5 ms·

'Slash' is a loaded word in the headline. Food-stamp benefits increased during the pandemic to help people get by, but now that unemployment is so low, and the

by eggy 4y ago

'Slash' is a loaded word in the headline. Food-stamp benefits increased during the pandemic to help people get by, but now that unemployment is so low, and the pandemic is pretty much done, why shouldn't they cut them back? Unemployment is being touted as being the lowest since 1969. This seems fair to me. I grew up at and below the poverty line in Brooklyn, and my Dad would not apply for them. He had the old world tough it out and do anything to support the family creed. There were people in our neighborhood who would buy someone else's groceries to swap them for beer and cigarettes. I even shined shoes when I was 8, but that was my idea. I asked for a copper colored metal shoeshine kit for Christmas. Suits would see an 8-year old shining shoes and tip me big! I bought my first telescope at a fire sale at a hobby shop from my earnings at 9.

zht 4y ago
How much more does stuff now than when benefits were increased? What was the median single family home price ratio to median minimum wage annual income when you were growing up?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  SNAP is inflation-adjusted annually: benefits increased 12.5% for 2023 for example. The income levels for eligibility are also inflation-indexed.
superkuh 4y ago
I guess you didn't read the article the linked to the study showing most working age adults on EBT actually have jobs. Those jobs just don't pay enough to survive (ie, food+rent). That's a relatively new trend that didn't exist back during your formative years. Anyway, it is a slash because the economic ramifications of the pandemic haven't ended. Food prices spiked dramatically because of it and have not gone down. They are continuing to go up. It's unfortunate that people who suffered generally want other people to have to suffer like they did. What you're describing is not a happy, uplifting story of bootstraps. 8 year olds having jobs is sad.
- ghiculescu 4y ago
  OP said shining shoes was their idea, and the money was used to buy something cool. Presumably not every family could afford a telescope. I think 8 year olds finding ways to make pocket money is awesome, not sad. (8 year olds needing to work to provide for their themselves or family is, of course, sad.)
  - superkuh 4y ago
    OP brought it up in a thread explicitly about EBT. It's extremely clear what he was trying to say. If he was just talking about pocket money then what was the point in bringing it up?
    - ghiculescu 4y ago
      Because it gives context to OP’s worldview, and opinions presented in the first two paragraphs.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Giving working people money ultimately subsidizes shitty employers and landlords making it more likely that low income employed people will need to get government assistance. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it and other things as well, but such programs have other consequences. I’m a fan of the opposite angle, using zoning laws to force the construction of large amounts of high density large apartments and then heavily taxing vacancies, think 4br 2k sq ft. (No empty buildings, no new construction made off entirely studios and 1br, ever shrinking). A glut of high rent properties to drive the prices of everything else down, and a reason for people with money not to run to the suburbs and keep income diversity in cities.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > Giving working people money [...] making it more likely that low income employed people will need to get government assistance. Getting the government to give people money makes it more likely that people will get money from the government. Who would have thunk?
hobs 4y ago
Fair in relation to some arbitrary standard of survival we set before? Fair to whom exactly?
pessimizer 4y ago
> Unemployment is being touted as being the lowest since 1969. This seems fair to me. I'd second the request for the thought process behind this judgement. We should have a worse safety net when the number of people who need it is lower?
- MBCook 4y ago
  We’re measuring a boolean aren’t we? You either have at least one job or you have no jobs. The fewest number of people who want jobs can‘t find one since 1969. That’s great. But that won’t tell us how useful the job is. If the job from 1969 paid 3x what a job today pays (after inflation) then a person working the same number of hours in a minimum wage job today may need assistance where the 1969 person didn’t. (3x was just an example BTW)
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    It's not like SNAP is going away: if unemployment is lower but people are working lower paying jobs, those people are going to qualify for SNAP on the same basis as prior to the pandemic.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  We had a massive increase in SNAP benefits that was in response to the pandemic and big spikes in unemployment. Unemployment is not obviously an issue now, and the pandemic has relatively little effect on most Americans day-to-day. I think what the poster was trying to get at was: if conditions have returned to status-quo, one would tend to think (all other things being equal) that a return to the SNAP status-quo would be reasonable. You can make the argument that the safety net ought to be better; but talking about a "hunger cliff" seems rather emotive.
