For those pointing out that this is "Govt. distortion of markets", please see Agricultural subsidies offered in the US and Europe, which "distort" markets a lot more.
Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I really liked the story of the lady who said that her morning had been freed because she did not have to cook breakfast anymore. And for many of those using this place, it would similarly free up their time.
Another important point: unlike the gross fast food that you see in the US, this is actually very nutritious. Lentils are a great source of protein and other essential amino acids. The canteens also provide free drinking water. I can see this more as a public health program than a "wasteful subsidy": save millions of man-hours wasted by poor health by providing a decent amount of healthy food to everyone.
As for the idea of indirect assistance via tokens or food stamps: I would wager this is better since the Government can use economies of scale to provide food at low prices. Not to mention: they have quality control over exactly what is offered to the public.
India grows more than enough food to feed all its citizens. I'm glad to see that schemes to provide nutritious meals at subsidized prices to people are finally coming through.
During the Second World War, Britain had hundreds of subsidised restaurants. They played an essential role in mitigating the worst privations of rationing, providing a nourishing meal for about $2 in today's money. The restaurants were so popular that many remained open until the 1950s.
This policy might be a vote-winner, but it's an honourable vote-winner. Quite aside from the obvious humanitarian justification, investments in nutrition have a tremendous RoI. Malnutrition remains one of the key limiting factors on India's economic growth; a bit of China-style central planning might not be a bad idea.
For a US example, school free lunch programs were instituted in 1946 after the US army found that a substantial number of WWII rejected draftees were rejected because of malnutrition problems.
Depends on how it's made. Oil/butter is often added because it's cheap and provides "fullness" without being nutritionally satisfying. With food this cheap, you'll need to take a close look at what's actually going in the food.
Recent research has suggested that fats aren't really as bad as we thought they were, its the sugars that cause weight gain.
There is also a difference in the quality of life. Most of the clientele seem to be daily wage laborers, who could certainly use all the energy they could get.
But you are correct that it can go either way. I'm glad that lentils, at least, are part of the menu. And as someone living in the US, the meals offered seem like luxury compared with the crap fast food meal that seem to be the staple of lower class Americans (please, its not a Nationalist thing. American fast food is objectively bad for health).
> For those pointing out that this is "Govt. distortion of markets", please see Agricultural subsidies offered in the US and Europe, which "distort" markets a lot more.
What you're saying is a classic case of a logical fallacy, specifically, the fallacy of relative privation. Just because there is another bigger problem doesn't mean that this is a legitimate problem.
You are committing a fallacy fallacy fallacy. If an argument is fallacious, it definitely is wrong. The proposition supported by that argument might still be right however.
If an argument is fallacious, it definitely is wrong.
F^4: Not necessarily. For example, some would argue that an argument is not necessarily "wrong" if it is logically sound and produces a correct conclusion, even though it is fallacious because unbeknownst to the participants there is both a false premise and countervailing unknown factor. See Gettier Problems: http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/.
There cannot be an unknown factor which renders a valid argument in valid. An argument makes explicit all of the propositions on which it rests. The propositions themselves are irrelevant to validity: a valid argument is true for all possible combinations of truth values of the propositions. It is valid in any imaginable universe, so to speak. That is to say, we can take all of its distinct propositions, replace them with unique variable names, and then evaluate it for all combination of truth values of those variables, and it must come out true.
If an argument is valid, then we can further consider whether it is sound: are its propositions true when interpreted in some relevant world (often the real one, but possibly any imaginary world that the debaters agree about, e.g. the Star Trek universe or whatever). Being valid, the argument will of course be true, but if it is unsound for the given world, it will only somehow be vacuously true in that world. For instance, by exhibiting a false conclusion from a false premise in a conditional.
Applying this reasoning rigidly to the examples presented in http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/ readily unravels their issues. For instance, the lucky coincidence that Smith has ten coins in his pocket readily succumbs to the fact that this situation isn't true in all imaginable universes; it is a separate proposition from "Jones has ten coins in his pocket". It gets a separate variable, and is separately considered both false and true when we go through all the possible variable values.
Not quite right: just because an argument is fallacious doesn't mean that the propositions on which it is based are false. Not a single proposition need be false, only the logic.
In any case, the argument is not fallacious, at least as I read it; it’s just partially implicit. To spell it out:
Most people (not all) wouldn’t consider government distortion of markets as inherently morally bad, but bad because it can cause negative outcomes, i.e. sellers away/out of business, and ultimately leave consumers with worse or more expensive goods. And certainly that’s one possible outcome, depending on the policy and the market in question. But a lot of people leap directly from “government distortion of markets” to “disastrous results”, ignoring that in other cases, the results seem to be either positive or at least not all that bad, as evidenced by a well-functioning market existing despite government intervention. An example of this - with a greater likelihood of applicability due to being in a related market sector - is the agriculture market in the US and EU, with respect to the aforementioned subsidies.
I believe these are subsidized (the article does mention economists complaining that these are a drain on the exchequer).
