome still points at lunch being cheap in the big picture. And even if it does cost more, it doesn’t explain why we’ve decided to make families pay directly for lunch when we provide all the rest, right? I am agreeing with your top point that we (the US) ought to just provide the lunch as part of the elementary school education.
I was replying to an “it pays for itself” comment and looking for the most favorable possible numbers for the most limited incremental change to the program, to show that even then, it doesn’t pay for itself. That’s where the $5M comes from—it’s the incremental cost, to the city, of providing free lunches to an additional 35,000 elementary school students, after the federal government reimburses $3.24 per lunch, using data from 2015.
I think the comment I was replying to believed that some big chunk of the cost was due figuring out which students deserve free lunches or not. That’s untrue.
The lunch program is substantial and can’t really be hidden by burying it in some much larger budget.
I get the argument “this is valuable, we should do this” but I don’t buy the argument “this cost is small”.
I agree with you that the cost of lunch food adds up and is more than the cost of accounting. Substantial is a subjective word but true if looking at the number by itself, and feeding 2 million kids in NY state will obviously be a big number compared to most people’s salaries, which is why it seems substantial. But it’s still a small fraction of the cost of education, and food is a single line item in a much much bigger budget. We can’t actually separate the lunch costs, when you include the cafeteria. It seems very strange that we don’t ask families to pay for books or bus rides but do ask them to pay for lunch. It very much feels like a conscious choice to ensure the poor kids are identified.
There was a scandal in the neighborhood I live in because one school tired of lunch debt was making the hot lunches, letting the kids pick them up, and then taking them away and throwing them in the trash, to make a big show of parents not paying their lunch bills. That saved no dollars and punished the children for what the parents did, poor children disproportionately. Even though most of the kids’ families could afford the lunches, that’s just a shitty thing to do.
The cost actually is small, in the big picture. The truth is that the U.S. can easily afford to pay not just for lunch but for all of education, both elementary and higher education, and it pays for itself many times over, if we look at the extra income tax people with degrees pay over people who don’t have any higher education. We are choosing to not give our kids college degrees by default, and we are choosing to withhold hot lunches from elementary school kids, and it is not because it costs a lot, it would be trivial to fund (and we already proved that during COVID.) It’s because we have politics and a social belief system that is allergic to the idea of free lunch, regardless of the costs.
> it would cost more to make it free for everyone
That's assuming everyone would sign up for the free lunch. We have 2 kids in public schools and pack their lunches even though we could sign them up for free lunch (our state makes it available to all families). We're not alone in that either. (We're also not rich, but we put a high priority on healthy food.)
I feel like there's the administrative overhead, but also every child having food when they are learning is sure to be a profound positive externality. The only outcome of having kids to go to school hungry or receive substandard education is keeping the poorer classes of society "in their place." This is very gross.
To make it worse, I believe that there have been incidences where people have tried to do similar (pay off school lunch debt) and the School District has refused, citing reasons from "processing overhead" to "privacy".
The issue is that the positive externality is really hard to measure, and penny-pinching policies only care about what is easily measured, it's just another instance of the McNamara fallacy.
As a non-American, reading about the welfare rules in the USA feels absurd, there are so many overlapping programs with distinct qualifications, rules, payouts, it simply cannot be efficient to keep track of all of that for recipients. It feels like the design is to make it as hard as possible to keep track of what one is eligible to, it's designed to be painful and unreliable.
There is a cultural thing in the USA about punishing poor people, as if it's only through their own failure of character that they are poor, instead of trying to help lift the less fortunate ones the approach seems to be to punish them in the hopes that will force them out of their precarious position through some heroic individual action. It simply isn't reasonable or has any basis in reality, probably some weird cultural leftover from the religious nuts who founded the country.
You shouldn't have to measure the fact that feeding children does good, and you should push back against anybody who thinks you should (because they clearly don't want all children to eat, a strong signal of fucked up morality).
This so much. My HCOL area uses a hybrid approach: kids can always eat regardless and can run up huge $$$ tabs. The parents get pestered once it gets over a few hundred.
> It feels like the design is to make it as hard as possible to keep track of what one is eligible to, it's designed to be painful and unreliable.
This is an understatement. Florida's unemployment system for example was designed intentionally to fail when too many people tried to file for benefits to prevent them from having to pay out. This of course blew up into a whole scandal during covid when a bunch of people were suddenly unemployed and all tried filing at the same time which is how it officially came out that the system was designed from the start to function like this.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
Pittsburgh Public Schools started doing this (free breakfast & lunch) in 2014: https://www.pghschools.org/departments/food-services/free-me...
This program replaces free & reduced-price lunch for qualifying kids, with "free for everybody".
They directly cite reasons like increased participation and better service (faster lines). It also cuts down on administrative overhead (don't need to separately qualify each kid). Another benefit is kids are not shamed for getting free lunch, since everybody gets a free lunch.
It is a USDA program: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/cep
I'm genuinely worried the current administration will decide it is a waste of money, or woke, or some other BS.
Indeed universal free lunch programs are on the chopping block. To my understanding the cuts are still at the proposal stage though.
[1] https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/03/12/house-republican-budget...
Thanks, I hate it
While we bicker this inane question a much vaster sum is being transferred to the ultra wealthy from the public coffers.
Penny Rich Dollar Poor.
Cruelty is the point sometimes as well
Who’s cruelty, and what’s the motivation?
Incentivized because it’s privatized
I would say yes. In our state all public school kids are eligible for free lunch by just signing up. What's the worst that can happen? Some parents who could afford lunch get it for free? I'd rather my tax dollars go to that than going to a whole bureaucracy designed to ensure that only those who "deserve" it get it.
As far as "rich people are getting free lunches!!!" argument. 1) rich people for the most part send their kids to private, not public schools. 2) rich people who can afford better lunches than the school lunch are going to send their kid to school with a lunch.
Yes, but that's Socialism, and son, this is an America.
I love living in Minnesota.
Walz passed the Free Meals for School Kids Program[^1] at my elementary school, no less! about two years ago.
I’m happy that other states are finally realizing, gee, this is such a straightforward issue we could actually solve.
[^1] https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/FNS/SNP/free/
>> gee, this is such a straightforward issue we could actually solve
Shifting the cost from the parents who had the kids onto the taxpayers is not solving the problem.
It's making people who didn't cause the problem subsidize the people who did cause the problem.
That's not solving the problem.
It's making sure there will be more problems.
I don't have kids, and will never have kids, but even so I don't see people whose children are being denied food as a problem that the children's parent's caused. I see hungry kids who can't learn because they're distracted by hunger as the problem, and I will gladly pay taxes to see that they don't go hungry.
Without kids living and being born and learning and becoming productive members of society your lifestyle would not exist and current economic models would collapse in a handful of years.
You are shooting everyone including yourself in the foot because you personally don't need to walk places.
"and current economic models would collapse in a handful of years."
It's possible that's not a bad thing considering they're built on excessive consumption and an ever expanding population.
I would agree that current models are crap, but what kind of alternative would actually be viable with dumber, less healthy, and a shrinking population? We could do with one of them, maybe two if we are just scraping by for time, but all three? That is a one way ticket to a collapse that wouldn't be overcome for many generations.
> and becoming productive members of society
Child labor was legal until 1930. It has been a part of society for longer than it hasn't. I think your calculus is a little off.
> your lifestyle would not exist
Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough? Which, again, has been a norm in our society for longer than it hasn't. We didn't fully get rid of horses as beasts of burden in agriculture until the 1950s.
> you personally don't need to walk places.
Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem.
Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job.
We live in a world of odd incentives. There is no point at which abandoning the middle way will benefit you, regardless of how pretty those ideas sound.
> Child labor
Are you serious.
> Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough?
They said "without kids", not without this particular program.
> Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem.
> Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job.
These are children. Someone is carrying them no matter what.
> Are you serious.
Yes. I'm calling into question the idea that modern treatment of children is responsible for the world we live in. Clearly it is not given the relative scarcity of it in our history. I'm not saying we shouldn't give children a free lunch just that the OPs reasoning was rather lofty and detached from history.
> They said "without kids", not without this particular program.
They're replying to someone with the obvious implication that this program is in some way critical to children "learning and becoming productive members of society."
> Someone is carrying them no matter what.
Now are you serious? Do parents consider it their career to raise their own children? Does this career have the effect of increasing the number of children they care for in exchange for greater profits?
Which is why I invoked incentives. The tragedy here being that schools consider their primary obligation to the child and not to the family. So when parents are in a situation where they cannot care for their children successfully, for whatever reason, we completely ignore the core problem and instead patch over it. Worse it can sometimes create negative stigma for the child and work to further destabilize their living situation.
One of the best ways to reduce crime and drug addiction is education. Hungry kids don't learn well. Feeding kids so they can concentrate on learning prevents problems not creates them.
It’s hard to tell from your comment whether you mean the lunch debt is the problem, or the kids are the problem.
> It's making people who didn't cause the problem subsidize the people who did cause the problem.
Hate to turn into Helen Lovejoy here, but won't you please think of the children? The victims of the problem are the children. You're trying to punish the parents, and the kids get caught in the crossfire.
