Political perceptions Re: North Tulsa Grocery Store

[waterboy]

The thread, having completely moved off the topic of the North Tulsa Grocery Store, was split and the politic discourse moved to this thread. -Admin


Are you blowhards aware that people who read these posts are laughing at you? Have you noticed the decline in varied posters over the last two years? People are increasingly hesitant to acknowledge membership or participation in this forum.

Some of the remarks referring to income levels and phantom studies un-cited make the whole forum suspect to those actually involved with different strata of life. Social workers, business persons, managers of resources in all walks of life (not just oil, tech and engineering). Your orgies of gross generalizations and total inability to respond to valid, differing viewpoints is becoming tedious. Its like watching Family Guy converted to text.

I still enjoy reading the scoops on planning and development (gave up on anything with incendiary headlines or political in nature) but there is a small group of self indulgent egos around here that has fostered a very myopic view of the world.

Oh, yeah. I especially enjoy Gasbag's references to "good businessmen". There's a few jokes there somewhere.  

[Conan71]

Are you blowhards aware that people who read these posts are laughing at you? Have you noticed the decline in varied posters over the last two years? People are increasingly hesitant to acknowledge membership or participation in this forum.

Some of the remarks referring to income levels and phantom studies un-cited make the whole forum suspect to those actually involved with different strata of life. Social workers, business persons, managers of resources in all walks of life (not just oil, tech and engineering). Your orgies of gross generalizations and total inability to respond to valid, differing viewpoints is becoming tedious. Its like watching Family Guy converted to text.

I still enjoy reading the scoops on planning and development (gave up on anything with incendiary headlines or political in nature) but there is a small group of self indulgent egos around here that has fostered a very myopic view of the world.

Did you hit the Marshall's a bit early today or did someone piss in your Post Toasties?  Sheesh, lighten up. 

[BKDotCom]

Homeland shut down a lot of area stores over the last decade or so.  I doubt the robbery there had a whole lot, if anything, to do with it closing. 

Indeed...  They had already announced this stores pending closure when the robbery/shootin' occurred.

[Townsend]

Are you blowhards aware that people who read these posts are laughing at you? Have you noticed the decline in varied posters over the last two years? People are increasingly hesitant to acknowledge membership or participation in this forum.


I still enjoy reading the scoops on planning and development (gave up on anything with incendiary headlines or political in nature) but there is a small group of self indulgent egos around here that has fostered a very myopic view of the world.

I've learned to stay off politics as much as I can.

Please, start a thread or contribute something.

You used to have alot to say and to add.

[waterboy]

Conan, I know these people. I grew up with them. Many of the generalizations being made about North Tulsans, obesity, Hispanics, etc. refer to friends of mine, family and people I (occassionally) worship wiht. Its not fair or accurate. Its hard to sit with a degree in business marketing/management and watch bumper sticker slogans passed off as business basics. There are no simple solutions to complex problems!

I also miss the wide array of viewpoints from around the city that used to be expressed here. They've been bullied away or gave up in dismay at the lack of willingness to adjust ones perceptions. I also defend the wealthy, educated and privileged when people attack them as many are also my friends. My posting has declined as I realize no one is listening, or at least responding and I'm not into futility.

I'm into French Vodka at the moment. With 7-up and a twist of lime. Very fattening.

[JeffM]

Are you blowhards aware that people who read these posts are laughing at you? Have you noticed the decline in varied posters over the last two years? People are increasingly hesitant to acknowledge membership or participation in this forum.

Some of the remarks referring to income levels and phantom studies un-cited make the whole forum suspect to those actually involved with different strata of life. Social workers, business persons, managers of resources in all walks of life (not just oil, tech and engineering). Your orgies of gross generalizations and total inability to respond to valid, differing viewpoints is becoming tedious. Its like watching Family Guy converted to text.

I still enjoy reading the scoops on planning and development (gave up on anything with incendiary headlines or political in nature) but there is a small group of self indulgent egos around here that has fostered a very myopic view of the world.

Oh, yeah. I especially enjoy Gasbag's references to "good businessmen". There's a few jokes there somewhere. 

+1

[TheArtist]

Conan, I know these people. I grew up with them. Many of the generalizations being made about North Tulsans, obesity, Hispanics, etc. refer to friends of mine, family and people I (occassionally) worship wiht. Its not fair or accurate. Its hard to sit with a degree in business marketing/management and watch bumper sticker slogans passed off as business basics. There are no simple solutions to complex problems!

I also miss the wide array of viewpoints from around the city that used to be expressed here. They've been bullied away or gave up in dismay at the lack of willingness to adjust ones perceptions. I also defend the wealthy, educated and privileged when people attack them as many are also my friends. My posting has declined as I realize no one is listening, or at least responding and I'm not into futility.


