Oh yes I forgot bidding out contracts to multiple suppliers that are private companies is … Communism?
It’s literally a failing of capitalism (cheapest bidder usually wins the contract) that the lunches aren’t better. Be mad about it if you want to, we all should be, there are absolutely problems with school lunches in many districts.
Now you could talk about how there isn’t a lot of competition and there are monopolies like Sysco in the food service industry, but still the suppliers for school lunches are privately owned companies in the USA.
Dude … Yeah the customer is the school and the decision is to go with a lower bidder, usually. It depends on the factors the customer, in this case a school system, wants to prioritize and any rules and regulations around it.
You’re just playing at semantics at this point.
Like it or not this is a private market we’re talking about. Also, I’d challenge the notion that private schools automatically have better cafeterias than public ones. It very much depends on school funding and what they can budget for.
Most educators would prefer better school lunches but the money has to come from somewhere and the way we find schools in the USA by using mostly property taxes, in most states, really causes a lot of inequality. So there is a give and take, like everything else.
At the end of the day a lot of the guidelines boil down to x calories consisting of something that has XYZ nutrients (vitamins/minerals). Whether that’s a slice of nutra-loaf or an actual meal is up to who is implementing the guidelines and the money they have.
“The school” is still the customer. They are staffing the cafeteria and paying it with their money. If they don’t achieve expectations they are fired or their contract isn’t renewed and “the school” pays someone else to do the job.
Oh yes I forgot bidding out contracts to multiple suppliers that are private companies is … Communism?
It’s literally a failing of capitalism (cheapest bidder usually wins the contract) that the lunches aren’t better. Be mad about it if you want to, we all should be, there are absolutely problems with school lunches in many districts.
Now you could talk about how there isn’t a lot of competition and there are monopolies like Sysco in the food service industry, but still the suppliers for school lunches are privately owned companies in the USA.
When the bidding process is “whoever goes lower”, there’s no customer decision making. That’s not capitalism. That’s a simple rule.
Dude … Yeah the customer is the school and the decision is to go with a lower bidder, usually. It depends on the factors the customer, in this case a school system, wants to prioritize and any rules and regulations around it.
You’re just playing at semantics at this point.
Like it or not this is a private market we’re talking about. Also, I’d challenge the notion that private schools automatically have better cafeterias than public ones. It very much depends on school funding and what they can budget for.
Most educators would prefer better school lunches but the money has to come from somewhere and the way we find schools in the USA by using mostly property taxes, in most states, really causes a lot of inequality. So there is a give and take, like everything else.
At the end of the day a lot of the guidelines boil down to x calories consisting of something that has XYZ nutrients (vitamins/minerals). Whether that’s a slice of nutra-loaf or an actual meal is up to who is implementing the guidelines and the money they have.
“the school” isn’t eating the food.
Alright well now you’re just trolling or maybe you were all along. Or you’re honestly that dumb.
“The school” is still the customer. They are staffing the cafeteria and paying it with their money. If they don’t achieve expectations they are fired or their contract isn’t renewed and “the school” pays someone else to do the job.
Like it or not. This is still capitalism.
“The school” is deciding for the children. Authority choosing for me is communism.