I mean, there's a lot of reasons they might have been stealing food. To presume it must have been because they were so poor and not because they had delicious smelling food in their car and a near-guarantee that theft wouldn't be noticed is, imo, disingenuous
To say that the only reason someone steals food is for hunger is to say that nobody has ever stolen food for any reason other than hunger. Otherwise, there would necessarily be multiple reasons to steal food. I don't think that could possibly be true.
This is such a wildly incorrect interpretation of what I said. After re-reading my original comment I'm honestly confused as to how you arrived at the conclusion you did (that I was attempting to justify theft).
I wasn't saying they should be stealing. The only thing I was saying was that there is more than one reason to steal food. If anything, I was arguing against theft (but in the moment, I was just responding to GP).
Many of the restaurants had to repackage their food in such a way that it could be sealed so that they could deny claims for theft.
That's not the sign of well-paid employees.