Comparing Kids Lunches

Forums › Off topic › Comparing Kids Lunches

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#688485 19-Sep-2012 22:34

PaulBrislen: I think there's a lot of confusion about who is at fault and who is being harmed by all this.

I don't care who's at fault.

The children are being harmed by this, through no fault of their own.

I think it's up to us to help these kids whether their parents do or not. I don't know what goes on at home but at school I want them to be safe, to be fed and to be taught.

Otherwise we're looking at a lifetime's dependence on welfare of one form or another and the costs of that far outweigh the cost of donating to Kidscan and getting them the $4m they need to feed all Decile 1-4 kids.

The whole point is, that $4m of donations for 1 year is NOT going to solve the problem.

1) It won't be fixed in 1 year. This means $4m every year.
2) On the scale to cover all 1-4 decile schools will NOT be $4M, it just simply couldn't possibly. Think it through, food prepared on that scale would require an admin team, a logistics team, with trained people who would expect to be paid (in the longer term at least). It would require donations on a scale that even the richest business would not sustain long term. This means it has to be a government project, and you involve them the admin cost will quadruple, through no real fault of anyones.

Again, if the cost was $4M, then the Govt would ALREADY be doing it. It's as simple as that.

I don't disagree the idea is great (for the kids), but it isn't a $4M problem. Want some evidence:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783985

I can't find the article right now, but 5 days of Mad Cow outbreak on Waiheke or somewhere similar cost $1.6M. Turned out to be nothing of significance but still cost $1.6M! Ther were significantly LESS people involved, less equipment, and for a MUCH shorter period of time.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#688487 19-Sep-2012 22:42

networkn: At the end of the day, it shouldn't bother her, she should be spending it on food anyway, what difference will it make to her regardless?

The issue is simply her right to choose.

What you're advocating is taking away her right to choice.

But you're also taking away my right to choice at the same time.

Say, for example, the state puts $150 on a plastic card that she can only use for food at a registered supermarket. Then say I choose to gift her a food hamper from my garden and she is able to eat at my parents 3 nights a week. Now currently she could eat my food, and my parent, and then have the spare cash to do as she chooses. That might be car repairs or putting some aside for Christmas or it could be smokes, drugs and a bottle of wisky.

Under your proposal she is judged as guilty of poor choices be default.

But what's worse, you've taken away our choice/ability as a family to step up with help we might be able to provide.

She can't get the car fixed at the supermarket and I can't sell my garden produce to get a cash conversion or pay for the repairs in spuds and cabbage.

networkn: The suggestion only affects those who aren't making sensible choices with their money in the first instance.

Yes is does. It's taking away dignity and assuming a level of incompetence on all those receiving a DPB payment.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#688493 19-Sep-2012 23:03

networkn:

I don't disagree the idea is great (for the kids), but it isn't a $4M problem. Want some evidence:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783985 [Cost of Rena clean-up rises to $130 million]

I really think you're missing the point.

Dead fish and sea birds don't suffer quietly and just not learn to read, write, count and add, they stink and take a massive toll on the world stage with hungry media looking on for the best story.

No one is suggesting that $4m feeds every child in every class room. They're suggesting that's all it would take in one year to top up the lunch boxes of those who are short. Sure, for some kids that might mean lunch every single day while for others just an added bit of fruit and others something when mum just didn't quite make ends meet as planned.

You seem quite determined to make the question bigger than it really is in an effort to keep the status quo.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#688497 19-Sep-2012 23:19

networkn: The suggestion only affects those who aren't making sensible choices with their money in the first instance.

Yes is does. It's taking away dignity and assuming a level of incompetence on all those receiving a DPB payment.

I think the overall problem is worse than your sisters hurt feelings if that was indeed the case, which it probably wouldn't be, and secondly, do you think the good that comes from all the people who are deciding to not feed their kids in favour of alcohol, drugs and cigarettes are more important than a few hurt feelings?

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#688498 19-Sep-2012 23:25

DonGould:
networkn:

I don't disagree the idea is great (for the kids), but it isn't a $4M problem. Want some evidence:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783985 [Cost of Rena clean-up rises to $130 million]

I really think you're missing the point.

Dead fish and sea birds don't suffer quietly and just not learn to read, write, count and add, they stink and take a massive toll on the world stage with hungry media looking on for the best story.

No one is suggesting that $4m feeds every child in every class room. They're suggesting that's all it would take in one year to top up the lunch boxes of those who are short. Sure, for some kids that might mean lunch every single day while for others just an added bit of fruit and others something when mum just didn't quite make ends meet as planned.

You seem quite determined to make the question bigger than it really is in an effort to keep the status quo.

That simply isn't the case, if it was then I wouldn't have offered to contribute $1000, or more to help. I simply want people to properly assess the requirements of providing this, since it seems that most people have the completely mistaken view that it's JUST $4M. Any organization who could put forward a proper plan with contracts covering a reasonable time frame, would have my full support, regardless of the fact it's not really treating the problem at it's root cause. The problem is that this has yet to be done yet. I would suggest the government has investigated this, on multiple occasions and decided against it. This is NOT a NEW problem, it's a problem that has existed for 15 years and been looked at and monitored over that period by every government in power.