A more subtle point is that these subsidized "canteens" are in urban India, which is already much better off than rural India, where people even now regularly die of hunger[1]. I'm not saying urban poverty isn't a real issue, but the scale of poverty in rural India is much greater.
It's worth noting that you can get free food in many places in India (and in some cities in Europe and the US), via the Sikh langar[2] which is funded by charity and volunteers.
I feel this might be one of those cases where people would prefer to pay some feel -no matter how small- than bear the burden of the social and emotional cost of asking for a handout.
There is a large Sikh diaspora in my country, Canada. Anyone can go into a Sikh temple here and be fed, although I don't imagine many people know that.
Also, every week a Sikh group feeds the homeless and disenfranchised on East Hastings in Vancouver.
So yes, I can in fact easily get food from the Sikhs. :)
And I have, when I was amongst the disenfranchised. It was very appreciated.
The point about majority of Sikhs living in north is irrelevant. The gurudwara provide free food. There are multiple gurudwaras in almost all Indian states [1]. Most of them have langar though some only do on weekends. You can always find one using Google Maps at a location near you, though it might be inconvenient if you have limited means of travel. Several poor people shift base and reside outside or even inside gurudwaras for free accommodation and food.
> ...it might be inconvenient if you have limited means of travel.
Google Maps...really? I don't mean offense for being obtuse, but I sense a bit of first-world bias in your assessment.
I would imagine that for someone who is so poor that finding a simple meal is a daily struggle, what I might perceive as an inconvenience is almost certainly a show-stopping barrier.
Its also a question of mobility, if you are staying far would you spend money and time to travel just to eat and get back, especially given you have to work the whole day as well.
Given the fact that Indian state already run a lot food programs and passed the National Food Security Act in 2003 [1], this just adding burden to the existing system. And on that end economists are right in complaining because this is nothing but redundancy built to ensure incumbents win the next election. Once elected they might ask for central package or special status for the state.
Most people I know who are eating here are service professionals. Drivers, janitors, poor students etc. And most have a positive feedback. Being able to afford food, which is hot and fills stomach, served almost wherever they work. They can eat quickly and get back to work.
It’s just not the Gurudwara. Many temples in India and around the world provide free food. It’s called “sadavrat”. Providing food to the needy is the best form of service to god.
While admirable, food provided by temples is not akin to Indira canteen. The ground reality is that a person of a different caste or religion would not be able (or not feel comfortable) to avail services, where at a low-cost canteen, he or she is able to partake quality food at the canteens.
There is a lot of value that these canteens provide over haphazard temple based food charity.
> It's worth noting that you can get free food in many places in India (and in some cities in Europe and the US), via the Sikh langar[2] which is funded by charity and volunteers.
Incidentedly, Indira Gandhi (After whom the Indira canteen is named) was assassinated by Sikhs. Does the naming of the canteen have anything to do with the assassination ?
Not a Sikh but I don't believe these are related.
As per wikipedia
"Langar (Punjabi: ਲੰਗਰ) (kitchen) is the term used in Sikhism for the community kitchen in a Gurdwara where a free meal is served to all the visitors, without distinction of religion, caste, gender, economic status or ethnicity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)
The assasination of Indira Gandhi was related a separatist movement who wanted Punjab to secede from the rest of India (while Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister)
I doubt the naming has anything to do with it. It is a nice initiative and independent of any attempts to tie it to any history and good to see initiative to see happening in other areas of India.
Sikhs from the Punjab province of India have a free community kitchen for anyone from any background to break bread together, each day.
It is a vegetarian meal designed to express and practice equality among all of humanity and was in part meant to abolish the caste system.
Anyone can go into any Sikh place and have a free meal anywhere in the world. I don't have the link handy but it works out to a few million meals a day around a the world for free, paid for solely by donations.
Congress party cannot do such things. Congress is ruling Punjab. Number of people having food in langar run by Sikhs is not common in Karnataka anyway. So canteen as anti-sikh symbol is not possible.
Unlike western countries where getting free food is nearly impossible, getting free food in India is quite easy. Many temples provide free food. Even people offer free food.
It is not easy. I don't know why you're spreading this fallacy. India has one of the highest instances of malnourished children. If it was that easy, why are there so many hungry people?
As an aside, India's birth rate has been dropping precipitously over the last few decades. In 1960 the birth rate was 5.9 per woman; today it's 2.4 and still falling. India's birth rate is now lower than America prior to 1970. At current trends, the birth rate in India will drop below the replacement rate within a decade.
Until the modern era, the global birth rate was fairly constant at about six per woman. The population growth we've experienced over the last century is mostly to do with child survival.
Before 1900, the child mortality rate in India was over 50%. If you need children to care for you in old age and expect most of your children to die, you're likely to have a lot of them. When child survival improved, attitudes changed. Parents no longer want three or four children to work on the family farm, they want one or two children to become doctors or engineers. Economic development and the availability of reliable contraception have made that aspiration practical.
