$67 a week

LA Times feature on a couple eating on $67/week (this is apparently the food stamp allowance for a family of 2).

I hated the author's pretention. Especially the part about his huge brother who couldn't do less than $100/wk on his own. There was an attitude of this experiment as just that--an experiment, without even a hint of introspection or revelation that there are actually poor people for whom this is actually a reality. In fact, people are trying to feed more than 2 mouths on not much more than $70/week. And they don't have Costco nearby, let alone a 99 Ranch Market or a fresh farmer's market.

We live in barren frigid Pittsburgh, where oranges literally cost $1 each, apples are $2/lb, cauliflower is often >$4/head, and a bundle of green onions is easily $1.79. And we've been successfully eating (and eating whole, nutritious, delicious meals) for ~$60/week. Honestly, in Southern California, where produce is cheap, fresh and abundant, and supermarket prices are held at reasonable prices due to the number and variety of market chains, I can't imagine it being completely impossible. Especially for people living in the type of community in which the author and his partner live.

In many underserved communities, people are largely poor, and neighborhoods are plagued with violence and vacancy. Supermarkets and farmer's marts don't really flock to these areas; in fact, many impoverished neighborhoods don't have a grocery store. They have liquor stores, and perhaps a food pantry stocked with canned/frozen foods and some rotting produce that isn't cheap or abundant. They have unreliable public transportation. People in these communities have to take that $70 per week in food stamps and attempt to build nutritious, balanced meals out of very little.

These people are not benefited by a somewhat lighthearted article written as a response to a fun social experiment that some pretentious writer decided to undertake.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.