No simple solutions to complex problems.... the solutions may be simple, its the executions that get tricky ( Do unto others. Love God above all else.  simple, but tricky to execute  ) 

Have I used generalizations? Sure, both sides of such discussions often do with alacrity.  They can be useful but I think we all know there are limitations to any generalization or analogy. These discussions aren't meant to be scientific treatise.  I do hope that I haven't said anything that was construed as an attack. 

[waterboy]

I mean no one individual. Without individual self discipline any group tends to degenerate into a kind of predatory sickness. I've been a part of that process in the past and felt so badly about it that I now try to recognize and avoid the temptation. No doubt I fail sometimes.

This group has gradually eroded the voices that don't conform to status quo. It has a built in prejudice to intellectual, ambitious, competitive, mostly male personalities. But its corrupted with pop politics. The Tulsa I see and interact with each day just doesn't seem to match what I read here. The caricatures portrayed seem to come from 1970's sit coms or bad comedy routines. Maybe Beck and Palin actually believed what they read here and decide to kick off their crusade in Tulsa for that reason.

Marketing relies on these gross generalizations in advertising efforts and I understand that. But it is not reality. People in North Tulsa eat no more fast food than those in the rest of the city. Fat people and fast food are everywhere! Tulsa is the fast food capital of the world from what I can tell. Incredible that anyone would buy comments like that when you travel Brookside or Cherry Street and find fast, fatty, unhealthy food on every block!

You want a kick? Go pick up the latest copy of La Samana, the Hispanic newspaper and compare its coverage of local/national events with what we get in the Tulsa World and local "loveboat" newscasts. Its quite fun to see the news from their view complete with alternative descriptions of the players.

[Gaspar]

Are you blowhards aware that people who read these posts are laughing at you? Have you noticed the decline in varied posters over the last two years? People are increasingly hesitant to acknowledge membership or participation in this forum.

Some of the remarks referring to income levels and phantom studies un-cited make the whole forum suspect to those actually involved with different strata of life. Social workers, business persons, managers of resources in all walks of life (not just oil, tech and engineering). Your orgies of gross generalizations and total inability to respond to valid, differing viewpoints is becoming tedious. Its like watching Family Guy converted to text.

I still enjoy reading the scoops on planning and development (gave up on anything with incendiary headlines or political in nature) but there is a small group of self indulgent egos around here that has fostered a very myopic view of the world.

Oh, yeah. I especially enjoy Gasbag's references to "good businessmen". There's a few jokes there somewhere. 

Wow.  My comments weren't intended to be inflammatory.  I was simply commenting on that data that exists.  All anyone needs to do is google "fast-food" and "low income" to get a rash of information on the subject.  You can use demographic tools like Swivel or data vendors like Catosphere to pull economic data of any geographic population. 

You can then choose to ignore this data if you wish.

Don't get angry.  It doesn't change what is.

I am not imposing any stereotype of any kind.  I am simply saying that if the data shows that a population of people frequent one type of business over another, it is very likely that the business they frequent will have a better chance of success than the business they do not.

[YoungTulsan]

We actually were discussing in the farm subsidies thread about how the worst foods are the cheapest, which would naturally lead to lower income people eating worse than those with a more limitless food budget.  I wouldn't call that a gross generalization, more of an economic truth.  To point this out isn't meant to demean or insult one group of people.

[Conan71]

We actually were discussing in the farm subsidies thread about how the worst foods are the cheapest, which would naturally lead to lower income people eating worse than those with a more limitless food budget.  I wouldn't call that a gross generalization, more of an economic truth.  To point this out isn't meant to demean or insult one group of people.

I'm with the rest on this.  I don't think anyone was trying to draw stereotypes, nor denegrate any social groups.  Let's face it though, low income people (for the most part) don't make it a priority to shop at Whole Paycheck. 

[Gaspar]

I think some people were having a bad day.  That's understandable.

[TheArtist]

No simple solutions to complex problems.... Implied in that statement is that there is a problem, and a complex one  and  thus the solutions will also be complex, in such a discussion many "solutions" will be proffered each having opposing views.  This makes for a discussion that can easily veer off into many directions as each interconnected facet gets brought up.

Is one large grocery store the best solution, or would smaller corner grocery stores be better? (bring in transportation issues)

Is there an actual "food desert" at all?  If so, what is the cause?  (low income levels, crime, poor food choices, social habits, all of the above plus, etc.)


A seemingly simple discussion about a grocery store can lead to so many interconnected topics, and generalizations. None of which in and of themselves can offer the end solution, so each can thus be painted as wrong, or, be seen as one more part in trying to understand a complex solution.

