Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
richardgavel wrote: »Don't we tell people in these same MFP forums that there aren't good foods and bad foods when it comes to weight loss and that what is generally considered "junk food" is OK as long as it's in moderation and fits within your calorie budget?
IMO, in the case of SNAP recipients (or anyone for that matter) on a limited budget, they need to use their funds to get nutrient dense foods on that limited budget. "Junk food" is not a good way to get nutrient dense foods.10 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »I was on food stamps for a while. I was okay with the "no soda" thing (my state forbids soda from being bought with them, though, oddly, I could buy as much Halloween candy as I wanted on the state's dime). The killer was diapers, toilet paper and medicine. I don't have kids, but watching others in the EBT line (where poor people go to buy food) paying two or three times for different kinds of items while on the verge of a nervous breakdown was heartbreaking. Also, diapers, toilet paper and medicine are crazy expensive and far more necessary than candy, IMO. I didn't make the rules...if I had they'd make sense.
Edited to clarify: I really think food stamps should cover everything, or cover nothing. Presumably we can trust adults to make their own choices regarding food and basic needs? It's not like food stamp funds are unlimited.
I always had two kids in diapers and I used cloth flats. Great way to diaper on the cheap (and I mean cheap)
Back during that time I also made my own laundry detergent, to save money on washing them.
Also-prices do vary, but I pay .59 for 4 rolls of toilet paper (Aldi brand). I definitely don't consider that to be one of my pricier purchases. And also varying by location, but a lot of dollar stores carry some medicines now, as well as Dollar General. Manufacturers also give out coupons on their websites frequently.
True! I shop at Aldi now and love it, but when I was on food stamps I lived in a food desert in an extremely poor community with few stores (I pretty much had one strip mall within 30 miles to get my necessities from). My mom used cloth diapers and I did suggest them to many people but in some places it's just "not done," which I never understood...disposable diapers are hugely expensive, and so is shopping the chain stores.
@LJGettinSexy, where the heck do you shop? Apples never retail for more than $3 a bag here, and carrots are 89c. Most fruits and veggies in season are cheap as dirt. Bananas are 49c/lb. at Pick N Save. I guess you live in a bigger city?
I don't shop at Aldi's because there isn't one in my neighborhood and their fruits and veggies don't stay fresh as long as the other grocery stores and I buy lots of fruit because I have heavy fruit eaters in my home. Bananas are cheap as stated in my previous post. I buy a lot of food on sale but staples are expensive as heck, meats, cheese, butter, potatoes, bacon, fruit, veggies, bread. A bag of apples is only $3 in the summer when nobody eats them but Honey Crisp apples are way high, even at Trader Joes, which is the only kind I eat. Watermelon in season now is $5, which isn't bad but grapes, pineapple, strawberries, canteloupe $3-$6 products easily. I just shredded a receipt from a store where I shop, darn, LOL!
Frozen veg/fruit is a great way to to get produce inexpensively, and it's flash froze right after being picked, which means it actually retains more of its nutrients vs fresh that's transported across state/country. Also, there's tricks to making fresh produce last longer too (I buy Aldi fresh produce and make it last up to two weeks, since I do bi-weekly shopping).
If you have an Aldi within driving distance, even to go once or twice a month, it's well worth the trip-their butter, cheese, yogurt, meat, fish, etc are quite a bit cheaper than other stores. And if organics is your thing, they've really been adding to their organics/'natural' line lately. I can get things like organic coconut oil, nut butters, grass fed beef, a wide range of nuts, seeds, dried fruit, sprouted whole grains bread, whole wheat flat breads and tortillas etc. Plus they've started carrying organic produce as well. I don't consider bacon a staple or really 'healthy', but Aldi has center cut bacon for around $4 vs $6 at Meijer here.
Their fresh chicken parts are cheap, or their frozen bags of boneless chicken breasts/breast tenderloins are great too-I do a bag at a time in my crockpot (with a bit of water), individually wrap them in plastic wrap and then keep them in a freezer bag in the freezer. Then the night before I pull one and defrost in the fridge. It's thawed by lunchtime the next day and I added it to my stirfrys, grain bowls, salads etc. With the DASH protocol I rotate between chicken breast and then wild caught salmon, and this is an inexpensive and easy way to do the chicken.