Honest question: are you a Malthusian? If so, what do you think is the ideal birth rate?
I will blow your fucking mind.
The entire economic future of you and all the taxpayers depends on those kids growing up.
Our entire economic structure is a ponzi scheme at global scale. It depends on kids growing up and cashing into the stock market so people can cash out of their 401ks.
So why not ensure those little gremlins and nice and plump when they grow up so we can retire more easily.
That's your argument? I have to finance other people's kids because otherwise the ponzi scheme collapses?
Let it fall. No more ponzi schemes.
Feed kids, you ghoul.
For fucks sake, this is a heartless take.
Having not-starving kids is beneficial to literally everyone in the community, not just the kids who use the program.
If you care so much, make some suggestions for solutions?
> Shifting the cost from the parents who had the kids onto the taxpayers is not solving the problem.
No, but it's well documented that students who eat lunches generally perform better.
> It's making people who didn't cause the problem subsidize the people who did cause the problem.
Sorry buddy, but you won't find a lot of sympathy from people who actually care. School lunches *are not expensive*, and there are plenty of parents who are in poverty and literally cannot afford to pay for their child's lunch.
Should the child starve? No. I strongly believe that anyone who thinks a child should starve, for whatever reason, does not belong in civilized society.
> That's not solving the problem.
You're right, it's not. But you also don't offer a different suggestion. How will you solve poverty? How will you solve neglect?
Until you offer suggestions for that, your comment strikes me as coming from someone who (at best) is sociopathic in a bad way and (possibly) someone who does not belong in civilization.
> It's making sure there will be more problems.
Perhaps.
But you could also consider it as several different types of investments in the future.
An investment, at the mere cost of one child's meal per day, is an investment whose return is in the form of that child's future taxes; the lack of investment is instead the death-by-starvation of that child and loss of that child's future income and/or business taxes.
An investment, at the mere cost of one child's meal per day, is an investment in that child's care for their fellow person. Children who have been there (in poverty and starving); who have literally had only one meal per day, are more likely to be more empathetic to the plights of the people (not just children) around them in similar situations. You should hope that, if you're in such a situation, that you could find someone who would be willing to help you.
An investment, at the mere cost of one child's meal per day, does solve problems. Most parents are happy to be able to afford that investment themselves, but some parents -- through pride or neglect or other reasons -- are unable to afford that much. Why do you think you shouldn't help them?
It's astonishing this is a thing. I'm thankful to live in Massachusetts where all kids can get lunch for free with no questions asked. Where I live, kids can get breakfast too, however I've heard that isn't universal in the state.
The article points out another issue that is so widespread. Often times, being right above or below a cut off line can make a huge difference and it's kids just above the cut off line here that are suffering. I have a brother with disabilities and there are "lines" drawn all the time with funding that are either all or nothing. If you cross a line, you lose funding. It encourages them to work less, save less money, and be more reliant on state funding. Why haven't we figured out gradients yet? For example, above this line you get 90% of costs covered. Above this line 80%. Above this line 70%. etc... etc... etc...
Gradients introduce a tremendous measurement problem.
It's more efficient to provide services gratis (think of community-funded fire, police, education, and parks services), and apply the measurement problem to the revenue side through progressive taxation of income or assets (wealth).
This also creates a larger political constituency for the service as everyone benefits. This was the thinking behind a universal social security system, rather than providing a needs-based system.
There's a fair argument for abandoning free market principles when one considers both that children are literally outside the market (they have no independent wage or income), and that the positive externalities of rearing and educating children redound on the local community. (Well, net of out-migration / brain drain, which is in fact A Thing, and not a minor consideration in many cases.)
Oh, and there's the deadweight loss of those who would qualify for a benefit (under law) but fail either to jump through the proper bureaucratic hoops, or who do hoop-jump, but are still denied benefits, whether through bureaucratic error, inefficiency, corruption, or other reasons.
TFA describes the first circumstance.
Patio11 has noted that the optimum level of fraud is non-zero, a point picked up by Cory Doctorow as well:
Patio11: <https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...> (HN discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38905889>).
Doctorow: <https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-04-24...>
Means-tested benefits are something you really want to think through before advocating. Gradient-benefits or sliding-scale benefits are forms of means testing.
I don't know if there's well-developed theory of when means-testing should or shouldn't be applied. There are some surprising arguments from surprising positions (a quick glance at the beginning of this National Affairs article, from a conservative position, is against means-testing, though it's also critical of social welfare programmes generally: <https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/means-te...>).
I'd suggest that means-testing / sliding scale works better or is more appropriate where:
- It's applied locally rather than globally, to small populations in regular contact and where even eyeball assessments are likely roughly accurate.
- Where resources and/or services offered are limited.
Provision of sliding-scale services (healthcare, dental, vision, legal assistance) often falls under such cases. School lunches might, but the risks of abuse and long-term community harm are high.
During COVID, school lunch was free, and most school served free bag lunches over the summer too. That ended in June 2022. Congress could've kept it going for a pittance, but alas...
State government, local government, and local philanthropy (like the chamber of commerce, etc.) could also buy lunch.
I'd rather keep the dysfunction of national politics away from my kids' food, personally. At least I can reasonably move if local dysfunction goes past tolerable levels.
That's what happened in MA. It was COVID that started the program and then we kept it up because we're decent people.
A lot of the country, majorities in many states, are not decent people.
It was a really nice time. One less chore to worry about every night.
My significant other work at a school during Covid where they were giving free breakfasts and lunches. The waste I witnessed from it all was atrocious, due to the fluctuations from day-to-day how many students would come in. The staff always wanted to err on the side of caution, because they didn’t want any kids to miss out. We’re talking sometimes over 200 lunches that were discarded in a day. Some things could be reused, but a lot was thrown away. It was against the rules to do anything but either give them to a student, or throw them away.
It sounds like there were a few problems identified.
* Against the rules to hand them out to non-students (even after some priority window)
* Operating in an unusual context where relative load is highly unpredictable
* No system of reservation to try to forecast load
There's also a bunch of data that's absent, like any potential causes for the variable load. Plausibly it might have been weather related, or related to families participating in a cultural event that's special even if they were celebrating in quarantine at home.
These problems aren't easy to solve.
The first is food regulation and safety law; the same applies to restaurants who serve buffet style as well.
The second isn't going away. Attendance is spotty at best in underperforming schools, in particular the ones that need free lunch the most. Many kids also won't eat some foods. The amount of waste just gets shifted from "too much prepared" to "not enough served food was eaten".
The third is just an attempt to solve the second, but if there was a system of reservation in place, it would still be part of the problem- after all, what we're trying to solve is that parents aren't utilizing the already available free lunch programs because going through the means testing is too much effort for them.
This is a problem. If you roll out a program to deal with an extraordinary circumstance, some people think it should go on forever even when the extraordinary circumstance is over. They think it should be a welfare benefit forever.
Next pandemic, no government programs. None. We've seen how it goes.
No benefits next time. People just try to turn it into eternal government welfare programs.
I don't want eternal government welfare programs to deal with temporary problems. Next time, no. No "temporary" government programs.
>to deal with temporary problems
Hungry children are not a temporary problem, and letting them go hungry is only going to cause further problems down the line.
Haven't you met people who refused a raise because they were scared of moving to a new tax bracket? Same thing only this is where it actually happens.
The only people that do this are ones that have no understanding of marginal tax rates and progressive taxation.
Is it? There are situations where it makes sense to avoid a rise and stay in the tax bracket. Like if with 5k rise you loose a 10k childcare benefits provided by local municipality.
Yes, the anecdote about misunderstanding a particular thing may be broken if you introduce additional factors.
The absurd thing in your scenario is the steep cliff on the benefit...this doesn't change the observation that some people have absurd beliefs about how progressive taxes are implemented.
> no understanding of marginal tax rates and progressive taxation.
Which is how some parts of US taxation works, but not other parts. You seem to be in one part, and unaware of the rest.
(And is a mix of taxation and other "eligibility" issues, with poorly advertised massive cliffs here and there for extra helpfulness).
There may be some cases--if a person is on the edge of being eligible for SNAP, or for SSDI for a dependent adult in their houshold, where getting a raise might actually make them poorer. It's wrong to say people do this because they're too stupid to know about marginal tax rates.
My state fixed this so the marginal rate was never over 100%, but there is a rather wide range where the marginal rate is about 75%. For every dollar you earn, you keep 25¢, and are paying in 75¢ in the form of getting fewer refundable tax credits, food stamps, energy bill assistance, and so on. (If I include the energy bill assistance, the marginal rate is 85% in a few bands.)
Which is a surprisingly large percentage of the population.
Some huge number of people think "writing it off as a business expense" means it's basically almost free.
Most people like receiving a big fat refund.
Many don't understand saving for anything, let alone retirement.
"It's astonishing this is a thing."
Indeed, any decent modern society should provide free quality education, and that should include free quality meals. Especially the richest country in the world.
America provides food stamps that provide groceries to those who need it.
