西西河

主题:【讨论】美国真有3500万人吃不饱饭? -- 思想的行者

共:💬10 🌺1 新:
分页树展主题 · 全看首页 上页
/ 1
下页 末页
  • 家园 【讨论】美国真有3500万人吃不饱饭?

    美国是超级大国啊 ,怎么会有那么多的人吃不饱饭呢?

    第一,你这是美国农业部网站自己通过抽样调查所统计出来的数字

    我不得不承认美国农业部在做社会调查的时候比中国的有关部门专业

    美国农业部出台的报告里面有六七十页,里面的数字报表一大堆的,体现了美国人的严谨的用数字来说话的习惯,这与我们的某些部门所发表的公文里面几乎看不到多少数字区别真的是极其之大

    大家可以到这个连接当中去看美国农业部的这个2006年所发表的报告http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR49/

    Household Food Security in the United States, 2006

    By Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson

    Economic Research Report No. (ERR-49) 66 pp, November 2007

    Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2006, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (10.9 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year. About one-third of food insecure households (4.0 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more adults was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were essentially unchanged from those in 2005. The typical food-secure household spent 31 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to USDA’s annual Food Security Survey.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    第二,美国表面上看来是gdp世界第一,但是我们要看到这样几点

    1,美国的GDP 当中只有13.6%左右的是制造业的gdp,其他的gdp是被吹捧为21世纪的前沿的服务业---金融业,零售等等

       但是美国的金融业实际上就是一场赌博的游戏,赌赢了是美国的富人赚钱,赌输了是美国的穷人买单,这次美国的次贷危机的全面爆发就让更多的人认识到了美国金融的实际面目,随着美国次贷危机的深入,又有几百万的美国人将要失去房屋

       也就是说占美国GDP大头的金融业是富人的赌博游戏,跟美国穷人是没有关系的

      而能够提供大量就业的美国制造业则因为美国的企业里面ceo把持了一切,导致竞争力下降抵挡不住外国竞争对手的竞争而亏损裁员,甚至倒闭,现在美国的三大汽车制造企业的困境其实就是美国制造业的衰败的一个缩影,美国制造业竞争力的下降直接导致了美国穷人的生活水平的下降

       在制造业竞争力下降以后,美国人只好蜂拥涌入服务业当中,而服务业诸如零售,护理,餐饮等等这些行业的工资实际上很低,这导致了美国人生活水准的下降

       前一段时间,因为牛津词典当中对一个英文单词mcjob所进行的解释,导致麦当劳公司与牛津字典编辑者们的一场官司,麦当劳公司认为字典的编辑者们把该词语解释为低收入的繁重的没有前途的工作是对麦当劳公司以及对麦当劳员工的侮辱---这个事件至少从一个侧面反映了美国餐饮服务业的窘境,不管是麦当劳公司赢了还是对方赢了(如果餐饮服务业在美国真的是那么好的话,牛津字典也犯不着冒得罪麦当劳公司的风险而对该词语做出那样的解释)

    • 家园 算上减肥的绝对不止
    • 家园 这得看“吃饱”的具体定义吧,营养标准肯定不一样咯
      • 家园 吃不饱的定义全世界都差不多

        吃不饱的意思就是没有能力吃饱,或者说没有足够的经济手段来获得足够的食物,自己吃完了感觉自己还应该要吃更多---这是由人的胃部神经向人体的大脑所发生的一种不满足的信号,外界是很难检测到这样的神经信号,但是每个人自己都可以感受到的

        美国农业部的报告上说得很明白了,因为经济困境,而没有办法吃到足够食物的人有三千五百多万

      • 家园 何不亲自去看看报告呢。关于报告里的词汇,很“和谐”的

        ??? = 小康家庭?

        Food-secure households = 温饱家庭?

        Households with low food security = 贫困家庭?

        Households with very low food security = ???

        好像我译的都不是太好?哪位指正一下?

        • 家园 好像根据定义

          Low food security:指食物的量是足的,但是质不足。

          Very low food security:食物的量也保证不了。

          • 家园 人家说得很准确

            Low food security

            Reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake(食品摄入量还是可能轻微减少的)

            调查表中,此类人群的80%符合情况2:food bought did not last and they did not have money to get more.

            Very low food security

            Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake (食品摄入量确实是减少了)

            符合情况2 的此类美国人占总人数的96%

          • 家园 可不是。量保证不了不就是挨饿吗?直接定义成饥饿不成了吗?

            弄一个 "very low food sercurity" ,还不是追求和谐嘛。

            • 家园 政治斗争的小花招罢了

              Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry

              By Elizabeth Williamson

              Washington Post Staff Writer

              Thursday, November 16, 2006; Page A01

              The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."

              Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.

              Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."

              The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group.

              The United States has set a goal of reducing the proportion of food-insecure households to 6 percent or less by 2010, or half the 1995 level, but it is proving difficult. The number of hungriest Americans has risen over the past five years. Last year, the total share of food-insecure households stood at 11 percent.

              Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound."

              Among several recommendations, the panel suggested that the USDA scrap the word hunger, which "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."

              To measure hunger, the USDA determined, the government would have to ask individual people whether "lack of eating led to these more severe conditions," as opposed to asking who can afford to keep food in the house, Nord said.

              It is not likely that USDA economists will tackle measuring individual hunger. "Hunger is clearly an important issue," Nord said. "But lacking a widespread consensus on what the word 'hunger' should refer to, it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it."

              Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. "The proposal to remove the word 'hunger' from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families," said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. "We . . . cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens."

              In assembling its report, the USDA divides Americans into groups with "food security" and those with "food insecurity," who cannot always afford to keep food on the table. Under the old lexicon, that group -- 11 percent of American households last year -- was categorized into "food insecurity without hunger," meaning people who ate, though sometimes not well, and "food insecurity with hunger," for those who sometimes had no food.

              That last group now forms the category "very low food security," described as experiencing "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake." Slightly better-off people who aren't always sure where their next meal is coming from are labeled "low food security."

              That 35 million people in this wealthy nation feel insecure about their next meal can be hard to believe, even in the highest circles. In 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then running for president, said he thought the annual USDA report -- which consistently finds his home state one of the hungriest in the nation -- was fabricated.

              "I'm sure there are some people in my state who are hungry," Bush said. "I don't believe 5 percent are hungry."

              Bush said he believed that the statistics were aimed at his candidacy. "Yeah, I'm surprised a report floats out of Washington when I'm running a presidential campaign," he said.

              The agency usually releases the report in the fall, for reasons that "have nothing to do with politics," Nord said.

              This year, when the report failed to appear in October as it usually does, Democrats accused the Bush administration of delaying its release until after the midterm elections. Nord denied the contention, saying, "This is a schedule that was set several months ago."

              ---故意用学术性词语让别人看不懂

    • 家园 还是搞民科吧

      这种话题是文科生的专长。

分页树展主题 · 全看首页 上页
/ 1
下页 末页


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河