6 ms·

Although my first reaction was "ugh...", this kind of makes sense. There's probably a lot of people on SNAP benefits who have family commitments and time const

Although my first reaction was "ugh...", this kind of makes sense. There's probably a lot of people on SNAP benefits who have family commitments and time constraints where they need someone to deliver food. Just because your on SNAP doesn't mean you should be a 2nd class citizen. Of course, those who hate any type of government aid will have a field day with this. Such is political discourse today.

bombcar 3y ago
Free and low cost delivery has been a godsend for the fixed income mobility impaired, and should be encouraged. Large companies vacuuming up government benefits is an issue that needs to be examined and watchdogged.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Large companies vacuuming up government benefits is an issue that needs to be examined and watchdogged. Are you equally upset at Walmart or Safeway "vacuuming up government benefits"?
  - bombcar 3y ago
    When they're providing the desired result (food) for a reasonable sum, it's most likely fine. After all, if Walmart charged SNAP cards more for bread or whatever, we should be up in arms.
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  Its not free nor is it low cost. The bill is paid by the taxpayer and costs are very high hence why food delivery is correctly perceived as a luxury. Large companies vacuuming up benefits is the rule not exception hence why its a bad idea to create blank check situations. To give an example many of you may* sympathise with, look at military contracts. Its structured as costs plus so these contractors are incentived to increase the costs to increase their profit. This would be upside down in a free market where your heavily incentived to decrease costs. P.S. "fixed income mobility impaired" Sirs you have outdone yourselves with the euphemisms this time.
mrits 3y ago
I'd be ok with instacart.
friendzis 3y ago
I think the core of the issue is "level of luxury", for lack of better phrase. In the spectrum of "richness" (not to equate with income) people range between "cannot afford proper food" and "can afford anything". The debate centers around where on that scale you put "needs government assistance" and "food deliveries". If you put the former above the latter, then it sounds merely as discretionary expenditure. However, if you put the latter above the former, then this becomes "luxury on government money". Essentially "are food deliveries to be considered luxury, beyond the level of government assistance?". This type of debate pops up quite often when attributable public expenditure is considered.
- ghaff 3y ago
  The thing is you can use Uber Eats because it’s generally very expensive/time-consuming/otherwise arduous to get to a grocery store once a week. Or you can use Uber Eats because it’s easier than getting off the couch. Can’t really distinguish between the two use cases.
pc_edwin 3y ago
No they should be 3rd class citizens. We live in the most wealthiest nation in the world. You have illegal aliens coming here with no wealth and no access to welfare who manage to not only survive but also send money back to their families. Giving people with crippling financial education/management problems and worse access to luxuries via welfare checks is to put it politely (so that señor Dang wont ban-ish me) very silly. Its like giving free clean needles to addicts (oh wait), you're explicitly enabling and implicitly encouraging their dysfunction. I'm not a huge fan of welfare in its current form but if we are gonna do this and by this I mean steal money from the best capital allocators in society and give it to those that can't help themselves, at the very least it should come with a lot strings attached: 1. Heavily discourage dysfunction with penalties. 2. Heavily encourage KPIs such as reduced discretionary spending and improved efficiency. I can dive deeper into what would strings look like here but I think you guys get the gist of it. Giving checks to these people without any strings, is in my opinion the worst of both worlds. You're giving them just enough comfort to continue suffering in their current station in life.
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  P.S. If you don't think instant fast-food/grocery delivery is not a luxury, to put it politely (I really don't want to) I'm of the respectful* opinion that you might wrong here. Also if you think these people who are on welfare are mostly normal hard working expedient enterprising people who just happened to get a bad hand. Again I have politely* with all due respect* disagree. I grew up around poor people all my life, in India, in the UK and finally America. Almost always its their own doing. Almost always its people who can't help themselves. This is not usual false virtue signalling privilege checking either, when I say grew up around I mean family, neighbours, friends. People I lived with, people I grew up with and hanged around with. Its always either people who fall under these categories or people who have never interacted with the former that come up with these postmodern notions and utopian solutions.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    > Almost always its people who can't help themselves. Well then maybe they need help from someone else.
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
If there are mobility/disability considerations, then I agree that provisions for that make sense. Otherwise, the whole point of SNAP is for the funds to go exactly where it's needed and nowhere else: feeding people. Some may argue that having the food come to you instead of going to the food is a separate service and outside of its scope.
kazinator 3y ago
The whole idea behind food stamps, in the first place, is that poor people are irresponsible ragamuffins who cannot be trusted with actual money. Stamps are a form of money with embarrassing use restrictions attached. If you accept that it's okay to give people this kind benefit, then you have to accept the debatability of the question of whether food delivery is in scope of that benefit or not. I'm on the side of giving people a benefit without the condescending dictation of how it may be used, like whether for food delivery or not. Therefore, logically, I must be in favor of giving them actual money. If they buy cigarettes instead of baby formula, that's their decision.

