However, the value of spoiled food and the existence of discarded furniture isn’t really evidence of anything? Practically by definition, no one wants that stuff, even hungry and / or homeless people.
Some of the large grocery store spoilage is because it is not sold quick enough. This week I grabbed a had of lettuce for sandwiches, $6, so I put it back. Same every week the prices are over inflated but wages aren’t. This stuff gets tossed eventually. Have reasonable prices or controlled prices would ensure more good produce kis eaten and not discarded. Canada wastes ~ 45% of food.
People toss perfectly good furniture and electronics out because they don’t want the inconvienence of listing for free on market place or Craigslist
There was a large item waste pickup at out apartment recently, somebody put out a perfectly good desk and drawers. Looked new but had a small scratch on one panel edge ( easy to paint over or touch up )
Also thrift stores exist which are discarded belongings.
I pickup what I can at thift stores in the way of electronics and reflash firmware or reformat etc, and put it out on the market. Trouble is majority of thift stores don’t accept electronics because they don’t know the working condition, so those items go to the dump.
My local Goodwill thrift has a deal with Dell, where the stores get paid a flat fee to just recycle every computer, instead of hiring or training someone to check if they’re working for resale. And Dell gets to reduce the size of the local used computer market.
The food could have been given to someone hungry before it spoiled in the fridge.
The furniture could have been given to someone else instead of tossing it for the newer model/different decor.
My in-laws throw half-eaten food away every day. They redecorate for every season and usually only keep entire couches for 2-3 years. I’m assuming they’re an extreme outlier, but I know plenty of people who toss food like it’s fashionable to waste half your fridge every week, and get new furniture when I see nothing wrong with the old furniture.
Too few are the type to get a new chair only when the old one has broken in half, and eat everything they made for lunch.
If only there were some way we could incentivise suppliers to supply the correct amount to different regions. Like some kind of reward or financial incentive for applying the correct amount? /s
Sadly such a system if it existed would never work. It would lead to people chasing higher imaginary numbers that can only come from taking more of other people imaginary numbers away from them.
The thing you are missing is that not all the food is spoiled. Restaurants and supermarkets do not allow employees to take home food that is going to the dumpster, even if it is still good to eat for that night. Perfectly edible food is being thrown away since giving it to employees would “cause employees to make unsellable food so they can take it home at the end of the day”. It is all greedy mental gymnastics by corporate assholes who want to line their pockets by making food a scarcity.
Discarded does NOT by definition mean nobody wants it. It means that somebody threw something away. There could be plenty of people who wanted or needed it but were prevented from obtaining it due to greed or regulation.
Those greedy corporate assholes have an incentive to maintain an efficient distribution system. They dont make money by throwing food away. Any system has some waste.
Here its not really possible to discard furniture that might be usable. When you go to the rubbish dump with a load of stuff someone inspects what youve got and directs you to sort recyclables and furniture and stuff that someone may want. Only real waste ends up in landfill.
They might make an efficient distribution system, but they do not make an equal one. They efficiently choose to send more to rich places as that returns them greater profit. The problem here is not efficiency, it’s intent.
I agree with you but there are logistic challenges to getting 1/3 of a banana to the person who needs it. This example may seem silly but it’s a realistic example of household food waste.
But I agree that solving hunger should be a society’s top priority which it clearly isn’t under a food for profit model
The issue I see is overpriced food leading to low amount of buyers so the food spoils. Because Loblaws doesn’t care about feeding everyone they want most profit even if it means tossing food away to maintain the pricing
It’s not 1/3 of a banana. It is a batch of bananas that are slightly brown. It is 4 unsold donuts at closing. It is unsold merchandise they throw away to make room for new product.
It has NOTHING to do with logistics. The food is already at the store. The only difference is the store manager being forced to say YES at the end of the day when a hungry employee asks to take the unsold food that would otherwise go into the dumpster home.
You’re only looking at retail and you’re discarding what I’ve said about household food waste.
Globally, the majority of food waste, around 61%, occurs in households
From Wikipedia: “Food loss and waste is food that is discarded or otherwise lost uneaten. This occurs throughout the food system, during production, processing, distribution, retail and food service sales, and consumption. Overall, about one-third of the world’s food is thrown away, and a similar proportion of calories is lost on top of that by feeding human-edible food to farm animals. A 2021 meta-analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that global food waste amounted to 931 million tonnes annually (about 121 kg per person) across three sectors: 61 percent from households, 26 percent from food service and 13 percent from retail.”.
