this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Antiwork

8187 readers
328 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not cheaper to grow crops, the amount of work that goes into growing crops is a reason we have a shortage of labor to harvest them. It's back breaking work and requires a ton of time. It's also not a for sure thing. One bad season and you can lose entire tons of harvest.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you may be underestimating the heavy level of subsidies here

Research from 2015 shows this subsidization reduces the price of Big Macs from $13 to $5 and the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/

Even despite that, overall in most countries it actually ends up being cheaper to do a healthy plant-based diet assuming you have more whole-foods and less say plant-based meats

It found that in high-income countries:

• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.

• Vegetarian diets were a close second.

• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.

• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study

And real world data backs this up

Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub ---(looking at the US)

Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed

https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the oxford study doesn't account for people who don't pay money for food, grow their own, hunt, fish, raise livestock, or even have it subsidized. basically, it doesn't account for poor people anywhere in the developed world. you are jumping to conclusions to say that it is cheaper for anyone but the wealthiest people.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I cited more than one study. The other ones looked at average real world spending data

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

so why include the misleading one?

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I disagree with your premise that it is misleading at all. Including things that the majority of the population does not do nor can scale to the overall population would not work for a modeling study. Most people are not hunters, including that in a cost estimation study would just be giving people a false sense of true cost. Real world data would be more reliable way for that if you wanted to try to include that in a more realistic way

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

most people get at least some of their food for free, subsidized, or through farming, gardening, or hunting. this study only accounted for foods taht people buy. it's misleading to claim this represents accurately how much people spend on food.