4 ms·

You are "quit writing software and went to Japan" poor. There is also the "working 2 jobs to feed 3 kids" sort of poor. These are completely different kinds o

by lxe 11y ago

You are "quit writing software and went to Japan" poor. There is also the "working 2 jobs to feed 3 kids" sort of poor. These are completely different kinds of "poor".

protomyth 11y ago
Rural or urban also makes a difference. My brother and I regard fish as "poor people's food", a thought brought on by experiences as youths. I should point out many poor people on EBT (new name for food stamps) do buy toilet paper in bulk once a month. I do wonder how many merchants raise some prices on the 1st of the month.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  This is exactly one of the problems with EBT. Knowing that all the state benefit income is fast approaching, businesses do everything they can to ensure they sell as much cheap Chinese-made goods, horribly unhealthy food products, and (cold) sandwiches (never hot, that's not something EBT covers) as they can. Every month this causes huge boom-bust cycles in neighborhoods and local businesses, which adds to the perpetual trauma state benefits have wreaked upon the disenfranchised poor that live in the US's major cities. But Coca-Cola, Nestle, Walmart and Kroger all get their predictable windfalls as a result. And people wonder why these companies are the primary supporters of EBT! It's because EBT is not a people subsidy, but rather a massive corporate subsidy that is also trapping our most vulnerable citizens into food desert wastelands. As "well intended" as these programs are, they are worse than doing nothing at all, as far as I can tell. I don't see how such massive and ruthless commodification of the poor could ever be achieved in private industry without government support and regulation to bolster it.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    What exactly do you suggest to fix the problem with EBT?
    - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
      Well one thing you can't do is take away the benefits. EBT and other kinds of state assistance have caused generations of people to become entrenched, and reliance upon this assistance is baked into much of the American culture. To remove it suddenly would be as cruel as it is to continue to perpetrate it among the masses today, knowing what we know. The exact solution is complicated. It would, on the one hand, involve grandfathering in all current entrenched users of state subsidies. On the other, we'd have to allow young people to opt out of any of these payroll taxes, and therefore not be eligible to receive these benefits. They would see a massive uptick in their take-home income, which they can spend as they wish instead of having to buy the cheap bullshit that EBT affords its users. With those extra dollars young consumers would have many more votes as to where their dollars go, and will have a greater ability to influence corporate behavior. Companies that peddle sugar-filled crap will have less of that predictable monthly revenue to depend upon, and therefore the prices for their food products will rise. This will begin making real food more attractive to EBT consumers, and will introduce actual competition into the market. The only reason that these multi-national food product corporations can make money on uninformed, unhealthy consumers is because the government props up these business models. This can be witnessed throughout the debate among many stakeholders - farming subsidies, environmental regulations, tariffs, and even our government's own horrible diet recommendations - there are so many bad actors here that no solution will be comprehensive. What I believe to be the most important of all the fixes that we need to derive, however, is the education factor. Because EBT exists, consumers are not driven to be educated. Until we give people a choice, they will never bother to lift a finger and educate themselves. All the well-meaning charities, after-school programs, and education facilities on the planet will not stop Coca-Cola from lobbying Congress. Even Michelle Obama's ridiculous nutrition program facilities the wrong message. (Look at how little abstinence from sugar is promoted by her, and how much exercise is promoted, as if kids have the ability to run 10 miles per day to work off the abhorrent amount of sugar in their breakfast cereals, let alone the rest of the sugary junk they consume on a daily basis.) The only way to get Congress to listen is to have the electorate realize just how fucked over they have been by their representatives who peddled the food product multi-nationals' prerogatives, and get MAD AS HELL about it.
    - jdietrich 11y ago
mikekchar 11y ago
I know it doesn't help the "working 2 jobs to feed 3 kids" people at all, but part of my lifestyle choice is not to have 3 kids. It's also not part of my lifestyle to have a partner who is demanding about having stuff. These are choices and sometimes they are choices that hurt (just like choosing not to eat even though I have money in the bank). I understand that there are people who are already in a situation where they are in trouble. That's pretty much my point. It doesn't matter if you have 3 kids and can't afford to feed them or if you have $20K in debt and can't make your payments. That's real poverty. Even without an income, I was never poor because I never had those responsibilities. I feel sad for people in those predicaments. Sometimes it comes through poor choices. Sometimes it comes from unfortunate circumstances that are outside of their control. It doesn't really matter, because you are where you are and there is nothing that will magically transport you to a better place. But you do have choices left in the future and I think it is worth considering the impact that money in the bank can have on your life.