As for lower income people buying unhealthy food because it is cheaper... that also may not be the best generalization.  There are plenty of fancy healthy foods that are more expensive than the cheapest/calorie dense ones yes. But there are also plenty of basic healthy foods that are quite inexpensive and many healthy staples can be found that are often less than their unhealthy counterparts ( healthy cerials vrs sugar bombs, lowfat milk vrs whole, etc.) which can with other things act to "balance the cost equation" between healthy and unhealthy foods.  Just a thought,  low income or not, overweight people are often eating more than they need of those "high calorie/high satiating" foods ,,, that may indicate that there is extra money being spent on unneeded high calorie food instead of going towards some more healthy food choices.

Does Poor Income = Poor Diet?
http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2007/07/16/does_poor_income_poor_diet.php

(Some of the differences between low-incomes and the average household)

■Higher levels of smoking and alcohol consumption, together with lower levels of activity within this low income group.
■Less likely to eat wholemeal bread, but drank more sugary drinks and consumed more table sugar
Cigarettes? Alcohol? Neither are particularly cheap. )

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/82/1/265S

Imposing a progressive cost constraint, exclusive of nutritional considerations, led to a low-cost energy-dense diet (41). The consumption of vegetables and fruit was low, and dietary energy was primarily provided by cereals and added fats. In contrast, deliberately increasing energy density of the diet did not lead to a major decline in diet costs (41). Figure 5 shows that the impact of cost on energy density (left panel) was much greater than the impact of energy density on cost (right panel).

In other words, deliberately selecting an energy-dense diet need not lead to lower diet costs. Conversely, restricting food expenditures will inevitably lead to more energy-dense diets. Consumers on a limited budget will find it difficult to find healthier diets unless they are willing to adopt unfamiliar eating habits, depart from social norms, and subsist on unpalatable foods. Strategies for dietary change, including the USDA Thrifty Food Plan (71), generally assume that the low-income consumers will do just that (78). Whereas good nutrition in the form of liver, dry legumes, peanuts, and canned fish can be inexpensive, such a diet scores low on taste, variety, enjoyment, and convenience. Although healthy diets can be assembled using inexpensive products (79, 80), USDA researchers acknowledge that this "may require some sacrifices in taste" (48). Persons facing economic constraints will preferentially select lower-cost energy-dense diets rather than abandon their usual eating habits. Strategies for dietary change ought to take food preferences and the usual eating habits into account.

LOW INCOME AND POOR HEALTH CHOICES
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:dVt0dsy-lDkJ:ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/58419/2/10-3.pdf+http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/58419/2/10-3.pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
People with low incomes tend to make less healthy consumption choices than do high income people. In the case of food, agricultural economists have investigated whether this is due to the cost of a healthy diet. Studies of various aspects of the nutrition-income nexus have generally been inconclusive. We investigate a different possibility, motivated by the fact that low income individuals are most likely to be smokers, which cannot be due to limited budgets. Drawing on a body of related literature, we develop a model in which income serves not only as a budget constraint but also as a source of future utility. We test the model by estimating logistic modelsof beginning and quitting smoking. We find support for the idea that low income consumers make less healthy choices because they face lower costs in terms of foregone future utility.

There are several hypotheses seeking to explain why low income individuals have less healthy diets.

An explanation receiving much attention recently is access: low income households may have less access to sources of fruits and vegetables and other more nutritious foods and relatively easy access to energy dense foods, such as fast food. Several studies have found a positive association between low income neighborhoods and the location of fast food outlets and other sources of what is generally viewed as less nutritious foods...... But assigning cause with such studies is problematic.One of the more frequently cited reasons for poor eating patterns among low income households,especially in the nutrition literature, is affordability: healthy food costs more (Drewnowski andDarmon, 2005). Whether this is fact the case is very difficult to determine. It is often based onthe observation that the least expensive sources of calories are energy-dense foods with high oil and sugar content, and the perception that fruits and vegetables are particularly high in cost(..... But the link between such contentions and poor nutrition among low income consumers is not clear. It seems to imply that the consumers objective is to obtain a given quantity of calories at minimum cost, which is inconsistent with theproblem of excessive calories. Furthermore, USDA studies have found no evidence that lowincome individuals are priced out of fruits and vegetables. For example, one study estimated thata typical low income household given $1000 in additional income would not significantlyexpand its expenditures on fruits and vegetables.....; another showed that many fruits and vegetables are in fact quite inexpensive ......, "Affordability ...is a surprisingly complex concept to measure." ,,,,,,,,,,, food choice involves selecting foods with desired characteristics, prominent among which are taste and nutrition, and there is a trade off between them. Increasing nutrition typically requires reducing fats and sugars,ingredients whose primary purpose is taste enhancement. Foregoing the pleasure of this taste is a cost of eating a healthier diet, a cost which has nothing to do with the budget constraint: For many people, healthy eating is just not worth the effort and sacrifice.@ (p.275) Whether an individual is willing to incur this cost depends upon the benefit obtained from the increased nutrition. A major component of this is an increase in expected lifetime. The argument of this paper is that this benefit tends to be valued less by those with low income.

