The Paleo Diet = Rich White People Diet?

I take home about $1500 per month. After rent, hydro, food and phone bills I have money left over. I am rich.

I’m white and of a lower income, but I’m still in school.

However, concerning the topic, I heard this criticism once before, and it remains as vapid then as it does now. There is a lot of legitimate science to show Paleolithic style diets are healthier than the average American diet. Just because non-whites either can’t afford to eat this way or refuse to do it doesn’t make it any less valid.

Student. I eat a lot of food at my parents house but when I cook for myself I buy British pork mine or pork shoulder/belly pork with vegetables like broccoli, leeks and celeriac. It comes up about £6 a day in food costs, which isn't bad.

White, 180k range (combined), far from affluence. I can definitely see the association with "wealth" if you are buying all organic produce, grassfed/pastured meat/eggs and raw dairy; that can get kind of pricey (depending on location). You don't have to be rich but it would definitely help! Pay now or pay later...

[QUOTE=Owly;1017789]I'm guessing Lower Mainland or the Island?[/QUOTE]

Born and raised :)

[QUOTE=magicmerl;1017805]'Rich' is 50K more than you currently make.
'Comfortable' is 10K more than you currently make.
'not enough' or 'just enough' is what you currently make.[/QUOTE]Meh, for me "rich" is not about an income number, it's a [I]net worth[/I] level high enough to generate enough [I]passive[/I] income to supply all my needs at a modest consumption level. Given my current level of material consumption "rich" would be in the $800K-$1.2M range of income-generating assets.

If you have to work to eat, you are not rich.

Wealth ceased to correlate with income during the recent house price boom.

I'm feeling that buying power is quite different here in NZ, our 'price of living' is probably quite different to those in the US.

Although I fit into the upper income level on the poll, I'd not say that I'm rich at all, we know plenty of people who earn well over our income and some of them I'd call rich but not all. Very well off, is how I'd describe it.

Also, not sure how I fit into the 'white' profile either. Genetically I'm not white (or Pakeha as we call it here in NZ), but physically I look white - so does that make me white by default? My mum is Maori but I take after my Dad with green eyes, pale skin and blonde hair. My husband is Maori (and looks it) but has a white Dad, so does that make him more Pakeha than Maori? No idea what that makes our kids! When we fill out forms I always tick 'other' and write in New Zealander, saves hassles.

I didn't notice any jump in our grocery bill when I switched to primal eating, although so far I'm the only one out of the four of us to do so. I probably spent more than average on food anyway because I didn't do processed crap even before Primal, and I'll always choose a more expensive item if it is what I consider better for me over a cheaper not so good for me item. My generous income allows me to make these choices.

[quote]Also, not sure how I fit into the 'white' profile either.[/quote]

Just to state the obvious...

"White" in the US is a way to say "lacking diversity" in a pejorative way, with a nuance of "sheltered" or perhaps "unfairly empowered". In other words, it's a way to say that something isn't meaningful because the type of people associated with it are homogenous (with the implication that they must exclude others to become homogenous) and have a narrow viewpoint that comes from isolated existence in a position of privilege. It has racial connotations but it also borrows from "white bread", as in, "she's so white bread...."

Asking for "genetic" race misses the point of the insult. The question is, Are you enjoying an unearned advantage over your fellow humans based on something superficial (such as the color of your skin)? Because if you are your views are less meaningful. Or perhaps it is, Can I dismiss you by claiming you enjoy an unearned advantage? Because if I can that may be socially beneficial within my clique.

What's your answer now? :)

[QUOTE=Uncephalized;1018486]Meh, for me "rich" is not about an income number, it's a [I]net worth[/I] level high enough to generate enough [I]passive[/I] income to supply all my needs at a modest consumption level. Given my current level of material consumption "rich" would be in the $800K-$1.2M range of income-generating assets.

If you have to work to eat, you are not rich.[/QUOTE]
Given that definition then only people who can retire are rich. I don't think that's most people's definition of the word.

Here's an alternative:
Rich = spending $5 less than you make
Poor = spending $5 more than you make