bombcar 3y ago

Free and low cost delivery has been a godsend for the fixed income mobility impaired, and should be encouraged. Large companies vacuuming up government benefits is an issue that needs to be examined and watchdogged.

gruez 3y ago
>Large companies vacuuming up government benefits is an issue that needs to be examined and watchdogged. Are you equally upset at Walmart or Safeway "vacuuming up government benefits"?
- bombcar 3y ago
  When they're providing the desired result (food) for a reasonable sum, it's most likely fine. After all, if Walmart charged SNAP cards more for bread or whatever, we should be up in arms.
pc_edwin 3y ago
Its not free nor is it low cost. The bill is paid by the taxpayer and costs are very high hence why food delivery is correctly perceived as a luxury. Large companies vacuuming up benefits is the rule not exception hence why its a bad idea to create blank check situations. To give an example many of you may* sympathise with, look at military contracts. Its structured as costs plus so these contractors are incentived to increase the costs to increase their profit. This would be upside down in a free market where your heavily incentived to decrease costs. P.S. "fixed income mobility impaired" Sirs you have outdone yourselves with the euphemisms this time.

mrits 3y ago

I'd be ok with instacart.

friendzis 3y ago

I think the core of the issue is "level of luxury", for lack of better phrase. In the spectrum of "richness" (not to equate with income) people range between "cannot afford proper food" and "can afford anything". The debate centers around where on that scale you put "needs government assistance" and "food deliveries". If you put the former above the latter, then it sounds merely as discretionary expenditure. However, if you put the latter above the former, then this becomes "luxury on government money". Essentially "are food deliveries to be considered luxury, beyond the level of government assistance?". This type of debate pops up quite often when attributable public expenditure is considered.

ghaff 3y ago
The thing is you can use Uber Eats because it’s generally very expensive/time-consuming/otherwise arduous to get to a grocery store once a week. Or you can use Uber Eats because it’s easier than getting off the couch. Can’t really distinguish between the two use cases.

pc_edwin 3y ago

No they should be 3rd class citizens. We live in the most wealthiest nation in the world. You have illegal aliens coming here with no wealth and no access to welfare who manage to not only survive but also send money back to their families. Giving people with crippling financial education/management problems and worse access to luxuries via welfare checks is to put it politely (so that señor Dang wont ban-ish me) very silly. Its like giving free clean needles to addicts (oh wait), you're explicitly enabling and implicitly encouraging their dysfunction. I'm not a huge fan of welfare in its current form but if we are gonna do this and by this I mean steal money from the best capital allocators in society and give it to those that can't help themselves, at the very least it should come with a lot strings attached: 1. Heavily discourage dysfunction with penalties. 2. Heavily encourage KPIs such as reduced discretionary spending and improved efficiency. I can dive deeper into what would strings look like here but I think you guys get the gist of it. Giving checks to these people without any strings, is in my opinion the worst of both worlds. You're giving them just enough comfort to continue suffering in their current station in life.

pc_edwin 3y ago
P.S. If you don't think instant fast-food/grocery delivery is not a luxury, to put it politely (I really don't want to) I'm of the respectful* opinion that you might wrong here. Also if you think these people who are on welfare are mostly normal hard working expedient enterprising people who just happened to get a bad hand. Again I have politely* with all due respect* disagree. I grew up around poor people all my life, in India, in the UK and finally America. Almost always its their own doing. Almost always its people who can't help themselves. This is not usual false virtue signalling privilege checking either, when I say grew up around I mean family, neighbours, friends. People I lived with, people I grew up with and hanged around with. Its always either people who fall under these categories or people who have never interacted with the former that come up with these postmodern notions and utopian solutions.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  > Almost always its people who can't help themselves. Well then maybe they need help from someone else.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago

If there are mobility/disability considerations, then I agree that provisions for that make sense. Otherwise, the whole point of SNAP is for the funds to go exactly where it's needed and nowhere else: feeding people. Some may argue that having the food come to you instead of going to the food is a separate service and outside of its scope.

kazinator 3y ago

The whole idea behind food stamps, in the first place, is that poor people are irresponsible ragamuffins who cannot be trusted with actual money. Stamps are a form of money with embarrassing use restrictions attached. If you accept that it's okay to give people this kind benefit, then you have to accept the debatability of the question of whether food delivery is in scope of that benefit or not. I'm on the side of giving people a benefit without the condescending dictation of how it may be used, like whether for food delivery or not. Therefore, logically, I must be in favor of giving them actual money. If they buy cigarettes instead of baby formula, that's their decision.