If you're interested in the topic, I can highly recommend this lecture by the late Hans Rosling:
Yeah, I agree, especially about the mortality rate. Anecdotally, every grandfather-aged person I know has 4+ children, but almost all father-aged ones have 2 or less (only 2 exceptions, of which 1 had twins).
To all of you arguing about how this is a market distortion; about economists who argue about "drain on the exchequer"; and to those logicians arguing about fallacious fallacies - did y'all have breakfast this morning? Yes? Good. Well, those people eating in those canteens might not have been able to have breakfast, but for those subsidized canteens. We should not put economics and "the market" on a pedestal. If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out, Britain provided subsidized restaurants. US provides farm subsidies. "Market" is good if it does good for the people. Otherwise there is no point in being wedded to an ideology.
The OP referred to farm subsidies, not food subsidies. The majority of these are in the form of price floors, intended to alleviate poverty among farmers and prevent shortages by encouraging excess supply during all but the leanest of times.
The reality is, the majority of these subsidies go to multi-million dollar farms, not the small family farms. As a result, we're effectively paying taxes to raise prices on food, which is very regressive in that it hurts the poor far more than the wealthy.
Of course, the flip side of the coin is that without the subsidies, prices would be so low that small farms wouldn't be able to compete anyway. Supply would, assuming the weather cooperates, roughly match demand, and a not insignificant chunk of taxes could go towards other programs (such as subsidizing school breakfasts and lunches). Then, we'd have some bizarre mix of natural disasters that creates a severe shortage of several key crops, causing significant chaos both in markets and in the daily lives of people who like to eat food, and we'd end up right back where we started- demanding the government guarantee that we don't run out of food in lean times, and paying the price for doing so.
> Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war.
Food wise, logistics wise or technology wise? Because while the US could manage the first two assuming no major internal disruptions, we've pretty much abandoned the third in favor of cheap imports and profits.
Sure, you can get chips within some limitations - in fact I believe some chip fabs have been moving back onshore. Can you get screens? I remember coverage maybe 20 years ago about Zenith closing the last TV manufacturing in the USA, and while that was in the days of CRTs I can't imagine that a lot of new panel manufacturers are here.
Interesting point. I'm not really seeing the bottleneck with respect to defense sustainment though.
In terms of critical defense: L-3, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, and Elbit (Israel) are a few major players off the top of my head that cater to domestic weapon system displays.
In terms of consumer displays: Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are allies. Humoring a doomsday isolation scenario with consideration towards America's disposable first-world couch potato culture, there's probably enough TVs/monitors in existing circulation throughout the country to sustain even the most improbably protracted conflict, let alone used surplus being auctioned off by the pallet for pennies on the dollar. Might even resuscitate a dead repair trade and create a few meaningful jobs too. Of course, this all assumes the government doesn't acknowledge a supply deficiency and fails to seed the capability need.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that the status quo of domestic technology production isn't exactly a self-lubricating wheel and leaves much to be desired...but it's not exactly dead in the water either.
The question strikes me as a red herring in that it presumes an optimal solution to the obtuse problem of world war sustainment exists as some one-shot panacea.
People snidely - and probably correctly - point out this is done for votes. That just seems overly cynical. Incentive alignment is a good thing - it's the whole basis of capitalism. I don't get why people feel the need to point it out in this manner.
If you consistently deliver brilliant policies that help your people, you should be re-elected.
Plus, by still making the people pay, you can offer them an amazing tool to increase their productivity WITHOUT taking away their pride in providing for themselves or establishing a direct indefinite dependency.
You can’t just say “incentive alignment is good.” Incentive alignment is only “good” if they’re aligned with your incentives. If you are poor or approve of helping the poor get affordable food, then this is an instance of good incentive alignment. But, on the complete other side of the spectrum, if you’re poor and you observe the government giving tax breaks for private jets, that’s an example of bad incentive alignment. Of course, many of the people with private jets will likely consider the latter to be a good form of incentive alignment.
If it's a democracy and the private jet owners are the majority - then more power to them. If they are not, and they only achieve "alignment" by any means that deny citizens of their right to vote, then shame on them.
Incentive alignment should be expected with the majority of society - or at least the voting public.
It's a common form of entitlement. I have a lot of friends back in Argentina who complained about the previous government "giving stuff to poor people just for votes." It's a reflection of where their priorities are: "I'd never sell my vote for X" is easy to say, when X is easily accessible for you.
They probably point out because Karnataka state elections are due to be held in a few months. And this isn't the first time this government (or any government for that matter) has launched popular schemes so close to the election.
I don't think you have any idea about the problems in 3rd world countries. There are many people below the poverty line and these canteens are a god send.
You must be against state sponsored healthcare too ?. Isn't that just taking taxes from healthy people and using it to treat ill people. In your words - corruption.