  - eggy 4y ago
    Exactly this. Once a budget is increased for whatever reason, it is almost impossible to take it back to previous levels without a lot of effort. I didn't say abolish food stamps.
sys_64738 4y ago
> I grew up at and below the poverty line in Brooklyn, and my Dad would not apply for them. He had the old world tough it out and do anything to support the family creed. If you qualify for a benefit then it is in your best interests to maximize utilization of such. I certainly wouldn’t have any concerns.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  Same reason why I use every possible technique to lower my taxes as a wealthy person
  - 1letterunixname 4y ago
    The middle class is, sadly, ignorant of this gambit. The tax code is setup as a game of accumulated chicanery due to the regulatory capture of the political system by enormous centers of wealth. America isn't a good place to be anything but ultra rich. There are different strata of wealth: 1 car, 2 cars, 1 home, 2 homes, PA, 5 homes, ASW, 20 homes, and a personal wealth fund.
    - SauciestGNU 4y ago
      Your strata are a bit insulting to Pennsylvania, no?
  - eggy 4y ago
    I would too. You work for the money, and it is natural to want to hold on to it. I am arguing that I don't believe in gaming the system of taking government handouts, because I didn't earn it; I qualify because for some reason I could not earn enough to subsist. I want to work on my earning power for now and the future. I never said get rid of the food stamps. I am glad my Dad didn't have us go on food stamps. My brother and I are successful compared to our parents who never finished high school or owned a house. But it also taught us to be realistic with our money. I have acquaintances who complain about inflation on their second or third trip to Starbucks and they update their phone every year or two, because why, I don't know.
mc32 4y ago
Same. People back then went on stamps as the very last option after family, friends and community (including church) --then they'd go to get food stamps if they could muster the courage. I don't think that culture is widespread today. For good or bad, people have been conditioned to depend on others. Safety nets are of course good --but we also do not want to make society dependent upon them whether because adult jobs don't pay enough due to job exports, or unmitigated drug addition crisis or other. For psychological health, people need to have the opportunity to be self reliant.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  > For psychological health, people need to have the opportunity to be self reliant. Why does the noble level of "self reliance" always happen to be exactly where other people don't have to pay taxes directly to sustain others? Surely we should go further, and tear up municipal roads and utilities. People would feel so much more independent if they had to spread their own asphalt and wire their own substation. Realistically, there's a psychological value in dependency, particularly in understood dependency. If you have to think of yourself as beholden to others in some way, it incentivizes even the most self-centered of us to ramp up the civility and empathy.
  - mc32 4y ago
    It’s an innate force. People want to survive and excel on their own. Most mammals are competitive. Maybe we can extirpate that drive by creating a dependency on the state and sedating people via various means, probably, but it’s not our innate nature past infancy.
  - eggy 4y ago
    No, self-reliant people make enough income to pay taxes to have municipal roads made and this employs people to work for the municipality. A majority of toll roads were private in the 1790s on, and a lot were not subsidized by the government; they were capitalized by selling shares, however, people would 'shunpike' (go around to avoid paying the toll), so this cut into dividends. I believe in having empathy and civility without the notion of an IOU lingering over me, but from having principles and respect for my fellow human.
1letterunixname 4y ago
Sorry, but inflation has driven the prices of food up double digits. The people at the bottom get barely anything: $100-200/month depending, it can only be spent on certain items, in certain stores, and then they have to go through an ordeal every 6 months to a year that treats them like criminals. Compared to European countries, America is one of the worst places to be poor and most Americans don't realize how bad they have it. Taking away pennies from people who's inelastic needs would be seriously harmed by small cutbacks doesn't make sense when socialism for the rich delivers 200%+ net cash outflow. It's more than inhumane, it says "F U" to those who are living paycheck-to-paycheck or who are functionally disabled and cannot hold a job but don't qualify for SSDI. SSDI, in some cases, can take anywhere from 1 to 6 years to be resolved.
locopati 4y ago
Are wages equal to 1969 dollars adjusted to 2023 dollars and inflation? Somehow I doubt that very much.