I agree that prices can vary quite a bit based on location, but there's always ways to tweak things. Adding things like beans, whole grains, more meatless meals, frozen veggies/fruit etc are simple things that many people can do, to save money while eating a nutrient dense, 'healthy' diet
2 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
I think a great deal of that comes down to politics. Clearly this doesn't apply everywhere, but local/state/federal money could be better spent training workers into new industries that in propping up dying ones (probably an unpopular opinion). The lack of investment into education and having an education system that is rife with mismanagement is a problem, too. We pay teachers far too little and spend not nearly enough in making sure that a HS graduate has skills in addition to knowledge. We need more people trained in skilled labor and we need more emphasis on technology based labor/infrastructure in order to be globally competitive.
A complicating factor is that the minimum wage in this country is far from 'livable' just about anywhere, driving more people into social assistance programs while taxpayers fund corporate welfare.
Something I ask at every school board meeting "What is your purpose?" Simple question that strikes the administration dumb every time. Are we educating kids at the secondary level to move onto post-secondary? Have we completely forgotten about those not interested in post-secondary education? Are we properly preparing kids for the working environment? How is this ensured when those teaching are completely separated from industry?
This highlights the slow reaction of politicians to react to industry needs. Nearly all vocational programs have been eliminated from public education, yet the greatest job demand is forecasting specifically towards trades and services. Note that these are also positions that are highly resistant to outsourcing and provide a higher degree of security.
Very true, although what was the intent of a minimum wage?
Corporate welfare is an abomination and should be eliminated across the board. It is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in the market. This is pure corruption.
https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/flsa1938.htm
According to the FLSA, minimum wage was established to end starvation wages of workers at the tail end of the Great Depression. It brings to question if the intent to various changes to the Act over the years have maintained that as a core tenet. Arguably, today's minimum wage would be considered starvation wages if it is not enough to feed an adult and any dependants under the age of 16, which is nearly always the case in our country.
Inflation has far outpaced wages over the past 30 or 40 years, so you end up with a significant portion of works with full time jobs who still fall below the poverty line and become eligible for food assistance.
I completely agree that the primary focus on post-secondary education is setting us up for failure. Nothing wrong with a college degree, but it is not the "key to a better life" in the way that it's often portrayed. We need workers with skills. We need people to pursure vocational education. We need people to train for the well paying jobs of the future. On the flip side, that could reduce the abundance of entry level workers all competing for the same barely paid job right out of college.
My husband is an industrial HVAC programmer for a global company, and got to where he's at by starting at a county run technical/vocab school in high school, by doing their electrician's program. Started as an electrician's apprentice after he graduated and got his journeymans electrician card. Over the years he then moved up and ended up in a very specialized field, (he's one of only like 5 people in our state that has the skills to do work on some of the systems he works on). He never went to college and has never paid a dime for the specialty classes he's had to take over the years-companies trip over themselves to provide training to people who will actually do them/go the technical route. My husband is always complaining about how there's just no one in the field who actually know what they're doing-people have all kinds of college degrees, but almost no one has hands on/technical training.
Our kids will all go to tech school in high school. Even if they pursue college it's a really good foundation.8 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
I think a great deal of that comes down to politics. Clearly this doesn't apply everywhere, but local/state/federal money could be better spent training workers into new industries that in propping up dying ones (probably an unpopular opinion). The lack of investment into education and having an education system that is rife with mismanagement is a problem, too. We pay teachers far too little and spend not nearly enough in making sure that a HS graduate has skills in addition to knowledge. We need more people trained in skilled labor and we need more emphasis on technology based labor/infrastructure in order to be globally competitive.
A complicating factor is that the minimum wage in this country is far from 'livable' just about anywhere, driving more people into social assistance programs while taxpayers fund corporate welfare.
Something I ask at every school board meeting "What is your purpose?" Simple question that strikes the administration dumb every time. Are we educating kids at the secondary level to move onto post-secondary? Have we completely forgotten about those not interested in post-secondary education? Are we properly preparing kids for the working environment? How is this ensured when those teaching are completely separated from industry?
This highlights the slow reaction of politicians to react to industry needs. Nearly all vocational programs have been eliminated from public education, yet the greatest job demand is forecasting specifically towards trades and services. Note that these are also positions that are highly resistant to outsourcing and provide a higher degree of security.
Very true, although what was the intent of a minimum wage?
Corporate welfare is an abomination and should be eliminated across the board. It is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in the market. This is pure corruption.
https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/flsa1938.htm
According to the FLSA, minimum wage was established to end starvation wages of workers at the tail end of the Great Depression. It brings to question if the intent to various changes to the Act over the years have maintained that as a core tenet. Arguably, today's minimum wage would be considered starvation wages if it is not enough to feed an adult and any dependants under the age of 16, which is nearly always the case in our country.
Which is exactly as it should be.