However, I'm not sure it is the responsibility of a "decent modern society" to provide free quality meals to the populace. How far does this go? Does the government need to run restaurants? Vouchers to use at restaurants? I'm not convinced restaurants are even serving necessarily "quality meals".
I think a program providing groceries is a good idea, with some additional support for the rare cases of people who are completely unable to prepare meals from groceries.
Free education means no one will value it. Education should not be free, just cheap. However there should be help and assistance to people who wants to get an education but cannot afford it.
Same with food. Subsidize it for everyone. Cannot pay? Serve few hours to the local community and get a meal. There should be no starving people anywhere in the world.
[flagged]
It's rarely cruelty. It's usually bureaucracy and unintended consequences and trying to be "nice".
Often you have a program created, with "free below X, sliding scale until no subsidy at Y" - done right, this is "perfect" in that each marginal dollar is lightly "taxed" (losing a subsidy is the same as a tax, from the worker's perspective).
This is great! Though let's say (theoretically) that the end result is a 1% "tax" for our family, so each dollar they increase income costs them a penny of subsidy. They probably have other subsidies besides school lunches, like WIC, or ACA, or whatever. Those are also sliding down at various amounts, which can cause it to start to get annoying. But it works.
Then the program is expanded, to be "nice" - even nicer! Now the subsidy is 100% below X, but they're going to also cover 100% up to Y! That's great! Everyone is better off now ... except now you have the situation where at Y + 1, you earned one more dollar, but lost potentially thousands in subsidy. This is NOT ACTUALLY WORSE than before, because at Y + 1 in both scenarios you have no subsidy, but it hurts much more in the second because the subsidy wasn't slowly being drained.
While this is generally true of a certain American political party, you see hard cutoff lines even in states like Massachusetts, where the majority of voters and politicians seem to be actively trying to make things better for people.
The real answer is that gradients are hard, and clear lines are easy. A shocking number of Americans don't understand how our income tax brackets work; they believe that if you cross the line into a higher income bracket, your entire income is taxed at that new, higher rate, and you end up losing money overall.
Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage of college educated citizens in the entire country, also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard.
You’re making the mistake assuming a political party is flawless or that a political party having power somehow obviates the need to be responsive to constituents who might take issue or be swayed to take issue with the policy changes you try to enact.
People like the ones I described exist in both parties but I think it’s telling that people assumed I’m talking about one political party because it made those slogans it’s brand. The hard lines vs gradient doesn’t make sense in terms of public because this doesn’t raise to the level of public discourse.
Also Massachusetts is a bad example because they enacted free lunches across the board. They may have gradient issues in other welfare programs but school lunches is something they’ve solved for now.
As for RCV being shot down, I don’t think it’s an education issue. I personally prefer approval voting as it’s simpler to explain and faster results. Not wanting to switch to RCV (specifically IRV) can have all sorts of reasons and claiming it’s because the electorate is dumb is the wrong take I think.
> Massachusetts, which has the highest percentage of college educated citizens in the entire country, also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard.
That's the ostensible reason - the reality is that Blue MAGA also really hates power challenges. Look no further than CA where they also shot down (even the possibility for local elections to consider) ranked choice voting.
> Massachusetts ... also shot down ranked choice voting last year, because the math was too hard.
The math wasn't "hard" - it was wrong. The decision process was to be instant runoff voting, which has significant problems. IRV is basically what people stuck in the two party mindset think they want so they can express support for a third party. But once a third party gains enough traction to become viable, perverse incentives (strategic voting) shows right back up again. What we really need is Ranked Choice ballots with Ranked Pairs decision process. This satisfies Condorcet which means that a winner is preferred by the majority of voters.
Or just multi-member districts with a proportional system like STV..
I'd definitely take that as well, but it's a much bigger change. Especially of deep government dynamics like how singular executives then get chosen by the representatives.
If only those people knew the hardships some people face with mental issues which hinder their ability to function normally on a day to day basis. Some people cant pull themselves out of bed let alone their bootstraps.
The types of people who are against these social safety nets don't care. Unfortunately, they will only care if it directly affects them.
These people hold the mindset that if you are not disabled and don't have any learning disabilities, you should be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
There isn't any room for nuance with them, they will just call people who are neurodivergent "lazy" and "welfare queens".
Except it does the opposite, because it disincentives you from raising your income above that line.
The goal isn’t to make it easy for you to escape the system but more difficult under the theory that then you’re more self sufficient. It’s a stupid philosophy of course.
Strawmen usually have stupid philosophies, yes.
The simpler and more convincing explanation is that lawmakers write bad laws, regulators write bad regulations, and everyone votes on hot button issues like the economy, immigration, and trans athletes in sports. School lunch policy details don't get enough attention.
> everyone votes on hot button issues like the economy, immigration, and trans athletes in sports
Everyone votes emotionally on issues they don't even understand (e.g, there is ~1 trans athlete out of 10,000 NCAA athletes right now, so why the hell is it even a minor issue, let alone a national debate?).
Because there is only room for 1 gold medal. Only room for 1 silver medal. This is in Pool, which almost a best case scenario for women to beat men and yet, in the UK, its two former men gunning for gold and silver.
https://www.newsweek.com/trans-sport-pool-women-harriet-hayn...
If you truly believe transwomen are women, then its great. For anyone who doesn't share that arbitrary idea, it looks like women's sports is basically over, at least at the high end. Might as well get back in the kitchen, huh? Even women's sports is a man's game now.
Sports governing bodies in the UK are rapidly rewriting their policies to stop these men from competing in women's sports, after a recent Supreme Court judgement ruled this amounts to unlawful sex discrimination against women. So hopefully this ongoing insult to all the women who've worked so hard to compete in their sport of choice will soon be over.
That said, the ideal outcome would be apologies to every female athlete affected by this, and for these men to be retrospectively disqualified and stripped of any medals or titles, with these instead being awarded to the women who would have won had these men not been competing. I doubt this will happen any time soon, but if those running these competitions had an ounce of integrity and sense of fair play, they would do.
The problem is that sharp drop offs instead of gradients are a known and well documented problem as is the desire to get rid of the welfare state by one party. You don’t need to assume best intentions here when the GOP has consistently made it clear where their priorities lie on this topic. Oh and the GOP has constantly taken “starve the beast” and weaponized incompetence approaches to try and kill the programs they don’t like.
That’s okay, because “teaches you self-reliance” is just a fig leaf. They don’t care if it actually happens or not, the point is to have something to point to, so when they’re criticized they can hit back with “Why are you against people learning self-reliance? Why do you want them to be dependent on the government?”
"never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence"
I'm pretty sure this is malice. They know, they don't do anything.
It's way too simple to categorize behavior like this into good/evil. It's a worthwhile thought experiment (and habit) to assume that everyone is trying to do the right thing, and try to understand how they might come to a different viewpoint than you.
Sorry, but my imagination is clearly not robust enough to even begin to steelman a policy that puts children into debt over near zero-cost food at school, often publicly humiliating the child at the same time, without just sounding like a cruel cartoon villain.
I don't believe any of this, but I'll try. Please note that the below is not my personal belief, just an attempt to understand the "other side":
The attempt to steelman the policy probably comes down to encouraging personal responsibility (the libertarian way). Forgiving debts without consequence promote a culture of non-payment, undermining the sustainability of school meal programs.
The steelmanned version of why lunches require payment is likely down to sustainability of the program in general (ie: school budgets are already stretched to the limit, so parent contributions are necessary).
Now, this could obviously be solved by just budgeting for the entire thing to be included in the overall taxes of the state, but then you've got to surpass the hurdle of tax raises being insanely difficult in the states.
Honestly, this exercise kind of makes me see (yet again) how broken the whole USAmerican system is. "I've got mine and I don't want to give any more away for something I don't need"
OK, so you endorse a policy which not only creates human suffering now but harms society and creates more human suffering in the future. The cost of fixing it is minuscule and outweighed by the future benefits.
What are the good faith arguments in favor of this?
- ignorance
- lack of critical reasoning skills
- religion
- sadism
- ?
I absolutely don't endorse it. I just find it counterproductive to say things like "malice is the point".
I do have trouble finding good faith arguments in favor of this policy. It is cruel. But the people who decided to implement it aren't "other". They're humans who think they're good people (aside from a small minority of people who really don't care) and much as we'd like to think so we're not that different than them. If we can understand their justification, that's a step toward actually convincing them there is another way. And yes, I have changed many people's viewpoints with this level of patience, not everyone is too stupid/mean/insult of your choice to change their minds.
assuming good will is the only way to get others to listen and eventually change their mind. because only if we have good will in common we are able to come to a solution that satisfies both sides.
it's the continuous assumption of malice that prevents people from listening to each other. and that is still the case even if there is actual malice. almost by definition, if you do not present the assumption for good will to the other side, they will have difficulty attributing good will to you, no matter whether they themselves are acting are maliciously or not.
I didn’t mean you personally.
The people who decided to implement the policy believe that cruelty will create deterrence.
Persisting in this line of thinking despite centuries of cruelty and no end to the undesired behavior is what leads to sayings like “the cruelty is the point.” Psychologically, it’s well understood there are those who really get a kick out of making people suffer.
