That depends on the country. In rich countries it is rare for poor people to go hungry because food is cheap compared to median income and poverty is defined relative to median income.
It is rare for poor people in rich countries to starve to death, but missing meals and going through periods of hunger is unfortunately not uncommon at all.
Counterpoint: I've visited the US. Poor children go hungry there, at least in WV. I've talked with a teacher who baked white rice everyday to give it to 3 children in her class, since they couldn't afford the school's restaurant and didn't had lunch.
Every public school in the US has free school linches for those in extreme poverty. This is especially true in more poverty striken areas (like West Virginia):
"Extreme poverty" in the US is such a crazy low bar though. A huge portion of America is literally working poor. Not technically under any poverty bar, but that's not enough to pay rent and also buy enough food for everyone.
For those people, the $2 a day that school lunch costs (or even 50 cents for reduced price lunch) is literally too much money, because it is. So those kids go hungry. I knew plenty of those kids that all of you are insisting don't exist (for some reason) and no, the existing welfare is just not enough, even in an extremely low cost of living area, in a state with significant state level aid.
The bar for free school lunches in America isn't "extreme poverty". You've responding to HideousKojima's characterization of the program as though it is accurate, but he's wrong and if you're actually familiar with the subject matter you should have recognized that he's wrong.
Most working class families qualify for free or reduced price lunches. If you're at or below 130% of the poverty line your kids get free lunch. At or below 185% of the poverty line gets kids a reduced price lunch. How many children a family has is part of this calculation; the poverty line is set higher for larger families. This program spends something like 5 billion dollars a year giving lunches to tens of millions of kids. It's not a niche thing few qualify for. There are many schools where virtually every student is in the program.
Furthermore, schools will not allow kids to skip lunch. They are given lunch whether or not they have money and the matter is settled with their parents later. The few times I tried to skip lunch in school it turned into huge dramas and food was given to me even though I had chosen to not eat it.
As far as I know schools provide free lunches to children that need it.
In my area it is a school policy that a kid would not be denied food even if they had no money in their account - and every place I lived had organizations that would eagerly step up to address such a problem if and when it manifested.
For what it is worth, during COVID and a few years after, in my state every kid got free lunch in school regardless of their income.
I'm pretty sure the parents have to fill something for their children to have lunch, and I'm pretty sure the parents were too gone to care.
I met the teacher following a photograph who tried to document the opioid epidemic, crica 2018 (we were young and naive, video is probably the only communication medium that's worth anything when you're independent, photography is harder), while I kayaked/hiked/rafted/climbed everywhere I could for the two month I was there. I think she work for a magazine now. And I'm still convinced West Virginia is only lacking a huge lake or a sea to be the best place on earth.
In a recent study by the USDA, Household Food Security in the United States in 2022[1], it is estimated that "17.0 million house-holds were food insecure" (meaning that "they had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all their members because of a lack of resources") and "5.1 percent of U.S. households (6.8 million households) had very low food security" (meaning "food intake of some household members was reduced,
and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because of limited resources").
That's 17 million HOUSEHOLDS that struggled to provide food and 6.8 million HOUSEHOLDS that had to skip meals. I wouldn't call that rare.
Clearly, but they're saying that only attempts to explain why those particularly in poverty had the associated results. When referring back to the original study's actual claims it was more than just correlation with poverty incomes, it was claimed for all incomes and not so obviously linked to food insecurity.
"Some folks did a study with 900 people. They found the same correlation that the original study did. But when they controlled for household income, they found most of the correlation disappeared."
So original study didn't control for income. If the original study claimed it across all incomes, and then it mostly went away when others controlled for income, then the delayed gratification strong correlation wasn't really for all incomes, right?
No, you are the one claiming something in your original comment. What the person you are responding to is insinuating is that what you are claiming is more of the same pseudoscience as the original study.
> More simply: people who grow up hungry learn to eat whenever they can because being hungry is awful
> It doesn’t even need to generalize. This is just a basic food security thing and is part of the reason why obesity is counter intuitively common among people who suffer from food insecurity.
Share the study that backs your assertions. If you don't have a study then everything you've claimed has no scientific basis.