Ending starvation wages does not mean that wage is sufficient to raise a family. It means it's enough to provide a basic living standard for the wage earner.
And it is.
7 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.
It seems like your family was using a definition of "food" that excluded a lot of edible items that are . . . well, food.
8 -
Instead of looking down on people in poverty, some of you should try being grateful for the ability to purchase healthy food for your families without having to worry about affording it. Did anyone look at the income guidelines necessary for receiving assistance? I just did, and have to say that any family with that little income deserves compassion, not our judgement. Maybe it's because when I was a child we were somewhat poor, but when I look at my full fridge, filled with healthy food choices for my children, I feel so grateful that I don't have to worry about how I will feed my children. I spend a lot on food each month, and buy very little junk food. We have plenty of fruits and vegetables available, and that takes a fair amount of money to do. If I only had $130 a month to feed my kids, I cannot imagine how difficult that would be. I am sad that we live in a country where children go hungry all of the time. And they do. I have had so many 8 and 9 year-olds come to school hungry over the years. Kids have told me they didn't have dinner because they didn't have food. Maybe their parents are just trying to do something they think is nice by buying their kids soda or cookies or whatever. Maybe they don't know much about nutrition (many people don't). I get that it's not healthy or the best food choice, but unless you are walking in their shoes, I think you should just be grateful for what you have and just be quiet about your judgement.17
-
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
This is where nutrition counseling could be helpful. Organic or fresh foods are necessarily the healthiest. Frozen or canned vegetables provide plenty of nutrients. Dried beans and grains are very healthy. A ribeye at $15 per lb is not more nutrition than round steak at $4 per lb. Thinking that a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods shows a lack of nutrition knowledge.
I didn't say a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods, I said the healthier foods are more expensive. You can get family size bags of potato chips 2/$4 or bogo but 2lbs of grapes $7.98. I shop every week for groceries and I am not making this up for the sake of argument, I've been shopping for decades and have seen the rising prices of food. Parkay Butter spray is $3 for 8oz bottle but you can get Blue Bonnet margarine 4 stick pkg at 2/$1, and these are staples, so there is no nutritional counseling for me, maybe you need counseling for the real world.
You don't need to choose between grapes and potato chips. Things like beans, rice, frozen vegetables, onions, carrots, cabbage, oats, potatoes . . . . all very affordable (at least where I live). Yeah, anyone wanting a lot of fresh fruit is going to pay more, but that's not required for a healthy diet.
7 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.
If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.
It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.
It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.
It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.
So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?
It's true that soda is still being bought, if that's the point you're trying to make.
The difference is that if someone is using SNAP dollars to buy soda, then the government is essentially using tax dollars to pay for a food that is a major contributor to obesity, which causes an increased for many chronic diseases, which would then necessitate medical care that would probably be paid for using Medicare/Medicaid, spending more tax money in the process.
What you use your own money for is your deal.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that it's right for someone to use public money to buy things that contribute to health problems that would then have to be dealt with by using more public money.
An excess of calories can come from any food though. Soda is just one source of excess calories. If you look at the bulk of the calories in the American diet, soda is only the fourth highest source of calories.
I'm unclear why we would skip 1-3 and go right to 4.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
This is where nutrition counseling could be helpful. Organic or fresh foods are necessarily the healthiest. Frozen or canned vegetables provide plenty of nutrients. Dried beans and grains are very healthy. A ribeye at $15 per lb is not more nutrition than round steak at $4 per lb. Thinking that a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods shows a lack of nutrition knowledge.
I didn't say a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods, I said the healthier foods are more expensive. You can get family size bags of potato chips 2/$4 or bogo but 2lbs of grapes $7.98. I shop every week for groceries and I am not making this up for the sake of argument, I've been shopping for decades and have seen the rising prices of food. Parkay Butter spray is $3 for 8oz bottle but you can get Blue Bonnet margarine 4 stick pkg at 2/$1, and these are staples, so there is no nutritional counseling for me, maybe you need counseling for the real world.
You don't need to choose between grapes and potato chips. Things like beans, rice, frozen vegetables, onions, carrots, cabbage, oats, potatoes . . . . all very affordable (at least where I live). Yeah, anyone wanting a lot of fresh fruit is going to pay more, but that's not required for a healthy diet.
But people don't actually eat beans and whole grains like oats, according to pp.
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly do not see what is so wrong with limiting what people can buy on food stamps. How can someone feed their family somewhat nutritionally when all or the bulk of their trolley contains soda, chips and god knows what else. Having a rule of what they can't buy will force them to make better choices.