How did they give you the impression they were endorsing this?
Because that’s who we’re talking about?
I really wish people would exercise more imagination while applying the adage.
A cafeteria worker is likely doing what they're told to do from the principal and board of education. They're doing what they're told because of laws that have been passed. At any point along this chain of human beings, someone could be relying on their job to keep one of them family members alive.
I know I'm throwing out a random scenario, and that doesn't make it true, but there IS a story here, and it is one that none of us will ever know. There are so many human things that happen that people attribute directly to malice, especially when they have very little information.
Anyways. Point is. I really have a hard time blaming any individual here (except perhaps lawmakers) no matter how depressing the whole fiasco is. It is simply another unfortunate consequence of rigid policies that have serious impact.
>I really wish people would exercise more imagination while applying the adage.
It will never happen because additional analyzing would pretty quickly make it obvious that the problems are systemic and cannot be easily described by the kind of partisan quips and advocacy for "obvious" or "easy" solutions that dominate discussion of topics like this.
Basically any serious effort to understand and solve these problems precludes general audience participation and will therefore not be popular.
I think everyone understands the lawmakers (and by extension the voters) are to blame.
Have you started a local movement to pay for kids schools lunches? If not, should we assume its due to malice as you know there is a problem and "don't do anything"?
I don't live in America, I just watch from the sidelines, sad at the state of the world's leader failing to be rational about most every social issue.
Individually managed efforts doesn’t scale.
If you were cynical you might think that is precisely why some favor that solution.
> If you were cynical you might think that is precisely why some favor that solution.
On the contrary. Many people favor individually managed efforts because they disagree with your premise, and believe that such efforts scale better than centrally managed ones.
There have been so many studies as to why... I mean basically the entire social safety net in the United States, back to front, doesn't work at all for any of it's stated goals, that anyone who still believes this is the way it should be run, just wants poor people to suffer. Or they're too lazy to read.
There is deep, culturally entrenched ideas here about how wealth is equated to goodness and righteousness, signs of $diety's blessings on you, etc. etc. and nobody, absolutely nobody is trying to unwind that. It's as American as Apple Pie and Baseball.
if feels like all too often malice is hidden behind the veil of incompetence.
"any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
>Because cruelty is the point for some people.
It's not the people peddling cruelty, it's the system. Though obviously people who personally are ok with or like that will be better represented in such a system.
> Or said in their parlance, it teaches you self reliance or to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Rephrased another way you're basically saying "it's not my team doing that, it's the other team." And this is exactly the kind of divisive garbage that perpetuates the system.
What these systems teach in practice is "don't you dare step an inch out of line, no, intent doesn't matter, out of line is out of line and will be punished" which in a perverse way is exactly the kind of thing government schools will wind up teaching because every bit you make those future adults more likely to comply will pay dividends in reduced enforcement over their lives. Support for that sort of crap generally crosses party lines, as does opposition.
> It's not the people peddling cruelty, it's the system.
I'd argue that recent elections demonstrate enough of the people _are_ voting cruelty.
> It's not the people peddling cruelty, it's the system.
The rules of the system are made by people. And yes, for quite some of them the cruelty is the point when making the rules.
That's right. "The system" didn't just appear out of nowhere. It's built by people--increasingly built by people who believe the government should be used as a tool to exact cruelty and humiliation on outgroups they don't like.
>I'm thankful to live in Massachusetts where all kids can get lunch for free
What's the cost of living in Massachusetts again?
The cost of living isn't a single number. A state like Massachusetts, with a high cost of living for people with high income living in or near Boston, can also have large social services, like subsidized housing, good-quality public education, free healthcare, and free school lunches.
It is true that this can end up having a donut hole effect, where the middle classes are squeezed out of areas that they cannot afford, and yet are too wealthy to qualify for social services.
Georgia resident here.
Our state income tax rate is 20% higher than that of Massachusetts, and we don't provide free lunch to kids.
the cool thing about cost of living is taxes tend to track cost of living, so the ability for government to pay for school lunches is likely similar anywhere.
In Texas, schools are primarily funded through property taxes. That means wealthy neighborhoods have well funded schools that can easily afford free lunches, poor neighborhoods do not.
The thing I find more hilarious even than the -4 that my original comment got, is that I wasn't talking about taxes, but "cost of living". I was under the mistaken impression that the term refers to the cost of groceries, housing, fuel, utilities, and so forth, rather than taxes. But I must have touched a nerve. Guess they don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.
No one gets to live in that state unless they earn far more than I do, or suffer the misfortune of having been born their to parents too impoverished to leave decades ago.
Why do you ask?
Because it's strange to call the lunches free, when it costs so much to live there. If I (for some reason) wanted to move to Massachusetts to live there for the rest of my life, you know, for those "free school lunches"... how much would those cost me? Turns out that it's alot. And it's magical thinking to suggest that for people already living there that the cost is zero, they're already paying that cost and have been for a long while. I can't prove it, but these free school lunches are probably really expensive.
Do you think I that I think that the lunches magically appear and cost $0?
Do you use the word "free" to describe them? Do you use that word ("free") even to mean that the recipient of the lunch gets the lunch for no cost at all?
Gradients would impose a significant burden on the bureaucracy. It's already complicated enough to figure out where a person's unique circumstances place them on various thresholds. Add gradients and the complexity grows exponentially. The net result would be a 100x increase in the number of public servants.
Gradients can impose a burden, but they can also be simple enough to just "run with" - and many of them that are already gradient-based are.
They just go off of last year's 1040, with overrides for "now a thing happened" - like job loss this year when you made a good amount last year.
You can reapply whenever your income changes (and generally you are obligated to report such). At least in my state, the system to do so is mostly automated, although they do have a caseworker manually review such things. A good deal of people who receive government benefits aren't filing taxes at all, and they qualify for programs based on other proof, like a pay stub.
I think steep gradients are OK, as long as they are not over 100%. When someone is working and earning very little, they need all the help they can get. As they earn more, they need less help, and should start to shift to instead contributing to helping others. There is probably some ideal "ramp" that provides the right set of incentives. I think 75% is probably too high.
100x? I think this deserves a bit of a deeper insight. The inputs are the same, which means the verification steps are also exactly the same. The only change might be volume, but I highly doubt it would be 100x.
Outputs would change from bool to float between 0-1. That much is relatively easy given a calculator.
I don't think you should be getting downvoted, you are right. I don't think it's "100x more", but more complicated rules require more resources dedicated to their management.
It's one of the reasons people push for UBI. Welfare programs waste a lot of money trying to make sure the "right" people are getting it; UBI just gets rid of the waste.
The solution is simply: Make school lunch free for every student.
why? income number input results in output number of support. or you know it could just be a of their part time income % with a fixed min and max. or something like a reverse income tax.
This article doesn't seem to really explain how this whole debt thing works. What I'm guessing happens is some kids go to the cafeteria and get food, and then their parents are supposed to pay the bill later, and they can't afford it so they don't (and maybe their parents told them they can't afford and they're supposed to bring a lunch to school but they didn't listen, or their parents didn't tell them). So then the lunchlady has to act like a debt collector and go take their food away and replace it with something cheaper (not sure why they just don't decline them the hot lunch food in the first place).
Does this sound right?
I can only speak for my own schools in the USA, but this is not quite right. As a student, you were expected to pay for lunch at lunchtime. If you were privileged enough to afford it, generally your parents would give you enough money to fill your lunch account for 1-2 weeks.
If you did not have enough money in your account to cover the meal, which was a set price for staples with extras (i.e., extra side dishes, snacks, drinks aside from water/milk) adding to the price, you would be required to have no more than a ham sandwich and milk, or if the cashier was feeling nice allow you to accrue debt/take the lunch for free. From what I have heard, this is how it was generally when I was in school.
The movie stereotype of the bully "coming for your lunch money" while fairly anachronistic in my school years was not a completely unheard of scenario.
My poor country (Moldova) just implemented free lunches for kids in primary and middle schools.
What is the reason US doesn’t have this already at federal level?
Because the US is run by wealthy people and highly corrupt. If it isn't a problem for those with money, nothing will change. Look at all the major problems the US has and nearly every one of them can be easily walked around if you have a lot of money. Expensive healthcare? Well I got money. Overzealous police force? Well in an expensive neighborhood cops don't dare harass/extort random citizens. Harsh and exploitive justice system? Money will bleed to courts dry until they give up. Shitty local schools? Private education. Shitty infrastructure? Buy large SUV and generator. Polluted water? You can get good water delivered or run a whole-house reverse osmosis system.
It is highly inefficient, but if you are on top of the wealth pyramid none of that matters to you. Average citizens however can't afford all of that.
Because the US is really 50 small countries in a trenchcoat that aren't all on the same page of the script.
Same reason they have expensive university, extremely expensive healthcare, for profit prisons, etc, I guess. There's a dog-eat-dog mentality over there which is quite puzzling to us Europeans.
> mentality
individualism; I think people in our crazy state of states tend to be only interested in what they want, and no other interests
Europe has quite a bit individualism too. Maybe even more when people can freely express themselves without judgment, you know.