This is already functional in the state of TamilNadu for more than 3 years. It is called as "Amma's canteen". Any meal is 1 or 2 rupees. It is clean, healthy & definitely not fast food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QwO9RyihO8
Simple food (Polish food obviously, not Indian), government-subsidized, targeted at students, the elderly, the poor, but not means-tested or anything so technically anyone can get a plate, including foreigners, for very cheap. Typically very good food, but horrible customer service (old women yelling at you to make up your mind while you order, etc).
I have seen these in bangalore, in fact there is one very close to my office. One of the things that concerns me with such projects is that how they effect other eateries in the area. The one near my office that opened recently is on a street with about 5 other eateries. Having a eatery which is subsidized by government distorts this local market and adversely affects the other businesses in the area since they also cater to similar demographic with largely similar products. So while on its own this might be a good initiative, the economic impact of such initiatives might be more harmful to the local area economy. It s like creating more homeless so you can built shelter homes. A better way to do the same thing might be just to issue food vouchers which the people can use to by the food of their choice from any of the other eateries. It provides affordable food to those who cannot afford and also supports the smaller businesses.
That would really depend on what the target demographic was of those neighboring eateries, wouldn't it?
I'll use an American analogy to illustrate, and so I'm sorry in advance if it doesn't translate well.
In the Washington D.C. area (where I have several friends working), the restaurants are overwhelmingly high-end. A meal at a standard Panera bread is one of the more affordable options, and costs you somewhere between $12-15. Assuming said person works minimum wage, they're making $12.50/hr. In the longterm, that's really not sustainable, as they're spending an hour of their work-time just to be able to eat during the workday.
Suppose a Subway opens next door, and, additionally, suppose their $5 footlong still existed (it doesn't, but stay with me). The people who previously went to Panera start going to Subway because it's more affordable. Yeah, the Panera suffers, but many of the people that ate there couldn't really afford to eat there in the first place, and would have eventually stopped when their dwindling finances made it impossible.
Now on the other hand, if Subway was our base price and a government-subsidized eatery opens up with complete meals for $2, then yes, I can see how that might be a problem.
Without judging people's situations, I have to wonder at why people earning minimum wage would be eating out at Panera vs bringing lunch from home for much less money.
There's a growing mobile homeless or partially homeless (living in storage facilities or an RV without services) population in many of the more expensive cities; they live in the city for work, because that's where the jobs are, but can't actually afford to live there. Obviously, this isn't everyone who eats out who can't really afford it, but it's definitely some. If you don't have a fridge, you don't have a stove, and you have no way to keep or prepare fresh foods, you have to eat out more often. I've known lots of folks in this situation (I live in an RV and travel a lot and run into all sorts of people). They often do keep bread and peanut butter in their car or RV or whatever, but they have pretty limited options. It's not healthy or sustainable to eat that way. So, they end up eating out a lot.
Our cities are becoming wholly inhospitable to poor people, and food is no exception. And, someone making $12.50/hour probably can't really afford rent in a city like DC, either.
Thank you for educating me on that aspect of the situation.
Is there typically electricity in these situations? I ask because per my post below, I wonder how common it is to bootstrap up to a mini-fridge + pressure cooker or rice cooker or something like that. Seems like a few weeks of PB&J + cup ramen could provide for a significant upgrade in nutrition from purchasing those tools.
I'm probably leaving out some important aspect of this, and unfortunately some of this might simply be around education of where to purchase these tools and what to do with them to eat smarter, but I can't help but think there are ways to improve the situation with the cards they currently have in their hand.
If I found myself suddenly living out of a car or storage unit (provided it had electricity), I'd probably do whatever I could to save for a mini-fridge and rice cooker (eventually upgrading to a pressure cooker), and go from there. Rice and beans purchased in bulk are affordable and solid staples, and easy to turn into more nutritious meals by adding other ingredients.
It's wildly variable what resources someone in that kind of situation might have.
There was a guy living in the storage unit next to the one I have in Austin (for my stuff from when I moved out of a house and back into an RV). The folks who ran the storage facility let him run an extension cord to the nearest power; several people actually were living in that facility, despite it being illegal. So, in his case he did have electricity, and I believe he had a mini-fridge. We talked several times and he seemed to have a pretty reasonable setup. He even had a space heater for when it got cold. I never saw the inside of his house (he'd built a wall and second regular door behind the rolling garage style door), but he seemed to be reasonably comfortable and had regular work really close by (since he only had a bike, proximity was important). The last time I was there, he'd moved out, and the person working didn't know where he'd gone; I'm hoping he was doing well and got an apartment rather than ran into harder times.
But, people in cars or vans probably don't have power. Some RVers have solar panels, and also RV fridges often also run on propane (though they aren't terribly efficient in the old RVs...I go through about $15/week running mine on propane). Propane fridges are very expensive and very fidgety and prone to breakage over time, however, so it's not uncommon to see the propane/electric dual-mode fridge replaced with an electric-only model in the cheapest old RVs. So, that limits the use of the fridge to times when it's plugged in.