For the people who are really behind doing this, are you as fully behind it, if it's $10M, 15? 25? 30?

CamH

615 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 327

Subscriber

#688505 20-Sep-2012 00:09

DonGould:
networkn:
CamH: Yes this is a problem, but a problem that needs to be solved by the parents.

If anything is done, I reckon there should be some sort of partially funded school programme where parents pay $2 per day and the school provides some sort of food. Make it compulsory, take it off their benefit or whatever it takes.

I quite like this idea, though with the bleeding hearts I can't see it ever getting done.

Why take it off the benefit?

Why not just fund it from higher taxes on alcohol and smokes?

If the parents have a job then good on them, they can afford this $2 per day.

If the parents do not have a job and are on the benefit, we're already giving them money to pay for this food, why should us who have a job (and for those who smoke and drink) have to pay more to fund something that's already being funded?

I'm very much for restrictions that only allow purchases of essentials (food, petrol, basic living expenses) for people that are on the benefit. I'm not meaning to generalize, but so many people on the benefit will take the money and gamble, drink or smoke it away. If you are needing financial help from the tax payer (with the exclusion of sickness benefits etc that's a different story), you should only be able to spend it on your requirements, not your wants.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

PaulBrislen

198 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#688537 20-Sep-2012 08:16

networkn:
PaulBrislen: I think there's a lot of confusion about who is at fault and who is being harmed by all this.

I don't care who's at fault.

The children are being harmed by this, through no fault of their own.

I think it's up to us to help these kids whether their parents do or not. I don't know what goes on at home but at school I want them to be safe, to be fed and to be taught.

Otherwise we're looking at a lifetime's dependence on welfare of one form or another and the costs of that far outweigh the cost of donating to Kidscan and getting them the $4m they need to feed all Decile 1-4 kids.

The whole point is, that $4m of donations for 1 year is NOT going to solve the problem.

1) It won't be fixed in 1 year. This means $4m every year.
2) On the scale to cover all 1-4 decile schools will NOT be $4M, it just simply couldn't possibly. Think it through, food prepared on that scale would require an admin team, a logistics team, with trained people who would expect to be paid (in the longer term at least). It would require donations on a scale that even the richest business would not sustain long term. This means it has to be a government project, and you involve them the admin cost will quadruple, through no real fault of anyones.

Again, if the cost was $4M, then the Govt would ALREADY be doing it. It's as simple as that.

I don't disagree the idea is great (for the kids), but it isn't a $4M problem. Want some evidence:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10783985

I can't find the article right now, but 5 days of Mad Cow outbreak on Waiheke or somewhere similar cost $1.6M. Turned out to be nothing of significance but still cost $1.6M! Ther were significantly LESS people involved, less equipment, and for a MUCH shorter period of time.

No, the whole point is to feed hungry kids so they have a chance to learn. Of course we need a longer term solution as well but for now let's just feed these children so they have a shot at a better life than the one they've got now.

A friend of mine was a primary teacher trying to teach classrooms of kids who couldn't sit still, had no attention span and it all came down to food. One of her kids turned up with a block of cheese because that's all he could find to bring to school. He was five years old. Try telling him that we can't possibly spend one dollar per person per year to give him a better life.

Nobody's claiming it "will be fixed" in one year. That's not the point - feeding kids is the point.
The $4m claim comes from Kidscan who actually work in this area so I'm happy to say OK, if you think you can make a difference for that paltry sum, let's give it a go.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#688567 20-Sep-2012 09:06

With the planned school rebuild project in Christchurch there is a real opportunity for the Government to make food in schools happen, as the requirements can be built in from the start.

Plus theres the upside that the schools can better function as a community resource if another event should occour. (The rebuild programs should be talking these issues into account anyway.)

Of course the initial problem with that argument is that the problem is 'now' and it's more prevalent in other communities (specifically the Auckland area). The answer to that is the problem has been a growing one for may years (this is not an overnight event), and yes the issue is more prevalent in larger urban centres where there is an apparent lack of community involvement. (Smaller towns tend to solve these issues.)

Use Christchurch as a blue-print for greater community involvement based on these new integrated school structures, take advantage of the unique community spirit thats there to grow the whole food in schools across the country.

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

#688568 20-Sep-2012 09:15

Feeding these kids NOW is part of the long term solution. $4m is nothing, just do it.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#688581 20-Sep-2012 09:29

networkn:...The problem is that this has yet to be done yet. I would suggest the government has investigated this, on multiple occasions and decided against it. This is NOT a NEW problem, it's a problem that has existed for 15 years and been looked at and monitored over that period by every government in power.

Been a problem for much more than 15 years. Has been decades since I was at school and that in an area with a large under priviledged population and plenty of kids back then with no lunches wandering around begging for food, rumaging through the waste bins for leftovers or stealing the lunches of others. And the problem has sure been looked at many times over the years.