Utilizing household food waste is a matter of getting uneaten food to people who would eat it. It’s incredibly difficult, this is the challenge that I referred to as logistics.
The majority of the food isn’t spoiled. There’s nothing wrong with it before it goes to the landfill, it just looks funny. Same for the furniture and clothes. That was last seasons stock, and we can’t give it away, so into the dump it goes. They do the same with housing. It just takes longer. The worst thing you can do with a building is let it sit empty. They rot quicker that way.
Furniture can easily be restored instead of being thrown away. And parts of that furniture (if it’s damaged beyond repair) could be recycled (i.e. glass).
I have a friend who chose not to replace his 50+ year old wooden floor in his house, but rather call a restoring company. He sent me a pic with that done and it’s looking gorgeous.
If only there was some way consumers could choose whether to buy something cheap and disposable or expensive and robust. Some kind of system whereby you could evaluate items and consider repairability prior to purchase.
I dont really understand im sorry.
Yes, wealth is distributed unfairly.
However, the value of spoiled food and the existence of discarded furniture isn’t really evidence of anything? Practically by definition, no one wants that stuff, even hungry and / or homeless people.
Some of the large grocery store spoilage is because it is not sold quick enough. This week I grabbed a had of lettuce for sandwiches, $6, so I put it back. Same every week the prices are over inflated but wages aren’t. This stuff gets tossed eventually. Have reasonable prices or controlled prices would ensure more good produce kis eaten and not discarded. Canada wastes ~ 45% of food.
People toss perfectly good furniture and electronics out because they don’t want the inconvienence of listing for free on market place or Craigslist
There was a large item waste pickup at out apartment recently, somebody put out a perfectly good desk and drawers. Looked new but had a small scratch on one panel edge ( easy to paint over or touch up )
Also thrift stores exist which are discarded belongings. I pickup what I can at thift stores in the way of electronics and reflash firmware or reformat etc, and put it out on the market. Trouble is majority of thift stores don’t accept electronics because they don’t know the working condition, so those items go to the dump.
My local Goodwill thrift has a deal with Dell, where the stores get paid a flat fee to just recycle every computer, instead of hiring or training someone to check if they’re working for resale. And Dell gets to reduce the size of the local used computer market.
Ugh
The food could have been given to someone hungry before it spoiled in the fridge.
The furniture could have been given to someone else instead of tossing it for the newer model/different decor.
My in-laws throw half-eaten food away every day. They redecorate for every season and usually only keep entire couches for 2-3 years. I’m assuming they’re an extreme outlier, but I know plenty of people who toss food like it’s fashionable to waste half your fridge every week, and get new furniture when I see nothing wrong with the old furniture.
Too few are the type to get a new chair only when the old one has broken in half, and eat everything they made for lunch.
Many homeless do want it, it’s often illegal to dumpster dive.
But that problem could be alleviated before it happens. If you know a region wastes X food, you supply less.
We don’t fairly supply our food resources because we decided “poor” people don’t deserve access to it.
Oh man.
If only there were some way we could incentivise suppliers to supply the correct amount to different regions. Like some kind of reward or financial incentive for applying the correct amount? /s
Sadly such a system if it existed would never work. It would lead to people chasing higher imaginary numbers that can only come from taking more of other people imaginary numbers away from them.
… but in the existing system suppliers are provided with the best imaginary numbers by sending things to places people want to buy it.
You either produce your own food or you pay someone else to do it. What you seem to want is outright slavery.
Lol, this your brain on capitalism.
The thing you are missing is that not all the food is spoiled. Restaurants and supermarkets do not allow employees to take home food that is going to the dumpster, even if it is still good to eat for that night. Perfectly edible food is being thrown away since giving it to employees would “cause employees to make unsellable food so they can take it home at the end of the day”. It is all greedy mental gymnastics by corporate assholes who want to line their pockets by making food a scarcity.
Discarded does NOT by definition mean nobody wants it. It means that somebody threw something away. There could be plenty of people who wanted or needed it but were prevented from obtaining it due to greed or regulation.
