For consumers, the current food system is defined by abundance and low prices. Americans spend just under 10% of their disposable income on food, among the lowest rates in the world,
No, really, that’s a complaint. About how food is too cheap because capitalism made it so.
Two things brought us to this grim place. The first is a profit-led drive for ever-increasing efficiency in agriculture, which has been in train for at least two centuries.
We’ve been trying to get more efficient at agriculture since the Neolithic. In fact, that’s a useful definition of when we started to try to do so – the Neolithic.
And they’re complaining!
Struggling to think of anywhere, anytime where people spend 30%+ of their income on food to survive which also seems a reasonable place and time to want to live.
Wonder what these people reckon is the “optimal” percentage, if 10% is appallingly low for them?
As an aside, what percent of the workforce are/”should be” engaged in the production of food, putting agriculture, processing and distribution together? Ought to give a rough idea both of what’s a reasonable percentage split on the spending front…
MBE
About 3% by my rough estimation
Surely the people complaining can voluntarily hand over more money?
Like those complaining that taxes are too low don’t.
“Surely the people complaining can voluntarily hand over more money?”
If anyone wishes to pay extra for food, I’m all ears……….
This does make me feel that I should buy more meat to bulk out my Rubbish Bin Stew!!!
More generally I can only agree with Tim. Complaining about food being too cheap and plentiful is drooling idiocy.
The idea that even the poor in the USA can afford to buy food is a terrifying thought to any self-respecting progressive. Hard to motivate the masses to revolt when their in the middle of digesting a meal.
@philip
I think a couple of percent is about right for the agriculture and logistics side, food processing plants and so on. But I suspect their 10% figure includes food bought from restaurants, fast food deliveries, corporate and events catering etc? Plus a sizeable whack of retail jobs must be sustained by it – food is a majority of supermarket sales.
UK answer is presumably split over several categories of https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employeesintheukbyindustry/2019
they’re
“Surely the people complaining can voluntarily hand over more money?”
If anyone wishes to pay extra for food, I’m all ears……….
The Soil Association beat you to it!
I was more hoping that the nice eco-fascists might make more expensive food non-voluntary 🙂
Let the people choose the system they want. They can spend 10% of their disposable income on food or they can spend 110% of their disposable income on food. There are plenty of places in the work where people disposable income does not buy enough food.
Jim,
Do you really think you’ll be allowed to profit? For the greater good your farm will be *volunteered* to the State so that the central planners of X-RAYS can ensure that only the right food is produced, or more likely isn’t produced.
“Do you really think you’ll be allowed to profit? For the greater good your farm will be *volunteered* to the State so that the central planners of X-RAYS can ensure that only the right food is produced, or more likely isn’t produced.”
Pure nationalisation of land won’t happen for the simple reason that even the eco-communists realise that the State is spectacularly bad at producing food. To be honest most farmers would be better off on an income and workload basis if their farm was nationalised and they were just an employee, with a regular salary and employment rights, plus of course regular pay increases and a fat index linked pension enforced by a strong union. In fact it would rather recreate the old situation that the country used to find itself in when the miners ruled the roost.
‘The National Farm Service is facing production problems as the National Union of Farm Workers voted to strike, commencing in a few weeks time at the beginning of harvest, seeking higher wages and a shorter working week’.
‘The NFS labour dispute with the NUFW rumbles on as fields of grain lie unharvested despite perfect harvesting weather. Grain production is at a standstill and shortages are already causing problems for the National Retail Consortium’
‘The NFS has called in the Army to attempt to kick start the grain harvest as NUFW workers remain on strike. Flying NUFW pickets have been blockading central grain stores, and little has been achieved as soldiers attempt to operate complex farm equipment.’
‘The NFS labour dispute has been resolved, NUFW workers will receive a 5% pay rise, no reduction in the working week, but a guaranteed overtime bonus of twice their hourly rate, an increased pension entitlement and a reduction in their retirement age to 60. Shortages of grain are still predicted as early autumn storms are now hampering the attempts to complete the harvest. The price of bread has been increased again, and the weekly ration reduced to 400 grams.’