4 ms·

You sound like my Republican parents. They turned down food stamps when I was an infant, purely due to pride. That, and my dad wasn't even getting paid regular

You sound like my Republican parents. They turned down food stamps when I was an infant, purely due to pride. That, and my dad wasn't even getting paid regularly by his employer. They were living on $10000/yr back in '82. But "It made them better people". addendum: I should also add that when I was born in '81, I required craniofacial surgery to the cost of $18000. They were required to make payments on this, to avoid garnishment.

jebblue 14y ago
Your parents and the OP are wise.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  I'm taking handouts for my education. I'm also on foodstamps to make sure I can eat healthy foods as I learn. When I am done with my educational program (draftsman, and then mechanical engineering), I will be able to support myself and others via taxes. I am seeking to better myself so I can be a productive member of US society. Is what I am doing wrong?
  - genwin 14y ago
    It's not wrong. Yet if the handouts and food stamps weren't available you can bet your education would cost less. Free stuff enables you and others to pay more, which promotes inflation. In the same vein, easily procurable student loans have made tuition soar.
    - ryanac 14y ago
      Yes it might "cost less", but I wonder, he also gets food stamps, do you think (in this case) less would some how be affordable for him? In reality without the handout tuition might cost less, but he still wouldn't be able to afford it and now he would have no alternatives to getting an education when he's clearly motivated. Interested in any thoughts on this.
      - Jach 14y ago
        Suppose you're right, that even with lowered tuition other factors don't go down enough for many people to afford it. This means they don't go to college, this doesn't mean they don't get an education, especially if they're already motivated to learn, and especially in the US where even the homeless can get free access to the internet if they really need it. In your scenario, if the job market continues its insistence on Bachelor's degrees they will find a quickly shortening supply and will have to loosen up that requirement to stay competitive. As a compromise I'd support giving every US citizen a free netbook and rolling out free public wifi that only routes to a subset of the internet with each site hand-approved (or with a sufficiently clever algorithm from Google or someone else) to be "of public utility for learning" rather than entertainment. No facebook, no porn, no games, and education sites will have to host their own videos instead of using youtube (or an education-only youtube clone can appear), at least if they want the free users to see it. If you want the full internet, pay for it, which we already do. (Very inexpensive all things considered.)
      - genwin 14y ago
        Good question. The existence of food stamps probably makes the tuition more affordable. Before student loans, tuition was affordable on a minimum-wage job. Houses were far more affordable before easy mortgage loans created a housing bubble. There's lots of evidence that easy money of all types causes inflation. But the food stamps cause food inflation more than they do tuition inflation, so they're likely a net benefit in this case.
        TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        "Before student loans, tuition was affordable on a minimum-wage job." That sounds right with what my mother and other relatives say about the old days. She told me; 35 years ago she could go to a university during fall and spring. If she then worked a job or 2 during summer, she could have it paid all off. If she got a campus job as well, she could have had spending money to boot.
        genwin 14y ago
  - jebblue 14y ago
    If you're on foodstamps then it's because you don't have the ability to work, right? Or are you saying you're healthy and able to work but you're on them?
    - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
      That is partially true. I am unemployed at this time. I have tried plenty times to gain work I can excel in, and still look/apply. Also, due to lack of 'provable education', I can only get jobs that require manual labor (or thereabouts). Also 4 years ago, I shattered my shoulder and have a permanent injury (it is obvious in the way my arm moves). I was let go recently from a gas station after not being able to repetitively reach across the register. I have applied for SS disability and medicaid. I was denied for both. I do have my schooling paid for via Vocational Rehabilitation (govt agency that acknowledges permanent physical disability), as well as FAFSA. That is the route I am going, so I can do something as a respectful citizen.
Retric 14y ago
10k per year is only 'poor' in the US replace that with 1,000$ in 2012 dollars per year and you might have an idea where India considers the poverty line.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Is that adjusted for the different costs of living between the two countries?
  - Retric 14y ago
    Yes, basically, the only economic exchange at that point is bulk cheap food and that's at close to the same exchange rates. The real differences is how it's almost hard to be that poor in the US, even though so many people are that poor in India. PS: There are places where houses sell for less than 1,000$ in the US.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Basic food costs, which is most of what we're talking about, don't actually vary that much (if anything, they tend to be cheaper in the developed world due to subsidies). It's true that Indian poor pay much less in rent and clothing. But food makes up the bulk of what they have to buy each day, and they don't get a meaningful discount (beyond assistance programs like the one described in the linked article).
    - stickfigure 14y ago
      I don't have any statistics on this, but your statement does not match my observations. Even within the US, the exact same product in a Kentucky supermarket will often cost twice as much in a California supermarket. I shop in both and my food costs are dramatically lower in KY. In Central America, I found local food prices to be highly correlated with affluence. Food (both served and in markets) in Costa Rica is significantly more expensive than just north in Nicaragua. Rural Panama is a lot cheaper than Panama City. Honduras is generally expensive; Guatemala is generally cheap; but there are zones of relative expense within those countries. Food in general is dramatically cheaper south of the US border, especially if you shop in public markets. I have not been to India but I am told by friends that food prices are significantly below US prices.
bzbarsky 14y ago
So... once upon a time, falling back on others giving you stuff was something to be done as a last resort, when you had no other options. Presumably your parents felt like they had other options. Somewhere along the way the social consciousness changed to more of a "get everything I can get from those 'other people'" as opposed to a "do what I can for myself first". It's not obvious to me that the result is better as a social contract, though it can obviously be better for a particular family. Now there are definitely social problems when the self-reliance ends up trading off against other public goods (e.g. having your kids well-nourished and educated, not stealing, etc). But if people just want to be self-reliant in reasonable ways instead of falling back on public assistance as soon as they're eligible, I really don't see a problem with that.