I've lived on the bones of my *kitten* before, and junk food was the last thing i wasted my money on!
Not true.7 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
This is where nutrition counseling could be helpful. Organic or fresh foods are necessarily the healthiest. Frozen or canned vegetables provide plenty of nutrients. Dried beans and grains are very healthy. A ribeye at $15 per lb is not more nutrition than round steak at $4 per lb. Thinking that a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods shows a lack of nutrition knowledge.
I didn't say a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods, I said the healthier foods are more expensive. You can get family size bags of potato chips 2/$4 or bogo but 2lbs of grapes $7.98. I shop every week for groceries and I am not making this up for the sake of argument, I've been shopping for decades and have seen the rising prices of food. Parkay Butter spray is $3 for 8oz bottle but you can get Blue Bonnet margarine 4 stick pkg at 2/$1, and these are staples, so there is no nutritional counseling for me, maybe you need counseling for the real world.
You don't need to choose between grapes and potato chips. Things like beans, rice, frozen vegetables, onions, carrots, cabbage, oats, potatoes . . . . all very affordable (at least where I live). Yeah, anyone wanting a lot of fresh fruit is going to pay more, but that's not required for a healthy diet.
But people don't actually eat beans and whole grains like oats, according to pp.
It's regrettable, because beans + rice + lard + chicken gizzards, hearts, pieces and parts = magic.
Or at least one of the foundation dishes of Cajun and Creole cookery, admired around the world.
http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/baked-louisiana-dirty-rice-beans
ETA: the first recipe is overly gentrified and not dirty enough. Here is one using a lard-based roux, gizzards and livers. I would also increase the amount of the "Trinity and the Pope" (vegetables and garlic) and add in black beans for a more complete dish nutrition-wise.
https://dricksramblingcafe.blogspot.com/2009/11/cajun-dirty-rice.html
4 -
I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SNAP could be more like WIC. WIC has certain items that can be purchased and those items are supposed to help families with basic groceries. SNAP is a subsidy for food staples. Items like soda, candy, chips are "treats". We used to have to earn treats as kids, now they are part of the daily diet.3
-
jhildebrandt73 wrote: »I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SNAP could be more like WIC. WIC has certain items that can be purchased and those items are supposed to help families with basic groceries. SNAP is a subsidy for food staples. Items like soda, candy, chips are "treats". We used to have to earn treats as kids, now they are part of the daily diet.
Read the thread. It was mentioned. And that model wouldn't work.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.
It seems like your family was using a definition of "food" that excluded a lot of edible items that are . . . well, food.
Yes. Having that clear distinction between nourishing food vs. treats is part of why we were effortlessly thinner. I'm sure as a society we'll figure out new, healthful patterns of eating that work to keep people relatively thin and healthy again but I seriously doubt the idea of soda and junk food as necessities will stand the test of time.2 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.Alatariel75 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
But the problem here is - those minimum, unlivable wage jobs will continue to exist, and need to be filled, even if the people currently in them manage to skill themselves out of them. So there will always be that group of people in those jobs (some with the skills to not be in them but without the available positions) who are stuck in this cycle.
Most of these jobs are temporary and transitional and intended for kids young adults entering the workplace. The intent is to gain additional skills, training and experience to work towards positions with greater responsibility and increased pay.
BLS stats:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
Seems very similar to dieting in a yo-yo cycle. Change will not come without changing behavior.0 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »jhildebrandt73 wrote: »I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SNAP could be more like WIC. WIC has certain items that can be purchased and those items are supposed to help families with basic groceries. SNAP is a subsidy for food staples. Items like soda, candy, chips are "treats". We used to have to earn treats as kids, now they are part of the daily diet.
Read the thread. It was mentioned. And that model wouldn't work.
It would work like a champ. The only downside is that a WIC like model subsidized(and thus pushes up the price) of certain purchase options.5 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.
This sounds remarkably similar to finding time to work out. Do you have statistics to support your point? What percentage of people on assistance are working and how many hours do they work?
5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »jhildebrandt73 wrote: »I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SNAP could be more like WIC. WIC has certain items that can be purchased and those items are supposed to help families with basic groceries. SNAP is a subsidy for food staples. Items like soda, candy, chips are "treats". We used to have to earn treats as kids, now they are part of the daily diet.
Read the thread. It was mentioned. And that model wouldn't work.
It would work like a champ. The only downside is that a WIC like model subsidized(and thus pushes up the price) of certain purchase options.
