on twinkies

    Apparently, twinkies are a multi-faceted issue.  Who knew?
There are  sub-issues that came up today with the announcement of Hostess filing for "bankruptcy" protection.

1) The value of their product. 
     a)Part of why they're struggling is that they are selling less.  As people get more educated about food, they don't want to eat trans-fats (that change the structure of your brain!), large amounts of sugar, (simple sugars are hard on your blood vessels and insulin levels), or the various chemical agents used to preserve foods.  This is a good thing.  That alone, doesn't negate them the "right" to restructure, but it does make me hope that unless they totally change their product profile, that the restructure won't work. 
     This statement on my wall brought all kinds of FB fury down on me about the issue.  I credit most people for not making it personal, but the ones who did take it personally, it was because of this angle.  (Love ya friends, but not likely to change to my opinion.  Nor are you likely to change yours.)  Yes, I would still have the same thoughts is if it was my beloved Diet Mountain Dew under the axe, because artificial sweeteners, excess phosphorous,etc. are almost equally horrid.  (I *do* plan to ditch soda entirely, within the next year)
     b) Some argued for the nostalgic value of the product, it's place in our culture.  I understand this, but feel it underscores part of why our nation has "food issues."

2)  Should businesses be able to file for bankruptcy more often than individuals?
     Some thought that corporate and individual protections should be the same.  Some thought it was okay that corporations had some "extra give".  Some thought individuals should have more protections.  My dear husband said, "just let corporations fail, and figure it out.  It worked for the steel industry."   Given I have friends ranging for "occupy" activists to "tea-party", this does not surprise me.
      Personally, I'd like to see the money spent on "protecting the corporations" to "protect jobs" be reallocated somehow to train the workforce for new jobs that have higher demand.  There are still fields that have chronic worker shortages.  How?  Good question.

3) Who's paying for it?  The consumers.  The expenses of the restructure to the company will be recouped from the sale of their products at higher prices.  The decline in mental/physical health will be paid for through the consumer with higher medical insurance and fees.  The legal expenses of the court system that exceeds what the corporations are charged will be paid through our taxes.
    It's true if they failed, we'd be paying up to six months unemployment for the workers who were laid off, maybe some medicaid too.  That's hundreds of thousands, but the cost of helping them succeed is millions + quality of life.
And even I, was willing to shrug that off once, the first time.  Now the second time in not so long, I have an opinion.  My kids plates reflect that.