jebblue 14y ago

Your parents and the OP are wise.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
I'm taking handouts for my education. I'm also on foodstamps to make sure I can eat healthy foods as I learn. When I am done with my educational program (draftsman, and then mechanical engineering), I will be able to support myself and others via taxes. I am seeking to better myself so I can be a productive member of US society. Is what I am doing wrong?
- genwin 14y ago
  It's not wrong. Yet if the handouts and food stamps weren't available you can bet your education would cost less. Free stuff enables you and others to pay more, which promotes inflation. In the same vein, easily procurable student loans have made tuition soar.
  - ryanac 14y ago
    Yes it might "cost less", but I wonder, he also gets food stamps, do you think (in this case) less would some how be affordable for him? In reality without the handout tuition might cost less, but he still wouldn't be able to afford it and now he would have no alternatives to getting an education when he's clearly motivated. Interested in any thoughts on this.
    - Jach 14y ago
      Suppose you're right, that even with lowered tuition other factors don't go down enough for many people to afford it. This means they don't go to college, this doesn't mean they don't get an education, especially if they're already motivated to learn, and especially in the US where even the homeless can get free access to the internet if they really need it. In your scenario, if the job market continues its insistence on Bachelor's degrees they will find a quickly shortening supply and will have to loosen up that requirement to stay competitive. As a compromise I'd support giving every US citizen a free netbook and rolling out free public wifi that only routes to a subset of the internet with each site hand-approved (or with a sufficiently clever algorithm from Google or someone else) to be "of public utility for learning" rather than entertainment. No facebook, no porn, no games, and education sites will have to host their own videos instead of using youtube (or an education-only youtube clone can appear), at least if they want the free users to see it. If you want the full internet, pay for it, which we already do. (Very inexpensive all things considered.)
    - genwin 14y ago
      Good question. The existence of food stamps probably makes the tuition more affordable. Before student loans, tuition was affordable on a minimum-wage job. Houses were far more affordable before easy mortgage loans created a housing bubble. There's lots of evidence that easy money of all types causes inflation. But the food stamps cause food inflation more than they do tuition inflation, so they're likely a net benefit in this case.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        "Before student loans, tuition was affordable on a minimum-wage job." That sounds right with what my mother and other relatives say about the old days. She told me; 35 years ago she could go to a university during fall and spring. If she then worked a job or 2 during summer, she could have it paid all off. If she got a campus job as well, she could have had spending money to boot.
        genwin 14y ago
- jebblue 14y ago
  If you're on foodstamps then it's because you don't have the ability to work, right? Or are you saying you're healthy and able to work but you're on them?
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    That is partially true. I am unemployed at this time. I have tried plenty times to gain work I can excel in, and still look/apply. Also, due to lack of 'provable education', I can only get jobs that require manual labor (or thereabouts). Also 4 years ago, I shattered my shoulder and have a permanent injury (it is obvious in the way my arm moves). I was let go recently from a gas station after not being able to repetitively reach across the register. I have applied for SS disability and medicaid. I was denied for both. I do have my schooling paid for via Vocational Rehabilitation (govt agency that acknowledges permanent physical disability), as well as FAFSA. That is the route I am going, so I can do something as a respectful citizen.

Retric 14y ago

10k per year is only 'poor' in the US replace that with 1,000$ in 2012 dollars per year and you might have an idea where India considers the poverty line.

jlgreco 14y ago
Is that adjusted for the different costs of living between the two countries?
- Retric 14y ago
  Yes, basically, the only economic exchange at that point is bulk cheap food and that's at close to the same exchange rates. The real differences is how it's almost hard to be that poor in the US, even though so many people are that poor in India. PS: There are places where houses sell for less than 1,000$ in the US.
- ajross 14y ago
  Basic food costs, which is most of what we're talking about, don't actually vary that much (if anything, they tend to be cheaper in the developed world due to subsidies). It's true that Indian poor pay much less in rent and clothing. But food makes up the bulk of what they have to buy each day, and they don't get a meaningful discount (beyond assistance programs like the one described in the linked article).
  - stickfigure 14y ago
    I don't have any statistics on this, but your statement does not match my observations. Even within the US, the exact same product in a Kentucky supermarket will often cost twice as much in a California supermarket. I shop in both and my food costs are dramatically lower in KY. In Central America, I found local food prices to be highly correlated with affluence. Food (both served and in markets) in Costa Rica is significantly more expensive than just north in Nicaragua. Rural Panama is a lot cheaper than Panama City. Honduras is generally expensive; Guatemala is generally cheap; but there are zones of relative expense within those countries. Food in general is dramatically cheaper south of the US border, especially if you shop in public markets. I have not been to India but I am told by friends that food prices are significantly below US prices.

bzbarsky 14y ago

So... once upon a time, falling back on others giving you stuff was something to be done as a last resort, when you had no other options. Presumably your parents felt like they had other options. Somewhere along the way the social consciousness changed to more of a "get everything I can get from those 'other people'" as opposed to a "do what I can for myself first". It's not obvious to me that the result is better as a social contract, though it can obviously be better for a particular family. Now there are definitely social problems when the self-reliance ends up trading off against other public goods (e.g. having your kids well-nourished and educated, not stealing, etc). But if people just want to be self-reliant in reasonable ways instead of falling back on public assistance as soon as they're eligible, I really don't see a problem with that.