by eggy 4y ago

zht 4y ago

How much more does stuff now than when benefits were increased? What was the median single family home price ratio to median minimum wage annual income when you were growing up?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
SNAP is inflation-adjusted annually: benefits increased 12.5% for 2023 for example. The income levels for eligibility are also inflation-indexed.

superkuh 4y ago

I guess you didn't read the article the linked to the study showing most working age adults on EBT actually have jobs. Those jobs just don't pay enough to survive (ie, food+rent). That's a relatively new trend that didn't exist back during your formative years. Anyway, it is a slash because the economic ramifications of the pandemic haven't ended. Food prices spiked dramatically because of it and have not gone down. They are continuing to go up. It's unfortunate that people who suffered generally want other people to have to suffer like they did. What you're describing is not a happy, uplifting story of bootstraps. 8 year olds having jobs is sad.

ghiculescu 4y ago
OP said shining shoes was their idea, and the money was used to buy something cool. Presumably not every family could afford a telescope. I think 8 year olds finding ways to make pocket money is awesome, not sad. (8 year olds needing to work to provide for their themselves or family is, of course, sad.)
- superkuh 4y ago
  OP brought it up in a thread explicitly about EBT. It's extremely clear what he was trying to say. If he was just talking about pocket money then what was the point in bringing it up?
  - ghiculescu 4y ago
    Because it gives context to OP’s worldview, and opinions presented in the first two paragraphs.
colechristensen 4y ago
Giving working people money ultimately subsidizes shitty employers and landlords making it more likely that low income employed people will need to get government assistance. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it and other things as well, but such programs have other consequences. I’m a fan of the opposite angle, using zoning laws to force the construction of large amounts of high density large apartments and then heavily taxing vacancies, think 4br 2k sq ft. (No empty buildings, no new construction made off entirely studios and 1br, ever shrinking). A glut of high rent properties to drive the prices of everything else down, and a reason for people with money not to run to the suburbs and keep income diversity in cities.
- gruez 4y ago
  > Giving working people money [...] making it more likely that low income employed people will need to get government assistance. Getting the government to give people money makes it more likely that people will get money from the government. Who would have thunk?

hobs 4y ago

Fair in relation to some arbitrary standard of survival we set before? Fair to whom exactly?

pessimizer 4y ago

> Unemployment is being touted as being the lowest since 1969. This seems fair to me. I'd second the request for the thought process behind this judgement. We should have a worse safety net when the number of people who need it is lower?

MBCook 4y ago
We’re measuring a boolean aren’t we? You either have at least one job or you have no jobs. The fewest number of people who want jobs can‘t find one since 1969. That’s great. But that won’t tell us how useful the job is. If the job from 1969 paid 3x what a job today pays (after inflation) then a person working the same number of hours in a minimum wage job today may need assistance where the 1969 person didn’t. (3x was just an example BTW)
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  It's not like SNAP is going away: if unemployment is lower but people are working lower paying jobs, those people are going to qualify for SNAP on the same basis as prior to the pandemic.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
We had a massive increase in SNAP benefits that was in response to the pandemic and big spikes in unemployment. Unemployment is not obviously an issue now, and the pandemic has relatively little effect on most Americans day-to-day. I think what the poster was trying to get at was: if conditions have returned to status-quo, one would tend to think (all other things being equal) that a return to the SNAP status-quo would be reasonable. You can make the argument that the safety net ought to be better; but talking about a "hunger cliff" seems rather emotive.
- eggy 4y ago
  Exactly this. Once a budget is increased for whatever reason, it is almost impossible to take it back to previous levels without a lot of effort. I didn't say abolish food stamps.