http://blogs.mtengine.com/cally/2006/01/health_diet_and_low_income.html
( It is often reported that accessibility and affordability are the major reasons why low income groups experience inadequate nutrition. Yet research has found this not to be the case. Of those who did not have a car, 71% did not see this as a problem and that going to the supermarket was not difficult. Additionally, two-thirds did not think their current financial situation prevented them from eating healthy food. Indeed the study showed that 73% thought they ate a healthy, balanced diet, despite not consuming current guidelines on fruit and veg consumption.   ......... for many, food choice has little to do with income and more to do with likes, dislikes, familiarity and sociological factors. A fatty, salty, take away may be considered a healthy option – the only 'pleasure' afforded them.

Can Low-Income Americans Afford a Healthy Diet?
http://health.weightview.com/2008/11/17/can-low-income-americans-afford-a-healthy-diet/

............These plans specify the types and quantities of commonly consumed foods that people could purchase and prepare at home to obtain a nutritious, palatable diet at four cost levels. Even the lowest cost plan—the Thrifty Food Plan—is not a minimum cost diet of pease porridge.
For most U.S. households, these meal plans, particularly the Thrifty Food Plan, are affordable. In 2006, the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan corresponded to about 8 percent of median income for a four-person household, while the more expensive Low-Cost Food Plan totaled about 11 percent. Eleven percent of income is close to the 10-percent share that the average American household devotes to food each year. The fact that the average American household spends about 10 percent of its income on food implies that these healthy diets are affordable, or at least as affordable as the diets Americans are currently consuming.

For low-income households that receive the maximum benefit amount from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (see box, "SNAP—Food Stamp Program Gets a New Name"), the cost of a nutritious diet modeled on the Thrifty Food Plan is also affordable since the maximum benefit amount is equal to the cost of that Food Plan. For the nearly one out of three participating households that receive the maximum benefit, SNAP benefits alone are sufficient to purchase a healthy diet.


Yes, the part of the environment that consists of (more fast food and "mini mart" type places and less large/diverse food choice stores) CAN have an influence.  BUT cant be seen as THE primary cause of why people have poor diets or indicate why there are so called "food deserts".  A lot of what is said in these discussions is that

...........  Junk/fast food is the most inexpensive so thats what low income people buy, healthy food is not as inexpensive so they dont buy it.

........... Mini marts with more junk food and more fast food restaurants are what make it in the area over large grocery stores having a wider selection including more healthy foods.

............ Access is a problem for low income people, they need healthy options nearby in order to get to them

((((   The focus has been on getting a large grocery store in the area which will have healthy foods.  ))))

Some other possibilities.

....... Large isnt the only solution, and may not be the best answer when several small stores with healthy options may be better.

...... Peoples habits and preferred choices influence what is bought and is thus available (market can influence demand but market can also meet demand)

........Healthy food isnt too expensive, though it is often less desirable (I would argue that healthy food can be prepared to be quite tasty, no, not as tasty as sugar and salt flavor bombs lol, but still a tasty choice)   

......Fast food costs more than similar healthy food bought at a store to be made at home, if there is money to be spent supporting fast food places,,,,  (not to mention there are often healthy alternatives at these places)

......Changing cultural habits can change the marketplace and food type availability. (often poor immigrants of every race start off finding and eating lower cost, healthier foods, but as time goes on they tend to start choosing less healthy foods)

......education can help balance the cost equation between healthy and unhealthy choices

[Ibanez]

I'm with the rest on this.  I don't think anyone was trying to draw stereotypes, nor denegrate any social groups.  Let's face it though, low income people (for the most part) don't make it a priority to shop at Whole Paycheck. 

I like that name, going to have to start using it. My wife and I shop there occasionally and every time we do it is always the same. We walk out of there astounded by how much more it costs for normal items. We recently bought some scallops there and they were $16.99 per pound. The next week we were at the Reasor's in Jenks and they were $11.99 per pound. Big difference. We also bought our laundry detergents and other soaps/cleaning supplies there in the past but have found they can also be purchased cheaper at Target or Reasor's. I just don't see how people can afford to shop at "Whole Paycheck" on a regular basis.

[Conan71]

I like that name, going to have to start using it. My wife and I shop there occasionally and every time we do it is always the same. We walk out of there astounded by how much more it costs for normal items. We recently bought some scallops there and they were $16.99 per pound. The next week we were at the Reasor's in Jenks and they were $11.99 per pound. Big difference. We also bought our laundry detergents and other soaps/cleaning supplies there in the past but have found they can also be purchased cheaper at Target or Reasor's. I just don't see how people can afford to shop at "Whole Paycheck" on a regular basis.

If it's convenient, buy your fish at Bodean's or White River.  I've always felt the price was fair and the quality is unquestionable.