Those greedy corporate assholes have an incentive to maintain an efficient distribution system. They dont make money by throwing food away. Any system has some waste.
Here its not really possible to discard furniture that might be usable. When you go to the rubbish dump with a load of stuff someone inspects what youve got and directs you to sort recyclables and furniture and stuff that someone may want. Only real waste ends up in landfill.
They might make an efficient distribution system, but they do not make an equal one. They efficiently choose to send more to rich places as that returns them greater profit. The problem here is not efficiency, it’s intent.
Not necessarily. If ever producer sent their stuff to “rich places” there would be an excess in those places causing a reduced price.
I agree with you but there are logistic challenges to getting 1/3 of a banana to the person who needs it. This example may seem silly but it’s a realistic example of household food waste.
But I agree that solving hunger should be a society’s top priority which it clearly isn’t under a food for profit model
The issue I see is overpriced food leading to low amount of buyers so the food spoils. Because Loblaws doesn’t care about feeding everyone they want most profit even if it means tossing food away to maintain the pricing
It’s not 1/3 of a banana. It is a batch of bananas that are slightly brown. It is 4 unsold donuts at closing. It is unsold merchandise they throw away to make room for new product.
It has NOTHING to do with logistics. The food is already at the store. The only difference is the store manager being forced to say YES at the end of the day when a hungry employee asks to take the unsold food that would otherwise go into the dumpster home.
You’re only looking at retail and you’re discarding what I’ve said about household food waste.
Globally, the majority of food waste, around 61%, occurs in households
From Wikipedia: “Food loss and waste is food that is discarded or otherwise lost uneaten. This occurs throughout the food system, during production, processing, distribution, retail and food service sales, and consumption. Overall, about one-third of the world’s food is thrown away, and a similar proportion of calories is lost on top of that by feeding human-edible food to farm animals. A 2021 meta-analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that global food waste amounted to 931 million tonnes annually (about 121 kg per person) across three sectors: 61 percent from households, 26 percent from food service and 13 percent from retail.”.
More sources https://www.usda.gov/about-food/food-safety/food-loss-and-waste/food-waste-faqs#%3A~%3Atext=In+the+United+States%2C+food%2Cfar-reaching+impacts+on+society:
And
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=43836&v=0 check the summary PDF
Utilizing household food waste is a matter of getting uneaten food to people who would eat it. It’s incredibly difficult, this is the challenge that I referred to as logistics.
Thus the problems are logistics and overconsumption
The majority of the food isn’t spoiled. There’s nothing wrong with it before it goes to the landfill, it just looks funny. Same for the furniture and clothes. That was last seasons stock, and we can’t give it away, so into the dump it goes. They do the same with housing. It just takes longer. The worst thing you can do with a building is let it sit empty. They rot quicker that way.
Hyperbole.
Yes some things are wasted, that doesn’t mean they can be redistributed to solve scarcity.
It means its not economically viable to get those things to the people who need them.
Furniture can easily be restored instead of being thrown away. And parts of that furniture (if it’s damaged beyond repair) could be recycled (i.e. glass).
I have a friend who chose not to replace his 50+ year old wooden floor in his house, but rather call a restoring company. He sent me a pic with that done and it’s looking gorgeous.
Amazing. I can’t believe no one else has thought of this “restoration” life hack over the millennia /s.
They’ll have to think of some sort of ‘intentional deterioration’ or something to ensure that products break and are made hard to repair.
If only there was some way consumers could choose whether to buy something cheap and disposable or expensive and robust. Some kind of system whereby you could evaluate items and consider repairability prior to purchase.
I find it funny that you keep trying to describe the current system as a solution to the problems of the current system.
Well, isn’t it kind of obvious that the current solutions are the best solutions we have at present?
Yes, wealth is not distributed equally, as has been the case since the dawn of time.
It would be great to solve that, but in the mean time we need to settle for doing our best.
No. It’s very obvious that the current system is the cause of our problems at the moment.
We already know of many better methods, but we cannot achieve them due to the current systems monopoly on violence and its glee to use it.
So melodramatic. Until all the billionaires are executed this is the system you and I both will exist within.
Have a few more hits from the bong while I go collect rents from my serfs.