But to have individualism for everybody, everybody needs to eat and have a dignified life.
Cutting less lucky people's food and healthcare for penny pinching, or worse religiously followed ideology isn't individualism. It is sadist selfishness. It kills individuality of large swaths of people for a tiny minority's extravagant and boringly repetitive habits.
There's a significant number of people in the US who view any safety net as a handout and don't want others to get something for free that they themselves aren't getting.
Very little at primary school level is controlled federally. It’s mostly state and school district based. That has both good and bad ramifications but it’s just how it is.
In the US, schools are managed at the state level, not the federal level. There are occasional grants given to states to run certain school programs, but states really run the show.
Which is why I'm actually not sure why certain states don't do this. Like richer states like Maryland, Virginia, New York, California.
California claims to be the first state to provide free school meals to all children in 2022-2023 (https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/universal-school-meals...)
California did recently start doing this, and some other states are following suit. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/HSMFA-Report-2024.pdf
>Which is why I'm actually not sure why certain states don't do this. Like richer states like Maryland, Virginia, New York, California.
Not sure about other states, but...
All NYC public school students can have free meals[0]:
"New York City Public Schools offers free breakfast, lunch and afterschool meals to all NYC public school students during the school year."
As for NY State -- well, better late than never[1]:
"Universal School Meals: Governor Hochul Announces Free Breakfast and Lunch for More Than 2.7 Million Students in New York as Part of the 2025 State of the State"
To be fair, free and reduced price meals were already available across NY state, but with a means test[2]:
[0] https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food[1] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/universal-school-meals-gove...
[2] https://otda.ny.gov/workingfamilies/schoollunch.asp
If Moldova were a US state, it would be the 35th largest state, by population.
Most of these programs are done state-by-state in the US. Because the US is so large, it takes a large amount of political willpower to push programs out at the federal level. Education is mostly handled on a state-by-state basis. The funding split is around 90%/10%, with 90% handled by the state and 10% federal. (That may be changing.)
As a rule of thumb, it makes more sense to compare countries in Europe against individual states in the US, rather than comparing countries to countries.
Most states have free or reduced priced lunch for those who are low-income. The families who can afford to pay, do.
My rich country that is often accused of "socialism" (Canada) has no real lunch program at any school level. Kids pack and bring their own lunch, though a lot of high schools have a bespoke cafeteria where you can buy some fries or a burger, it operates more like a restaurant than a meal plan, and elementary/middle schools don't have kitchens at all.
With four kids I've made a lot of lunches over the years.
More recently schools have started "nutrition club" kind of things for kids that fall through the cracks, but it is mostly just things like nutrigrain bars or apples.
So it kind of varies.
I don't want any child to go hungry, but it is unfortunate that school meal programs usually seem to involve prison-style terrible food. I did see a program on Italian lunch programs and that stuff was just amazing.
I have the same observation in Canada. There seems to be way less "benefits" in terms of things like the food stamps program in America. I am a bit appalled at the situation with some acquaintances of mine in Ontario who simply struggle to afford food each month; they don't make a great deal of money but they just do not qualify for any assistance. Food banks are not well stocked either.
Meanwhile in my quite red state, a family at the 20th percentile of household income with 1 kid will get $480 in food assistance per month, which is basically enough to afford groceries to stay afloat.
My son's school is private but has a "free lunch" program (apparently paid for out of grants and involving the local grocery store's deli); we send him with a lunch we pack ourselves because we prefer he not eat Goldfish and apple juice boxes every day.
I am in the states, my elementary school had excellent cooked food, the middle school was slightly less good, but it had a great salad bar.
High school was like eating at a truck stop. But it did have a salad bar that was excellent, although myself and Lisa Simpson were the only students that used it.
Surely it can't be that expensive to just provide every child living in our country that so desires/needs it three decent meals a day, regardless of their situation? That one has always confused me, if our country is actually prosperous and powerful, that something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide.
> something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide.
It's confusing (and embarrassing) because, in the grand scheme of government spending, it is something that could be (and should be) easily provided without any strings attached. If literal 10-year-old Richie Rich is dropped off at school in a helicopter, he should still be able to get a free lunch: that's how simple it should be. Adding means-testing of stuff like this is what cocks the whole thing up and makes it doubly expensive.
Let's assume (bad assumption, but it should be good enough for the math) that a Happy Meal™®© is a decent meal.
It costs about $6 around here, so let's say without toy it's $5.
https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp says there are 71 million kids.
$466 billion a year.
Ok, ok, that is maybe too high. Let's assume a wonderful world where you can produce a meal for a dollar (less than the local school district).
$77 billion a year.
Based those calculations every child could be fed for less than 10% of the DoD's annual budget of $849.8 billion.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/370341...
Apparently in 2022 the school lunch portion of the federal budget was $29 billion.
Yeah but we currently have a $2T deficit. We could do all sorts of good for "less than 10% of the DoD's annual budget", but we are already spending far more money than we bring in. The DoD's budget needs to be reduced by like 50% (along with a lot of other departments/programs) to have even a hope of getting debt under control, let alone introducing new "think of the children" expenses
The price you pay at the kiosk is not the cost of production.
Which is why I calculated an upper and lower bound. It's hard to argue it would be MORE expensive than McDonalds-for-all and hard to argue it would be much cheaper than a buck-o-meal.
As an Australian, I find it crazy that getting food from a cafeteria at school is the norm in the US.
In Australia you bring food from home 90% of the time. On special occasions or every now and then you order lunch from the canteen.
It seems almost against American individualism to have a communal meal where everyone is served up the same food and sit indoors in a dining hall. Maybe it is just strange to me but I can't be the only person to think this.
In Australia this is actually an issue for low-income/underprivileged children in schools. Some parents don't give their kids breakfast or lunch, because they can't afford it or they just don't care.
Some schools run a "breakfast club" that everybody's welcome to attend, where they provide things like toast or cereal to kids that don't get breakfast at home, and it's couched in shame-softening language, though most kids know that if you go to breakfast club it's probably because you can't actually afford breakfast.
Schools will often have some bread and spreads available in the office for kids who are sent to school without lunch. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but I know that in some schools this is just funded voluntarily by some of the staff who will pick up more bread or whatever when it's required, because they don't want to see kids go hungry.
I think the idea of having lunch provided as part of your school fees is actually a good one. No kid should go hungry, or be subject to humiliation and shame, because their parents can't afford or can't be bothered to provide them lunch.
Back in the 80s, everyone packed a lunch when I was growing up in Australia. One of my brother's classmates was of Malay background, and we were fascinated by the lunches he'd bring in, including a thermos containing fried rice which would still be hot when he'd eat it at lunch.
America is a place where we don't like the idea of people going hungry. The government provides a great deal of food assistance; 13% of the country receives food stamps. Government policy is that every American should be getting at least $291 of food; if providing yourself that would be more than 30% of your income after expenses like rent, the government makes up the difference. Groceries are cheap, relatively speaking - they're sure cheaper than what they cost in Australia. We have extra programs for pregnant/nursing moms which provide food like milk, eggs, beans, and fresh produce, or if they can't or don't want to nurse, we provide infant formula for them. (Income based, but about half of new moms qualify, although in turn only around half of those new moms bother to take advantage of it.) We have excellent food banks that (at least in my area) are well-stocked. They currently have "expanded eligibility" (meaning they don't screen you when you come in) because they aren't running out of food.
We don't like the idea of kids at school going hungry either, so first we had school lunches, and now we have school breakfasts in places. We also have "summer" food programs. My state decided to use the federal funding for this for "summer EBT", which means food stamp amounts go up by what would be the cost of providing school lunches. (Americans skip out of school for 3+ months in the summer.) The general trend is towards free lunches for everyone, instead of making it income eligible.
Whether any of this is a good idea is another question. We don't seem to be a terribly healthy nation, and we eat way too much ultra-processed food which does not seem to be good for us. Big Food and Big Ag have an incredibly strong grip on government. The amount of money involved is big money. To give you an idea of the dollars we're talking, the amount of food stamps spent in America on soda was around $10 billion. You can go ahead and guess which corporation lobbied to expand soda to be eligible for purchase with food stamps.
School-provided lunches in the US started in the first place in the 1930s and 40s because the sheer number of malnourished teenagers was making military planners nervous. The US is much wealthier now, but there's still about 20 million children who get free lunch for financial reasons.
Same. Really seems like a yank thing.
I remember the horse trading at lunch as we rotated sambos to align better with taste.
It seems to have changed in past decades. When I was in school in 70s/80s, everyone brought their lunch. And we weren't in a well-off area or anything.
As a sibling comment noted, the National School Lunch Program started in 1946. [1]
The School Breakfast Program started in the 1960s/70s. [2]
More recently, in 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed which enabled the Community Eligibility Provision which lets low income area schools offer free food to all kids without individual application/qualification. [3][4]
Various schools I went to in the 90s/00s had some kids bringing their lunch, some kids paying the school for lunch, and some getting free lunch (because they were poor enough to qualify).
[1] https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp
[2] https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/factsheet
[3] https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2014/05/...