by lxe 11y ago

You are "quit writing software and went to Japan" poor. There is also the "working 2 jobs to feed 3 kids" sort of poor. These are completely different kinds of "poor".

protomyth 11y ago

Rural or urban also makes a difference. My brother and I regard fish as "poor people's food", a thought brought on by experiences as youths. I should point out many poor people on EBT (new name for food stamps) do buy toilet paper in bulk once a month. I do wonder how many merchants raise some prices on the 1st of the month.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
This is exactly one of the problems with EBT. Knowing that all the state benefit income is fast approaching, businesses do everything they can to ensure they sell as much cheap Chinese-made goods, horribly unhealthy food products, and (cold) sandwiches (never hot, that's not something EBT covers) as they can. Every month this causes huge boom-bust cycles in neighborhoods and local businesses, which adds to the perpetual trauma state benefits have wreaked upon the disenfranchised poor that live in the US's major cities. But Coca-Cola, Nestle, Walmart and Kroger all get their predictable windfalls as a result. And people wonder why these companies are the primary supporters of EBT! It's because EBT is not a people subsidy, but rather a massive corporate subsidy that is also trapping our most vulnerable citizens into food desert wastelands. As "well intended" as these programs are, they are worse than doing nothing at all, as far as I can tell. I don't see how such massive and ruthless commodification of the poor could ever be achieved in private industry without government support and regulation to bolster it.
- protomyth 11y ago
  What exactly do you suggest to fix the problem with EBT?
  - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
    Well one thing you can't do is take away the benefits. EBT and other kinds of state assistance have caused generations of people to become entrenched, and reliance upon this assistance is baked into much of the American culture. To remove it suddenly would be as cruel as it is to continue to perpetrate it among the masses today, knowing what we know. The exact solution is complicated. It would, on the one hand, involve grandfathering in all current entrenched users of state subsidies. On the other, we'd have to allow young people to opt out of any of these payroll taxes, and therefore not be eligible to receive these benefits. They would see a massive uptick in their take-home income, which they can spend as they wish instead of having to buy the cheap bullshit that EBT affords its users. With those extra dollars young consumers would have many more votes as to where their dollars go, and will have a greater ability to influence corporate behavior. Companies that peddle sugar-filled crap will have less of that predictable monthly revenue to depend upon, and therefore the prices for their food products will rise. This will begin making real food more attractive to EBT consumers, and will introduce actual competition into the market. The only reason that these multi-national food product corporations can make money on uninformed, unhealthy consumers is because the government props up these business models. This can be witnessed throughout the debate among many stakeholders - farming subsidies, environmental regulations, tariffs, and even our government's own horrible diet recommendations - there are so many bad actors here that no solution will be comprehensive. What I believe to be the most important of all the fixes that we need to derive, however, is the education factor. Because EBT exists, consumers are not driven to be educated. Until we give people a choice, they will never bother to lift a finger and educate themselves. All the well-meaning charities, after-school programs, and education facilities on the planet will not stop Coca-Cola from lobbying Congress. Even Michelle Obama's ridiculous nutrition program facilities the wrong message. (Look at how little abstinence from sugar is promoted by her, and how much exercise is promoted, as if kids have the ability to run 10 miles per day to work off the abhorrent amount of sugar in their breakfast cereals, let alone the rest of the sugary junk they consume on a daily basis.) The only way to get Congress to listen is to have the electorate realize just how fucked over they have been by their representatives who peddled the food product multi-nationals' prerogatives, and get MAD AS HELL about it.
  - jdietrich 11y ago

mikekchar 11y ago

I know it doesn't help the "working 2 jobs to feed 3 kids" people at all, but part of my lifestyle choice is not to have 3 kids. It's also not part of my lifestyle to have a partner who is demanding about having stuff. These are choices and sometimes they are choices that hurt (just like choosing not to eat even though I have money in the bank). I understand that there are people who are already in a situation where they are in trouble. That's pretty much my point. It doesn't matter if you have 3 kids and can't afford to feed them or if you have $20K in debt and can't make your payments. That's real poverty. Even without an income, I was never poor because I never had those responsibilities. I feel sad for people in those predicaments. Sometimes it comes through poor choices. Sometimes it comes from unfortunate circumstances that are outside of their control. It doesn't really matter, because you are where you are and there is nothing that will magically transport you to a better place. But you do have choices left in the future and I think it is worth considering the impact that money in the bank can have on your life.