sys_64738 4y ago

> I grew up at and below the poverty line in Brooklyn, and my Dad would not apply for them. He had the old world tough it out and do anything to support the family creed. If you qualify for a benefit then it is in your best interests to maximize utilization of such. I certainly wouldn’t have any concerns.

monero-xmr 4y ago
Same reason why I use every possible technique to lower my taxes as a wealthy person
- 1letterunixname 4y ago
  The middle class is, sadly, ignorant of this gambit. The tax code is setup as a game of accumulated chicanery due to the regulatory capture of the political system by enormous centers of wealth. America isn't a good place to be anything but ultra rich. There are different strata of wealth: 1 car, 2 cars, 1 home, 2 homes, PA, 5 homes, ASW, 20 homes, and a personal wealth fund.
  - SauciestGNU 4y ago
    Your strata are a bit insulting to Pennsylvania, no?
- eggy 4y ago
  I would too. You work for the money, and it is natural to want to hold on to it. I am arguing that I don't believe in gaming the system of taking government handouts, because I didn't earn it; I qualify because for some reason I could not earn enough to subsist. I want to work on my earning power for now and the future. I never said get rid of the food stamps. I am glad my Dad didn't have us go on food stamps. My brother and I are successful compared to our parents who never finished high school or owned a house. But it also taught us to be realistic with our money. I have acquaintances who complain about inflation on their second or third trip to Starbucks and they update their phone every year or two, because why, I don't know.

mc32 4y ago

Same. People back then went on stamps as the very last option after family, friends and community (including church) --then they'd go to get food stamps if they could muster the courage. I don't think that culture is widespread today. For good or bad, people have been conditioned to depend on others. Safety nets are of course good --but we also do not want to make society dependent upon them whether because adult jobs don't pay enough due to job exports, or unmitigated drug addition crisis or other. For psychological health, people need to have the opportunity to be self reliant.

hakfoo 4y ago
> For psychological health, people need to have the opportunity to be self reliant. Why does the noble level of "self reliance" always happen to be exactly where other people don't have to pay taxes directly to sustain others? Surely we should go further, and tear up municipal roads and utilities. People would feel so much more independent if they had to spread their own asphalt and wire their own substation. Realistically, there's a psychological value in dependency, particularly in understood dependency. If you have to think of yourself as beholden to others in some way, it incentivizes even the most self-centered of us to ramp up the civility and empathy.
- mc32 4y ago
  It’s an innate force. People want to survive and excel on their own. Most mammals are competitive. Maybe we can extirpate that drive by creating a dependency on the state and sedating people via various means, probably, but it’s not our innate nature past infancy.
- eggy 4y ago
  No, self-reliant people make enough income to pay taxes to have municipal roads made and this employs people to work for the municipality. A majority of toll roads were private in the 1790s on, and a lot were not subsidized by the government; they were capitalized by selling shares, however, people would 'shunpike' (go around to avoid paying the toll), so this cut into dividends. I believe in having empathy and civility without the notion of an IOU lingering over me, but from having principles and respect for my fellow human.

1letterunixname 4y ago

Sorry, but inflation has driven the prices of food up double digits. The people at the bottom get barely anything: $100-200/month depending, it can only be spent on certain items, in certain stores, and then they have to go through an ordeal every 6 months to a year that treats them like criminals. Compared to European countries, America is one of the worst places to be poor and most Americans don't realize how bad they have it. Taking away pennies from people who's inelastic needs would be seriously harmed by small cutbacks doesn't make sense when socialism for the rich delivers 200%+ net cash outflow. It's more than inhumane, it says "F U" to those who are living paycheck-to-paycheck or who are functionally disabled and cannot hold a job but don't qualify for SSDI. SSDI, in some cases, can take anywhere from 1 to 6 years to be resolved.

locopati 4y ago

Are wages equal to 1969 dollars adjusted to 2023 dollars and inflation? Somehow I doubt that very much.