[4] https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/cep
A political party in New Zealand just considered rolling back school lunches to only those in need, rather than every kid at a lower decile school. This article is a great response to why that is a bad idea.
My mother suffered severe post-partum depression when I was 7 so I got my 5 year old brother and I off to school most mornings in the 60's. Thankfully I grew up in California so we were never food shamed unlike some states that still think lunch debt is a moral failure.
It absolutely floors me that children are forced by law to attend school and they don't automatically get a hot meal. That's irresponsible.
A weird aspect of my childhood: I brought a sandwich to lunch every day when I was in school. At first, my mom made it, but very quickly it became my own job, not that it was particularly difficult.
The school had subsidized lunches and milk. I always brought a nickel for milk. The teacher collected everybody's lunch money at the start of the day. That way, it was utterly opaque who was getting it for free. A simple system, appropriate for the times.
But I remember that my lunch was always better than the grim school lunch, and I always wondered: Why can't they ditch the hot lunch, and just give everybody a nice sandwich, and a piece of fruit, which is better?
I'm sure there are good arguments for the hot lunch, but still it's counterintuitive to me. And 55 years later, I still bring a sandwich, or leftovers, for lunch, and skip the hot meal at the company cafeteria.
Here in Australia packed lunches are the standard, but something like a Japanese or Russian school lunch seems obviously superior in my mind.
At the very least I wish my school had let kids use the microwave, cold leftovers get a bit disappointing over time.
> It’s larger in that the entire structure of how we feed children at school is a tangle of federal programs, income thresholds, paperwork requirements, and local policies
If DOGE was anything other than an attempt to entrench executive control and execute performative cruelty, this is the stuff it would be tackling.
There are so many arbitrary conflicting policies that each only make things slightly less inefficient to the point where it doesn’t make sense to spend the energy fixing them, but put together they really add up to tangible and significant experiences in people’s lives.
An “all of the above” concentrated effort that looks at everything together, and then makes a list of suggestions to consolidate and harmonize policies that Congress can then pick through for the ones they agree upon on both sides of the aisle and pass quickly and unanimously would make a massive difference.
Sure, it may take a year instead of a few months to achieve this, but the changes would be beneficial, non destructive, and lasting, none of which can be said of even a generous perspective of what was actually done.
I might be misunderstanding the problem but in Australia the parents send the kids to school with packed lunches proportional to the household income… fancy lunches for rich kids, and rice or bread for poor kids.
Or proportional to the household eating habits. I'm definitely in the upper income bracket of my son's state primary school and he brings a sandwich and a piece of fruit like every other kid because it's a sensible amount of food for a small child.
Yeah I have never understood this one.
I took a packed lunch to school almost every day. Later on I packed it myself. If I wanted the canteen had hot meals. Sometimes if you forgot your lunch they would give you 1 meal on credit.
IIRC there's a program in the absolute poorest aboriginal communities to provide free hot lunches at school, because it nearly guarantees attendance and works towards defeating malnutrition. I dont think yanks are that hard up yet but who knows.
Somehow the yanks are constantly demanding free lunches like there's no alternative or workaround?
There is a cafeteria at the school where students can purchase lunch, if they want to purchase a lunch but don't have any cash on hand they can use credit, if they hit their cap and want to purchase lunch on yet more credit they are given alternative meals or nothing. There is no "free lunch".
~75% of k-12 students bring lunch from home. If you are on assistance then your lunch is prepaid. Generally the food is so hilariously bad that most won't pay for it, but there are good schools here and there. 9-12 students generally are allowed to leave campus during lunch hours.
There may also be an additional "a la carte" system where you can buy single items either if you have extra money in your account or have cash on hand, but not on credit. Like a canteen.
“ families who qualify but don’t complete the paperwork for various reasons, ranging from language barriers to pride to bureaucratic overwhelm.”
Fear of legal action against them.
Giving all kids a hot meal is a no brainer eat win for society. We gave it to them, then took it back.
Bravo to this guy. I’m donating. I hope he continues to help kids but then helps get the legislation changed such that school lunches are free. It’s an investment in the kids. With food in their bellies they can better focus on learning.
Why the f should a child have to pay for their food at school the purpose is to learn not be faced with the realization their families are poor every single day.
I'm confused about the mechanics of the process here. Could someone explain how paying off the lunch debt translates to hot meals? I'm confused because the fact that a continuous debt -- however the amount -- means your expenses exceed your revenue. So even if you pay it off... doesn't that mean when doors open tomorrow, there'll be new debt, and thus the problem will still recur? Or is the idea that the debt was decreasing?
Edit: Fixed some misunderstanding in my comment.
When you're a student you get a card or pin or something to identify you to the school cafeteria.
You have a balance it charges against. In theory, when it hits zero, no more food for you.
But that's impractical because kids are bad about just about everything, and so denying food because they forgot to remind their parents to recharge the thing is harsh. So the system lets them go into "debt" and still get a lunch.
And it doesn't really stop, but the school will often put up a bit of a fight over final grades or diploma to try to get the debt paid off, but often it just gets written off.
Based on the article it seems like there is another level of enforcement here where once there is significant "debt", they take away the kid's hot lunch and give them a cold lunch instead. (and presumably this all happens at the cash register after the kid already has a hot plate of food in front of them)
Thank you! This clarifies a ton.
The federal government provides money to schools so that schools can provide low-cost food in their the cafeterias. The food provided has to meet nutritional standards ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp ). The federal government also sends some actual food to the schools ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda-fis ). Honestly, even with the subsidy and supplies, it’s hard to imagine how the schools provide much food.
Students from low income families can qualify for completely free lunch, and others can qualify for drastically reduced prices for lunch.
I don’t know if there are any federal requirements about how to handle students who forget or lose their lunch money, or students who normally bring their lunches to school but somehow forget or lose them. Most schools will have a specific policy, such as providing the food to the student and requesting the money later. The “debt” in question is between the school and the student, not between the school and its suppliers.
There is a relatively new policy (maybe ten years old) that schools with a large number of low income students can provide free breakfast and lunch to all students ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/cep ), so school lunch debt would be an issue in areas doing just a little better than that.
It's not the school that's in debt, it's individual families who owe money to the lunch program.
But yeah, the problem you point out — families can go into debt again — is real, I think.
Thanks for explaining. I somehow had my wires crossed and couldn't figure out what was going on. Updated the comment to address that.
>> But what if the truth is that we need all of these approaches simultaneously? What if paying off a specific child’s lunch debt today doesn’t preclude advocating for a complete structural overhaul tomorrow? What if the emotional resonance of specific, concrete actions is precisely what builds the coalition necessary for systemic change?
That might happen, but I hate to say that another possibility is people come to expect that someone will just pay the debt. Where unpaid bills may look like some kind of problem, a lack of unpaid bills looks like things are fine and no change is needed. Short term solutions are best implemented along with long term ones. But to the authors point, you gotta start somewhere or nothing will happen.
when i considered whether patching up the problem might be counterproductive i realized that the people who benefit from those payments and who might come to expect that the debt will be paid are not the people who would go out to fight for a solution anyways. the caterers are not going to lobby for a change, they'll just continue to refuse to feed children who haven't paid or they'll haunt the parents for payment because in their eyes it's the parents who are at fault. and those parents don't have any power or resources to change something either. they are busy making ends meet.
but patching up the problem involves new people. people who do have more resources and are thus actually capable of lobbying for change. and that's exactly what seems to happen.
also, a simple law change just to enforce that all children get the same food, whether it's paid or not, even without any funding moves the incentive for the caterers to lobby for more funding. so even that would be a win.
>[...] that another possibility is people come to expect that someone will just pay the debt. The last few months are making me respond to that question with "so what?" I would rather that earnest efforts to reduce human misery accidentally benefit someone undeserving rather than to allow those problems to continually get worse.
Heck, I'm even ready for brand new unforeseen problems arising from those efforts. After decades of being lectured about the myriad slippery slopes that come with "too much" charity I'm ready try taking a slide down one or two for a change. We've been trying nothing for a long time and it doesn't seem to have much effect.
Please note that I'm absolutely not disagreeing with you and I apologize in advance if my tone comes across as strident.
In case you aren’t allow to read the article b/c of your adblocker: https://archive.ph/LZiES
It always was crazy that kids have to go to school by law but the meals aren't free. Seems to defy common sense
This is the most poignant article I remember reading in recent years. Wow. Thank you for sharing.
I love stories like this one. It reminds me of my college years when I partook in a non-profit that was started by my aunt / uncle where we fed the homeless. I learned then that anyone can just step in and do something right in society, you don't have to waste hours, days, months, and years waiting for daddy government to do it.
These stories about acts of kindness like a recent one where a senior citizen was given a speeding ticket while taking his adult handicapped son to the doctor are really just stories about how the society in which they take is broken. If the system wasn't broken then we wouldn't need strangers to pay off student lunch debt and the senior citizen father would have someone to take his son to the doctor.
When Breaking Bad was on there was a comic strip about how in any other developed country Walter White would have went to the doctor, gotten the cancer treated, and went on with his life.
