4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWe’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 agoIt'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 agoWe 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 agoExactly 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.