I know someone who lives in a bus that she converted to an RV herself, but she didn't put in a fridge (yet), so while she has a stove, if she's not parked near a grocery, she is very limited in what she can cook. Some things keep well without refrigeration: onions, potatoes, winter squash, etc. She has potted plants for tomatoes and herbs, but she's much more intentional about her situation. She moved out of an apartment and into the bus by choice, not by necessity, and mostly enjoys the off-the-grid lifestyle. She made one of these for when she's in the desert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot-in-pot_refrigerator but those only work in very dry climates and aren't cold enough for many foods. Obviously wouldn't work in most places...and if you're in a city, you have to be self-contained and very discreet about where you're living. Can't really spread out and put out pots and stuff when parked on a street.
What is close to work by in the US anyway? Looking at the commute distance of people in the US it seems that at least 50% live close enough to use a bicycle. I've seen countless articles about poor people in the US who can't afford a car and had to walk 2 hours every morning, that is most probably 30 minutes on a shitty bicycle even less on a decent one.
American Commute
Distance (One Way) Percent
1-5 Miles 29 %
6-10 Miles 22 %
11-15 Miles 17 %
16-20 Miles 10 %
21+ Miles 23 %
(source: US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Omnibus Household Survey. )
So, rent in the DC area starts at about $1400/mth. Period. If you're okay living with three roommates, you might be able to eke out something livable at $700 a month. But then you're sharing a house with people you don't know, and young women might be especially uncomfortable with that.
Your other option is to live in someone's guest room or basement for $600. The people who rent out these rooms usually expect to be renting to college students, and so there is often very little by way of accommodations: the room may be 10x10" and include little more than a bed and a desk. The family will also make it very clear that the tenant is not allowed to use the kitchen, making cooking impossible. So the tenant is pushed to live meal-to-meal, as it were, with little expectation of being able to store or prepare food long-term.
Do they have electricity? A mini-fridge runs <$70 (probably less second-hand). That's a little more than a week's worth of Panera. Pretty easy to do with dry goods and cup ramen that only requires hot water to heat up. Pressure cookers are even cheaper. Rice cookers can be had for <$25.
So while I recognize that not everyone in that situation may be resourceful enough to realize this and do something about it, the notion that cooking becomes impossible is not accurate.
The education for where to purchase these things cheaply and how to cook in restricted situations with them is admittedly still a problem though, and it seems like a lot of good could be done to solve it. Getting your nutrition bootstrapped up on a path that lets you save more money seems like a worthwhile goal.
May be it is US thing or generally everywhere but I notice nowadays people think cooking either has to be elaborate/expensive or with such low efforts that one would not even like the meal they prepared for themselves. Hence eating out is so common even with less money.
For me since I always carry from home for lunch and eat dinner at home, so cooking needs to be in all categories like low/medium/elaborate efforts. And of course tasty enough that myself or anyone joining me reasonably like it.
I think you're overlooking the "true" amount of space required to cook and store food. It's not just the fridge and the rice cooker you've got to think about. It's everything else that you take for granted in your kitchen: storage space, bowls, utensils, a heating mechanism, a reheating mechanism, spices, etc.
So I'm in my 10x10 room (no kitchen access because my landlords are a conservative family that just wants spare-room money, remember), I've managed to fit a mini-fridge in some corner next to my desk, and a rice cooker that sits on top of it. Let's make rice! Firstly, where am I storing the uncooked rice? Do I buy a 5-lb bag of rice for $10 that could feed me for a month? Probably not, because I don't have the storage space. So I spend a dollar and buy the smallest bag I can find, which makes just over 2 cups of rice. In the long term it's way more expensive, but it saves space, because I'll just cook all 2 cups now and have nothing you need to worry about storing.
Rice is not terribly filling or healthy on its own. Maybe we'll jazz it up and throw a tomato into the middle of the rice cooker to make tomato rice. This kinda-sorta borders on a meal. So our rice is done. How do I eat this? I guess I'll buy a single bowl and some chopsticks. Or, screw that, I'll buy a single bowl and snatch some extra plastic cutlery from the Popeye's across the street.
I've finished eating. Even as a meager meal (not super filling, and I've got nothing other than plastic salt-and-pepper shakers that I bought from Wal-Mart as seasoning), I can't eat more than a cup or so of rice. So I've got leftovers. What am I storing these leftovers in? I don't have room to buy some pyrex containers. Maybe I can just cover the inner bowl of the rice cooker with some plastic wrap! Balls, now I need plastic wrap...
Day 2, I should eat some of my tomato rice leftovers. How am I going to reheat this? I could probably reheat it with boiling water, but I'd need to buy an electric kettle or, at the very least, a hot-shot. Maybe if I buy a drink at the nearby 7-11, they'll let me use their microwave? Man, that's a nuisance. I might as well just get some wings at 7-11 if I'm going over there anyway...
There's a pretty large demographic of people making minimum wage or low wages.
Some people just aren't responsible with money, they don't budget, they don't live within their means, they don't really think or care to look at the expenses or how they add up.