Edited to add: I knew there was a term for this but I couldn't think of it.: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/orphan-crushing-machine
> When Breaking Bad was on there was a comic strip about how in any other developed country Walter White would have went to the doctor, gotten the cancer treated, and went on with his life.
As the saying goes, "Healthcare is such a complex problem that only 32 of the 33 developed countries in the world have solved it."
I don't get where the "33" number comes from and don't inherently agree, but the point? Yes. As someone who is or has been a citizen of the UK, EU, Australia and the US.
Yes and no.
The scale at which governments can organise, and (despite much protestation to the opposite) the efficiency with which it can do so, really is unmatched.
Even the word's wealthiest individuals and families (save a few which function as states, e.g., the House of Saud, or some royal families) pale next to the level at which large advanced national governments can operate. The Gates Foundation, one of the largest philanthropic organisations in the world, is "rattled" by the present US administrations threat to its mission:
<https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/gates-foundation-i...>
The NGO / non-profit space does do a great deal of good work, and as it's decentralised it's difficult to disable all of it all at once. Though curtailments of major benefactors, ironically national governments in the present moment, or should I more accurately specify one specific government, can wreak havok at international scale.
But NGOs are inefficient, often work at cross-purposes, suffer from corruption, and often have staggering administrative and overhead ratios, with only a minority of raised funds reaching active operations. The Tiny Spark podcast has been discontinued but has an excellent back-catalogue detailing many of the problems with philanthropic charities and welfare projects:
<https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tiny-spark/id505053432>
So, yes, you can strike out on your own, and I'd really hate to discourage anyone from doing so. But you can do far more if you link up with others. And governance is really the technical art of linking up with others.
When you target local issues, and don't wait for the behemoth to get to it, I think you'll agree, that you can be drastically more effective. Now if we could get people to do this at scale as discrete orgs, maybe that would prevent some of the churn and issues we see when orgs get too big.
In The Peoples Republic of Scotland, all primary kids get free lunches now, I think (Primary is aged 4/5 to 11/12).
When it was introduced, my son was in P1 or 2. We spoke to the head and asked if we could pay for our son's lunch as we didn't need the freebie. She said there was no way to pay for it: it was free whether you wanted it or not.
Crazy.
I'm a rampant capitalist, every man for himself and all that but there is something about denying kids the fundamentals, like shelter, food etc. that rubs me up the wrong way. There should never be a situation where they are denied proper lunches. Never.
School lunch debt is an adult-designed problem that we shouldn't be passing onto kids.
What I've seen which works decently well is an official policy of charging, and a policy of free for those in need, and then just cancelling or writing off the "debt" for those that didn't/couldn't pay.
One state's form of children's medicaid or whatever it is bills a "please pay this amount" each month, but the bill has a note that says "not paying this won't affect your coverage" and the coverage is granted not on whether you paid, but your financial situation. So the end result is the "bill" is actually an optional payment.
At least in the USA, if you ever think you were wrongly given a tax or other financial advantage, you can donate the largess back to the government: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454 (yay they take Venmo)
I couldn't find something directly for Scotland, and I know that assuming the UK is the same thing has caused spicy reactions before, but this does exist:
https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibilities/public-sector-funds-...
Do different kids get different meals in US schools? I mean for non-medical or dietary purposes? The article doesn't seem to be very clear on that... Is it that when the school's debt gets to a certain point, all kids' meals are replaced by "alternative meals"? Or do some kids' meals only get switched? If so what is the deciding criterion?
I believe the current rules ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp ) require the schools to make some effort to avoid certain allergens.
When my children were in school, their school said that anybody who didn’t have lunch would be given a “sun butter” sandwich and food from the cafeteria. I wasn’t familiar with sun butter; it’s peanut butter made from sunflower seeds, because people allergic to peanuts may not be allergic to sunflower seeds.
Varies enormously between states and school districts.
In our public elementary school, there are two or three options each day: a hot meal of some sort, some days a hot vegetarian meal, and a salad bar that kids can choose what they want from (which usually includes some options that you wouldn't call "salad").
It's not fine dining, but the quality and variety is generally pretty decent. The kids have accounts, and parents are expected to refill a negative balance, but every kid gets the lunch of their choice regardless.
Only kids who can't afford the "regular" meals get switched to alternative meals.
I can remember at least in High School that usually happens. None of it is healthy or good but you are allowed choice.
> When the school's debt ...
It's not the school's debt, it's individual families. If they fall behind on lunch fees, their children have to eat cold meals.
> Do different kids get different meals in US schools? I mean for non-medical or dietary purposes?
Depends. US schools are run by the states, so it varies from place to place. As other commenters have said, some states just fund lunch so debt isn't an issue. I'm sure some accommodate dietary requirements & preferences more than others.
My experience was that if you have specific requirements that the school can't meet, you just bring your own lunch. If you're lucky enough to have organized parents.
It always felt strange to me that although the US is clearly a guilt-driven culture, it has shame-based mechanics of control when it comes to finances. May it be due to protestant christianity losing its former position of influence? So that more archaic forms of human behavior control take precedence?
Shame is the Protestant enforcement mechanism for guilt.
It is capitalism. If you fail it is your fault. Don't question the system. You just need to work harder like those rich people who were born slightly less rich.
>May it be due to protestant christianity losing its former position of influence?
Nope. At least not AFAICT. In fact, it seems to have a lot to do with the Prosperity Gospel[0] which, IIUC is a Protestant thing.
The primary tenets of that are (others please do correct me if I mis-state this) that if you are a devout servant of Christ, you will be rewarded with riches on this Earthly pale. If however, you are not sufficiently devout, you will not be rewarded.
As such, if you're rich, you're a decent, devout Christian. If you're not, you are insufficiently devout or just downright evil and, as such, you deserve your poverty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
Nit: could not stand the writing style. It took 3-4x more words than it should have.
On the topic I agree and believe strongly that all kids should receive free food at school. It amazes me people will fight to prevent when to me the costs are small but the benefit can be huge for the next generation.
It frustrates me when advocates get righteous about something that they only imagine and don’t take the time to see for themselves (while claiming it’s widespread and easy to observe):
“I never actually witnessed this scene myself, but I’ve interviewed enough lunch ladies, principals and kids to construct a sort of composite mental image that now plays on an endless loop between my ears. It’s become my own personal film of educational injustice, frame by frame, in high-definition slow motion: the momentary confusion on the child’s face, the hushed explanation from the cashier, the sudden understanding dawning in the kid’s eyes, the burning shame that follows.”
And from that, cooking up an opening paragraph precipitated on “witnessing” it, and Nuremberg-like somber intonations about the banality of “the ritual humiliation of second graders. It’s watching the adults in the room — ordinary, decent people who’d never dream of snatching food from a child in any other context — perform this strange ceremony with the mechanical resignation of DMV employees, while around them life continues uninterrupted, because this is just How Things Are.”
==
He didn’t witness this. He talked to people who were heartsick about it happening at all. Even in his imagined example, the kid doesn’t go hungry, the kid gets a sandwich instead of an institutional pizza slice.
The adults I remember from situations like this would absolutely go out of their way to treat kids with dignity—I remember foodservice workers seeking out any kids who still looked hungry to slip them leftover hot food from the line, and in some cases workers or counselors or teachers covering kids’ meals themselves.
Dunning lunch debt is probably a silly way to run a program, but there’s no honest policy assessment here. I don’t see why school lunch shouldn’t be free at the point of service, but I also don’t know why it isn’t under the status quo. I bet it’s not raw sadism. The pearl-clutching seems to focus on behaviors that are unsubstantiated at best.
he talked to kids. how many kids to you have to talk to before you can make a picture? maybe the kids didn't get hungry, but if they tell you they felt humiliated, then that is what happened. the kid still knows. the other kids know. it doesn't matter if people went out of their way to avoid that. it doesn't matter that the story given is just an anecdote. teachers covering for kids are anecdotes too.
you can be the most courteous about helping a kid out, and it may be that in many cases that avoids humiliation, but in some it doesn't. and that's enough to make that picture.
and don't think that people working in schools can't be humiliating. i have had to experience it at least once myself. not because of lunch money but something else, but that's besides the point.
also how exactly are they supposed to see for themselves? it's not like they can just walk into a school and hang out during lunch until they see it happen.
>the kid doesn’t go hungry, the kid gets a sandwich instead of an institutional pizza slice.
Unless it's gotten a lot better from when I was in grade school, the "alternative meal" was the bare minimum they could get away with (it was a piece of white bread with cheese, although it sounds like now the standard is a seed-butter sandwich). It doesn't exist to feed the kid, it exists to shame them, and any nutrition provided is a happy coincidence.
I had to get it once as a kid (although my parents didn't get a bill) and it was too embarrassing to even eat. Even at a table with all your friends you feel like an outsider through no fault of your own.
It's good to remember that AI isn't the only thing that hallucinates scenarios.
Because that's what makes it a "story" people will remember, rather than just a few more sad statistics about our society that people will see and then forget.
Disagree. The story rambled forever. The substance was good but it fits into a few paragraphs, the rest was word filler imo.
Orphan-Crushing Machine
One word for this - heroic.