Generally agreeing with what you are saying about cost cos as in my earlier post the figures sure don't add up. And also comments on responsibility.

Surprising how many are hanging their hats on the Campbell video because all that was, was a news story, and so just an attention grabber, facts right or wrong it wouldn't matter to the producers, and in no way at all a reliable indication of the true extent of the problem (which may be better or worse).

The root of the problem will never be solved in NZ, because it is not something in the average NZ'er's mind to become a wealthy country (in fact the average NZ'er despises wealth and prosperity as being something dirty not suited to us fair minded kiwis) and so hence will always have a large under priviledged class. We are, after all, kiwis and adore being called such: half blind, can't fly, and eat worms.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#688586 20-Sep-2012 09:38

If it could be fixed for $4M Owen Glenn would have been all over it already. Perhaps it never occurred to him and someone should contact him about it. :)

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

berry

61 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#688639 20-Sep-2012 10:45

DonGould:
berry: Cookie time cookie $1.84 * 5 = $9.20
Loaf of multigrain toast $2.99, Lettuce $2.79, jar of vegemite $3.49 = $9.27

The so called poverty in actual dollar terms is not the issue.

So what you're saying is that the Decile 1 parents are time poor, not cash poor.

Is the problem that the Decile 1 parents are both working low income jobs, have cash but don't have time to be making lunches for their kids?

Or is the problem more complex?

Are the kids just refusing to eat a sandwich and the choice between 'something v's nothing' is the choice they're taking?

Quite possibly all of the above. My partner's son always has a full lunch box of healthy food, and sometimes eats hardly any of eat (he happens to be at a decile 1 school). I get frustrated with the waste of food, so I can totally understand those on a limited budget feeling this even more so.

As many have pointed out in this thread - just looking at kids lunches is not really telling the whole truth, but it makes a good story on cambell live. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but the issue doesn't seem to be lack of money - i.e. being money poor is not the problem. There does seem to be a notable proportion of parents who display a lack of responsibility though.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#688642 20-Sep-2012 10:47

My nephew was sent to school with healthy lunches and was coming home with an empty lunchbox, but was getting bad reports for poor behaviour and attention in the PM's. Turns out he was splitting his lunch 6 ways for his friends who had nothing because he knew he would be getting a decent afternoon tea after school!

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#688648 20-Sep-2012 10:50

DonGould:
Johnk: Somehow I don't think a $300 BBQ and a few bits and bobs to cut n prepare will be enough or will it prob met the food standards set out for food preparation areas? Anyone have a hands on experience with preparing food and getting the kitchen area signed off as fit for use?

Can't be much. My local Bunnings runs a BBQ every Saturday to raise funds for all sorts of things.

However, when I consider what we're investing, as a country, in running fibre into schools, that many of them aren't even using at all currently, I really don't think $50,000 for a full commerical kitchen out fit, is to much to ask.

I'm sure the BBQ at Bunnings doesn't have everyone come to them at once and wanting to be fed straight away.

And if food is being provided for children (well anyone really) then food safety standards need to be taken into consideration i.e. prepared in a sanitary enviroment blah blah blah. The fund raising sausage sizzle are breaking a few laws by doing these but I guess people just look the other way.

In short, kitchens will need to be put into schools, or at the very least a central kitchen looking after a few schools in the same area. Then at least a head person in each kitchen will need to be employed as a supervisory to other staff that holds a food safety certificate.

Or are you ok with every so often half a school coming down with food poisoning because some muppet doesn't know what they're doing??

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#688651 20-Sep-2012 10:52

Byrned:
DonGould:
Johnk: Somehow I don't think a $300 BBQ and a few bits and bobs to cut n prepare will be enough or will it prob met the food standards set out for food preparation areas? Anyone have a hands on experience with preparing food and getting the kitchen area signed off as fit for use?

Can't be much. My local Bunnings runs a BBQ every Saturday to raise funds for all sorts of things.

However, when I consider what we're investing, as a country, in running fibre into schools, that many of them aren't even using at all currently, I really don't think $50,000 for a full commerical kitchen out fit, is to much to ask.

I'm sure the BBQ at Bunnings doesn't have everyone come to them at once and wanting to be fed straight away.

And if food is being provided for children (well anyone really) then food safety standards need to be taken into consideration i.e. prepared in a sanitary enviroment blah blah blah. The fund raising sausage sizzle are breaking a few laws by doing these but I guess people just look the other way.

In short, kitchens will need to be put into schools, or at the very least a central kitchen looking after a few schools in the same area. Then at least a head person in each kitchen will need to be employed as a supervisory to other staff that holds a food safety certificate.

Or are you ok with every so often half a school coming down with food poisoning because some muppet doesn't know what they're doing??

Yup, the actual cost of the food is likely to be the cheapest part of the equation, people just aren't thinking this through. The amount of time it takes to arrange something like this, and then the exposés done by Campbell live when standards aren't met... Additional pressure on schools which are struggling for resources.... The list of quite endless.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11