If you did a Venn diagram of low wage earners and people who aren't really responsible with their money, those are the people eating at Panera Bread, or buying things from Rent-A-Center or taking out high interest loans and engaging in every sort of behavior that compounds the problems with making low wages.
No. To make food you need resources, the less you have the more it costs per meal. Panera bread might be the only alternative you have to be able to function in the work place.
Maybe there is a Veblen goods kind of situation going on here. If I made enough money to eat out every day for lunch, would I want to go spend my lunch at what is essentially a soup kitchen or would I want a venue that is nicer? India still has a caste system so I would imagine the higher caste people would not want to be going to a restaurant where a large portion of the customers would be poorer, lower caste.
> Having a eatery which is subsidized by government distorts this local market and adversely affects the other businesses in the area since they also cater to similar demographic with largely similar products.
Same in the U.S. about McDonald's, fast food, and other junk food sellers whose product is based on corn, soy, beef, and other recipients of billions of dollars of subsidy and unaccounted externalities.
I have seen the crowd at indira canteens and they are not the clientele of the near by eateries.I think this is a much better way than food coupons to be used at private restaurants , which is ripe for correction in a country like india.
I agree, but they may not have that luxury. If they offered food vouchers I am not sure they could achieve the economies of scale that seem to facilitate these types of things. Ie. 13 cents would not buy the same amount of food at a regular shop than a 13 cent food voucher to be used at a mass canteen.
I remember my time in Shenzhen back in 2007 (or in 2009 if my memory fails me) when I was transiting through the city to Singapore.
Back then, I was surprised how much even seemingly low income people were dishing out on food.
When line 9 was just opened, there was no underground connection in between it and line 4 in Shangmeilin. Food cart owners who set up shops on the sandlot in between stations, were allegedly having turnovers closing on 5k usd per day in first months after opening given how many commuters going to and from factories were passing by that place.
Food there was rather basic, but quite expensive. 30CNY for a big bowl of beef noodle soup, more than double than what you expected for street food back then, yet I have not seen a single time when there was no lineup.
Even in a country as poor as India, food is not a double percentage of income spending even for a moderately well off person.
It is better to have underemployed, and socially marginalized people fed well and healthy, than to deal with consequences of them not having access to proper nutrition.
unless those eateries are super-basic, it doesn't sound like this is competition for them. The canteens offer one meal of two items for a fixed price. Anyone with more means will surely choose a more varied menu and better service / ambiance, wouldn't they? (at least most of the time; I would totally go there for a lunch or quick breakfast from time to time.)
> One of the things that concerns me with such projects is that how they effect other eateries in the area.
Probably less than you might imagine, for more than one reason.
First, it adds another attractor to the area, and while some people will only get the cheapest food others will at least occasionally have a desire for and money for something different or fancier. Those decisions may very well not be made until the person or group is already in that area. This is why many restaurants are often found in clusters.
Second, for some of the nicer options this may mean a shift from people getting everything as cheap as possible (but still more than the cost now) to people being able to save money on 1-2 meals a day and getting something nicer for another at one of those commercial entities.
Finally, while some places that would be most directly in competition might fail other businesses will surely move in to capture the business of the crowds of people who now have a little more money available to spend.
Doesn't this also open up the opportunity to value add? If the food is bland they can sell sauce packets to spice it up, sides, drinks, etc. The money they saved on food could be money they now have to spend on other things.
It's a good point about local businesses but I wonder why a big provider of cheap food like this doesn't happen without government help? Also, why not cash instead of food vouchers?
> Economists say the canteens are a burden on the exchequer but they are a hit with politicians in a country where hundreds of millions of people live on less than a dollar a day
The difference between these projects and soup kitchens is these are chiefly political projects. The state borrows to pay for patronage and largesse. No doubt, the vendors were not selected through an open auction.
Not to mention these are also used to enshrine a particular political figure, specially in India. As mentioned the idea seems to be from Amma Kitchen run by Jayalalitha, who passed away earlier this year.
This again is named after an Indian Prime Minister whose name is synonymous with a particular party in India.
The deprivation is rather severe in India. You would notice most of the people are doing full day of work and eat there. In US typical person who eat at a soup kitchen would quite likely be non-working/homeless.
I have had my well-off friends in India where 4 person family dinner will cost more than monthly salary of their car driver. And it is simultaneously true that driver's salary is quite less and a decent restaurant meal is very expensive.
I usually take Uber in India, and often ask the driver about his work, how much he makes, etc. This is for a North-Indian Tier-2 city.
The answer usually is that he makes INR 6000/month.
Now, I have eaten in middling restaurants where a meal for 2 came to INR 2500. In fact, I've been to cafes where a "meal" of tea, snacks, etc. alone came to over INR 700/pp. You would be hard pressed to get a decent meal in a clean, hygenic and modern restaurant for INR 200 anywhere in North India.
> In fact, I've been to cafes where a "meal" of tea, snacks, etc. alone came to over INR 700/pp.