I don't know exactly why but I so much appreciated the 'average guy-ness' and humility of the author. Good job, man. I wish there were more good people like you, starting with me...
Childhood nutrition and Lead exposure are the two highest impact issues that can be easily solved to improve life-time outcomes, and yet we don't fix it.
It is mind boggling that we leave kids starving in america, and we are going to pay for it for decades.
> $835.
> ...
> It was less than some monthly car payments.
I'm not sure what kind of car, but that's way above any car payment I've ever had to pay. ;)
I just popped over to Honda's website and clicked through on a new CR-V. I went with the EX trim which is the 2nd cheapest of six available trims. After clicking next on every screen without adding any upgrades, it offered me $33,745 MSRP with 36-month financing at 2.49% APR, which came to $1,035/month.
For 3 years? Yeah that makes sense, but if you do 40k (think SUV / upgraded mid-sized car) at 70 months, at 5% its in the 750 range a month, which is still not quite that high. I can't imagine most people do 3 year car loans.
Yeah, I have to imagine that the convergence of:
- people buying new
- but looking for the cheapest trims
- on an aggressively short loan
is particularly large. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the 108 month or more loans starting to show up, but still.
According to this site [1], the average car payment is $724.
[1]: https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/debt-statistics/#:~:text=Th...
Interesting, I think so far I've only had used cars, but even so my wife has a newer car than I do, bought it brand new, and she's paying below that threshold so it surprised me to hear that amount.
Car payments have skyrocketed since the pandemic due to the massive increase in prices and the increase in interest rates.
NB: Title from HTML source due to clickbait. The story stands on its own without such tactics.
(I'm in Australia) I dont understand why this concept of schools providing lunches ever became a thing...
Why did this idea ever take off?
School lunch programs across the world get setup and perpetuated for a variety of reasons. They also have a variety of funding models.
For the US specifically, major federal programs began during the Great Depression as a two for one combo. It solved the direct problem of... people being poor and their kids not having food/lunch, and it also provided a reasonable supply sink for the government to buy out supply from farmers to help keep things going.
Anyhow, since then for a variety of reasons, subsidized/free lunches have stuck around. Primarily because the underlying problem (food insecurity) has not been adequately solved. School lunches also tends to be amongst the more politically palatable/defensible forms of welfare in the United States, since its very structure and beneficiaries make it harder to criticize.
So while expansion of SNAP or other programs that might help tackle general food insecurity might run into headwinds, most of those arguments tend to falter when it comes to feeding children directly at school. For example, it's hard to argue that getting free lunches at school would encourage "abuse and malaise" amongst students. Similarly, since the composition of lunches tend to be under control of the supplying organization, there's reduced concern of people spending their assistance on "luxuries".
I'd looked up and read a few articles on the topic whilst AFK after reading GP comment above.
Among those:
TIME Magazine, "School Lunch in America: An Abbreviated History" <https://time.com/4496771/school-lunch-history/>
Wikipedia, "School meal programs in the United States" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_meal_programs_in_the_Un...>
PBS, "The History of School Lunch" <https://www.pbs.org/food/stories/history-school-lunch>
And a 1971 PDF from the US Department of Agriculture (Dept. Ed. hadn't yet been created), "History of the National School Lunch Program" <https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/program-history> [PDF]
icegreentea2's summary is brief but accurate. There was some earlier Progressive Era (~1890--1915) work largely at the city level (Boston and Phladelphia), and through volunteers and charities.
The Great Depression emphasized the scope of the problem, and WWII raised it to a level of national security (under-fed, malnourished, and poorly-educated children cannot grow to defend the country).
The period also parallels growth of secondary (high-school) education from a small fraction of children (~6% of 18-year olds claimed a high school diploma in 1900, that grew to roughly 95% by 1950, where it's largely held since: graduation rates and graduate test scores tend to balance off one another, as one rises the other falls, both are fodder for much political jawboning). Education statistics are presented in "120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrai" published by the US Department of Education (1993) <hhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/120_Years_of_American_E...>
fascinating and horrifying.
The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically. If the school doesn't provide lunch, the kids would simply not eat any lunch. So they provide lunches, because it's easier than handling the fallout from some kids not eating, etc.
As a child I never had "provided lunch" but I also went to private school; we didn't even have any option through elementary (grade 8, about 12). High school had a greasy burger joint (think: high school football game concession stand) but that was it.
Providing lunches involves enough work that providing breakfast, too isn't much more expensive.
(The programs may have started for other reasons but the above is usually why they continue. It's also hard to stop doing something like "provide kids food" once you start.)
>The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically.
I'm a center-lefty, but America appears to be mostly right and I find it fascinating that this is just "accepted".
Why does America just accept that some (a large enough number that most schools have to feed them) people cant raise their kids?
Are you going to require people get a license to procreate?
Or perhaps are you saying that the government should provide a nanny to everybody that can't raise their kid?
We already have a system where the government can send "child raising inspectors" to your house and potentially take away your children. It's dysfunctional, yes, but it exists.
this is not the only alternative....
What I see is a cultural/community problem.
Because for a not insubstantial portion of America, they see it as their "Christian duty".
I see people on Facebook who refer to their kids, unironically, as "future warriors for Christ".
Nutrition is an important precursor to education. It saves time and effort of the parents providing individual lunches, as well as guaranteeing a certain minimum level. There's always a few kids whose education is impacted because they're not well fed, due to poverty or chaos at home.
at what time do kids in australia come home from school? for comparison in germany the average school day is 4-6 hours, depending on age. in the US it is 6-8 hours. in germany kids usually come home for lunch. in the US they usually don't. those two hours make a big difference in what kind of food the kids need to bring to school. in germany a snack is enough. that's easy for parents to accomplish. kids in the US need a real meal for their lunch break in school. but cooking food in the morning that kids can carry and eat 5 hours later? even wealthy parents don't have time for that.
start at 9 am finish at around 3pm
If the government forces you to be someplace, under threat of imprisonment for your parents, then they'd better at least feed you.
Do you mean you always have to bring your lunch to school with you, in Australia?
I went to a weird high school in the US where that was the case. They just didn't have a lunch room, so everybody sat in the hallways at lunch time. But yeah, all the other schools I've heard of provide lunch. Most offer breakfast as well, as an option.
correct. most schools have canteens you can buy lunch from... but the "norm" is for every kid to bring recess and lunch foods every day. Keeping the bloody crows from getting into your bag and eating it is an added challenge that most rise to fairly easily.
note its also expected that you've already had breakfast before you arrive at school.
Where I went to grade school, I don't recall a peanut butter sandwich option. If you didn't bring a bagged lunch, and you wanted to eat lunch, you had to spend your recess time washing trays. Which I did sometimes.
Sometimes, adults want children to go through the same "character building" rituals that they did. For example, working some kind of job, to supposedly teach values about hard work and responsibility.
Other times, adults don't want to subject kids to "character building" that they went through. For example, enduring bullying. Or working a crappy job, while their schoolmates played sports, socialized, did extracurriculars, or got a decent night's sleep.
On this one, my opinion is: Just feed the children already. Stop stomping them harder with class inequality, and conditioning them to accept that as normal, from a young age. I'd rather have children be raised to reject class inequality -- as unfair, greedy, cruel, and dumb. And more immediately, I want children to be fed, and to get other basic care.
If I knew there was a debt like this for less than $1000 at a school nearby I’d probably pay it off. But the information just doesn’t seem to be out there.
Depressing
One thing I don’t like about the free lunch but never mentioned is that it is by necessity very cheap food, and that means carbage.
Try getting a kid to eat vegetables when processed bread products are being handed out at school. Healthy eating pretty much stopped that year. Which is a shame because it’s not expensive.
That's very kind. Now if we can start getting some real food into American school instead of SNAP Slop. If France and South Korea can manage it, we can as well.
Pretty depressing. I'm pretty right wing but kids should always be taken care of. I'll happily pay more in property tax to cover school lunches and kids medical.
property taxes go to schools in your own area. would you also support that taxes be redistributed to other areas that don't have enough tax income and where people can't afford higher taxes? because as i see it, that is the real problem in the way schools in the US are funded. (i am hoping/assuming your answer is yes, but i think the distinction is important and needs to be pointed out)
Honestly my answer is no. I want my property taxes to ensure that my kids get the best possible start.
My money supports my kids and those kids that live in my area. I would say yes to paying more property tax to support my local schools to an even greater degree. I am in no way ok with my kids school funding getting reduced to fund other areas. I specifically moved to this area for the good schools.
I would be ok with an additional penny of sales tax to fund a statewide program to ensure all kids have access to food.
Paying off the debt doesn’t solve anything. They’ll get to buy one meal, go back into debt because their parent doesn’t top up the account, and get banned again.
This whole fight feels nonsensical. This isn't a money issue, it's just a convenience issue. It was the same way with my parents when I was in school; they made plenty of money, but it was a pain trying to fill a lunch card or give my cash to buy lunches.
There are a million programs for kids who are legitimately too poor to pay for lunches, not to mention bringing a lunch which is significantly cheaper and probably better for the kid. This guy just paid for lazy parents