I've been to restaurants where the expense (including drinks) was 5k per head. One of the companies during placements took new hires out for dinner, the bill was 12k per head. I've been to places in USA where the bill was 200$ per head. This isn't a "decent meal".
> You would be hard pressed to get a decent meal in a clean, hygenic and modern restaurant for INR 200 anywhere in North India.
I can suggest dozens of places in Chandigarh and Delhi. Even McDonalds, Dominoes would cost less than 200 per head. And those are considered a decent place in India.
A decent veg burger, with fries costs around 50 rupees in Burger King, in Bangalore. Or you could eat at Darshinis, and they serve Indian meals(Rice, Sambar, Some friend snack, banana) at more or less the same price.
Uber guy earning INR6000/month! Man you have been conned hard. An Ola/Uber guy earn something like INR35-50K per month after all fuel and car expenses. No one would work for 6K/month even in tier 3 cities for Ola/Uber. In fact there were days when drivers were earning (due to incentives) about 6K (revenue) per day in cities like Delhi and Bangalore
Early days in all these kind of schemes are good. These days drivers don't make much.
There is a wild rush to get your cab listed or attached to some BigCo transport, because you get paid better, plus guaranteed business. Also note most people driving for Uber/Ola are cabs from black money sources. Most government employees now buy cabs and auto rickshaws and do this business, as avenues for spending black money are drying out. So at the end cab driver makes less money.
Most Uber/Ola business in Bangalore is around IT parks, Malls etc. Where there is a lot of traffic during peak hours, and you can't do more than one trip in the morning.
Several of the Uber guys I spoke with were actually drivers of some rich businessmen; they were told to Uber during the times they were not needed. A couple of them were "for hire" drivers, being paid a flat INR 200/day to operate the car for 10 hours/day.
I don't know why they'd be conning me, and so many of them too, unless there's a "driver mafia" out to fool the public about .... what their driver makes?? Doesn't pass Occam's test.
Most of them are that way. Most cops are into this business, its getting impossible to invest black cash in a meaningful way. There are now capital controls in every investment. Want to buy gold, land, mutual funds, whatever? Get ready to submit you PAN and Aadhar. So they can't spend money that way. At very same time, they can't sit on cash, because inflation.
They generally buy the vehicle in a relative's name, with black cash(Huge second hand market for this). And do this cab business. Most drivers are poor ex-farm workers. So they take whatever they get.
The last time I heard from a auto rickshaw driver, more or less every cop in Bangalore has something like this going.
>>I would say 200 INR gets you a decent restaurant meal.
200 INR too is expensive. Even with a programmer's salary I wouldn't spend that money on one single meal.
Most people who have a need to spend that much are better off carrying their lunch. It would cost you 1/8th of that, plus home cooked food means healthy food in general.
I was trying to show extremities of India. 2500 per head is not really much if some drinks are added. I am glad that you did not go all the way to politician Raj Babbar who claimed for 10 INR you can get a full meal any where in India.
Yes, there are extremities in India. Food is a bigger pie of the income than what typical western population is accustomed to.
But this was over exaggeration.
Raj Babbar definitely went too far, but 30-40 INR is enough to find a meal (Even the article corroborates these numbers). Don't expect fine dining and mineral water though.
You can get a decent healthy food for anywhere from 50 INR to 100 INR. However, the govt public-distribution-system is highly subsidized, that is how many people get their food. Also temples and charities offer free food.
> Wouldn't it be great to have political parties competing as to who best can provide food to the poor?
Not if the food is being bought from cronies with borrowed money. Indian agriculture is notoriously inefficient [1].
Better institutions would upgrade the farms, thereby reducing the price of food, and use some of the surplus wealth to educate, and upgrade the lifestyles of, the masses. TL; DR Approximate the Industrial Revolution, with the benefits of hindsight. This won't happen, however, because 100 poor farmers dependent on your political handouts are more valuable than those same farmers a little bit wealthier, and a little bit smarter.
That said, we're talking about the world's largest democracy. All in all, the system is performing well enough.
> No doubt, the vendors were not selected through an open auction.
While is is fashionable to talk about govt. corruption, I do recall that vendors were selected via auction. While there may be internal kick-backs and what-have-yous, on the face of it, this was done correctly.
India has 1000s of temples who serve food for free to anyone without asking questions. Why only talk about a govt project clearly aimed at getting votes of poor?
I don't see anything wrong with this. All most everything done by governments are aimed at getting votes. Humans primarily operate by keeping it's self interest in mind. Giving food to poor at a reduced rate is definitely better than not giving food to poor. If this article inspires other governments to do similar things even if the primary motive is getting more votes I don't mind. I don't see why you are so pissed off about this.
Since I don't know the area – can you think of a reason this type of canteen is so popular if there's widely available, similar alternative? Sounds like there's something more to this – are the canteens simply cheaper because of subsidy? More efficient so less time waiting? Better location for the working population?
There is no one religion in India. People of minorities may not be comfortable going to a temple. Also, langars and temple food is pro bono and excellent volunteer work. It's not supposed to be relied upon to feed people below the poverty line.
That's not true, actually. I know of several temples that do not allow non-Hindus in, for example [0]. I don't necessarily have an opinion on that, but it's not as uncommon as you think. I hope we can keep this discussion from going down the rabbit hole of discrimination in temples.
In India every tradition has its own temples. Most are open to all and some are open for their devotees. It's quite easy to find many temples within a few kilometer radius.
Each temple have their own tradition and they have the right to their own tradition. Now, allowing a non-devotee into the temple is their business. But that doesn't mean, one cannot find any temple anywhere.
Food is clean and fresh but no flavor. It is not like food you get in standard restaurants. In short it is not best meal. Maybe they got info about BBC visit. Not seen idly in Indira canteen.
Biggest chunk of the food prize increases a lot in the last mile (supermarkets, restaurants, etc).
In my region, where you used to see 50-60 of people doing fruit picking in one big field, now you see 2 people + 1 tractor + robotic arm.
Market prices are barely the same, I dont think labor cost is what really increases the final food price.
Even though the concept is great It is primarily done to appeal to masses below or just above the poverty line. This is a political agenda by present ruling government (Congress) in the state(Karnataka). It is named after late Ms Indira Gandhi who was president of Congress. Sorry to say India runs behind these votebank politics. Idea is that People will remember this as Congress providing food, even though it is being paid by tax payers money, So those corrupt power hungry monsters can continue to stay in power. The chief Minister who initiated Indira Canteen Karnataka spent 100K $ on his and his family for Tea and Snacks alone in the last 4 years. (https://www.newskarnataka.com/index.php/bangalore/snack-bill...)
Now you cant help but question the motive. And It is not the first time, These initiatives have been done in the past in India Eg: in another state called Tamil Nadu. It was called Amma canteen.
As someone that detests Congress, I don't really see why naming it after Indira Gandhi is that bad. Esp considering she is unlikely to stand in an election again... I also don't see why not being the first state to do it is bad; someone else here linked 5 other states that run similar programs.
I was happy that the tradition of naming everything after Rajiv Gandhi is stopping.
"In fact, Guatemala has the highest rate of malnutrition in the Western Hemisphere: 50 percent of the population is stunted and, in rural Mayan villages, that figure gets as high as 80 percent."
* We compared a group of native 9-year-old Mayans and a group of 9-year-old Mayans raised in the United States. The difference was dramatic. The American Mayan children who have access to better food are, on average, six inches taller than those raised in Guatemala.*
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/malnutrition-severe-stunting-gu...
For people dismissing it as vote bank politics... I want to say policy is more complicated.
If the govt reduces taxes for people in low income range is that vote bank politics?
If government provides free education to the poor is that vote bank politics?
Both the above items are aimed at a certain segment.
If you think the answer to above questions is Yes, then in that case every body has vote bank politics, and discussing whether it’s vote bank politics is of little use (I am not even sure if it is a bad thing).
I think a better question to ask is whether it is good policy. I don’t see any argument indicating it is bad policy. Seems like it is helping a certain section of the society at little cost to the rest.
If any tourists are thinking of trying them out, please don't. The canteens serve a fixed number of meals a day. You might end up depriving someone of a subsidized meal.
As good as this initiative sounds, I don't have high hopes of it succeeding in the long run. I have seen how many Amma canteens in Chennai have run into neglect or effectively closed down a mere 3 years after opening. As long as initiatives like these are politicized (which is unfortunately true in most countries), they won't last for a long time. The next political party to come into power will most definitely run it into the ground.
It's an oft-cited paradox of consumer choice that people don't value things they didn't pay for. By making them pay a token amount, it gives them skin in the game. Similar to "suggested donation" at museums that are already full funded.
Yes good point. And in any case, for "five rupees, or about 13 cents" to be correct, we'd need a cent to be about 5/13 ≈ 0.38 rupees, and that fits neither USD (1 USD ≈ 65 INR) nor GBP (1 GBP ≈ 86 INR). So original point in this thread, that the article's conversion is mystifying/wrong, still holds.
Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I really liked the story of the lady who said that her morning had been freed because she did not have to cook breakfast anymore. And for many of those using this place, it would similarly free up their time.
Another important point: unlike the gross fast food that you see in the US, this is actually very nutritious. Lentils are a great source of protein and other essential amino acids. The canteens also provide free drinking water. I can see this more as a public health program than a "wasteful subsidy": save millions of man-hours wasted by poor health by providing a decent amount of healthy food to everyone.
As for the idea of indirect assistance via tokens or food stamps: I would wager this is better since the Government can use economies of scale to provide food at low prices. Not to mention: they have quality control over exactly what is offered to the public.
India grows more than enough food to feed all its citizens. I'm glad to see that schemes to provide nutritious meals at subsidized prices to people are finally coming through.