Have you actually ever used WIC?3 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.Alatariel75 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
But the problem here is - those minimum, unlivable wage jobs will continue to exist, and need to be filled, even if the people currently in them manage to skill themselves out of them. So there will always be that group of people in those jobs (some with the skills to not be in them but without the available positions) who are stuck in this cycle.
Most of these jobs are temporary and transitional and intended for kids young adults entering the workplace. The intent is to gain additional skills, training and experience to work towards positions with greater responsibility and increased pay.
BLS stats:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
Seems very similar to dieting in a yo-yo cycle. Change will not come without changing behavior.
And? They aren't anymore and people have to do them.3 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.
It seems like your family was using a definition of "food" that excluded a lot of edible items that are . . . well, food.
Yes. Having that clear distinction between nourishing food vs. treats is part of why we were effortlessly thinner. I'm sure as a society we'll figure out new, healthful patterns of eating that work to keep people relatively thin and healthy again but I seriously doubt the idea of soda and junk food as necessities will stand the test of time.
By calling them "food," I'm not attempting to establish them as necessities. I'm just describing what they are.
Nourishing food can also be calorie-dense, it's not just treats that lead to excess weight.
4 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.
This sounds remarkably similar to finding time to work out. Do you have statistics to support your point? What percentage of people on assistance are working and how many hours do they work?
This website doesn't show hours worked but it's pretty informative...
https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-introduction-to-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
1 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.Alatariel75 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
But the problem here is - those minimum, unlivable wage jobs will continue to exist, and need to be filled, even if the people currently in them manage to skill themselves out of them. So there will always be that group of people in those jobs (some with the skills to not be in them but without the available positions) who are stuck in this cycle.
Most of these jobs are temporary and transitional and intended for kids young adults entering the workplace. The intent is to gain additional skills, training and experience to work towards positions with greater responsibility and increased pay.
BLS stats:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
Seems very similar to dieting in a yo-yo cycle. Change will not come without changing behavior.
And? They aren't anymore and people have to do them.
There are ~330 M people living in the US, with ~255 M in the workforce. Only 700 k are at the minimum wage per BLS report cited.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
These jobs certainly are temporary and transitional. The root cause is lack of job skills. Without addressing the root cause you are only addressing a symptom and dooming a population to a life of poverty.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.
It seems like your family was using a definition of "food" that excluded a lot of edible items that are . . . well, food.
Yes. Having that clear distinction between nourishing food vs. treats is part of why we were effortlessly thinner. I'm sure as a society we'll figure out new, healthful patterns of eating that work to keep people relatively thin and healthy again but I seriously doubt the idea of soda and junk food as necessities will stand the test of time.
By calling them "food," I'm not attempting to establish them as necessities. I'm just describing what they are.
Nourishing food can also be calorie-dense, it's not just treats that lead to excess weight.
My point was that some people do make that distinction between food and treats. When you look at it from that perspective it's pretty easy to see why some people would be fine with limits on what can be purchased with supplemental nutrition assistance benefits.1 -
Have you actually ever used WIC?
I have, and what it does, for those who use it as an exclusive source for food income, is forces you to use the items it endorses. I am not particularly fond of peanut butter, but I sure ate it when WIC said it was something I was allowed to get. While that opens up a potential nightmare for government to try and satisfy the food related lobbyists and invites corruption, it at least does something to make people think about what is suitable nutrition.
3 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
Where does one find time for mandatory classes? Usually someone on assistance is already working a huge amount of hours a week and still can't get by. Then the time it takes to put food on the table, spend time with family, etc etc.Alatariel75 wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
This causes me to ask the next level of "Why?"
Wage is based on market forces, primarily skill set, so why do we have a population lacking the skills to earn a minimum livable wage?
But the problem here is - those minimum, unlivable wage jobs will continue to exist, and need to be filled, even if the people currently in them manage to skill themselves out of them. So there will always be that group of people in those jobs (some with the skills to not be in them but without the available positions) who are stuck in this cycle.
Most of these jobs are temporary and transitional and intended for kids young adults entering the workplace. The intent is to gain additional skills, training and experience to work towards positions with greater responsibility and increased pay.
BLS stats:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
Seems very similar to dieting in a yo-yo cycle. Change will not come without changing behavior.
And? They aren't anymore and people have to do them.
There are ~330 M people living in the US, with ~255 M in the workforce. Only 700 k are at the minimum wage per BLS report cited.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
These jobs certainly are temporary and transitional. The root cause is lack of job skills. Without addressing the root cause you are only addressing a symptom and dooming a population to a life of poverty.
And how do you suggest the root is addressed?0 -
jhildebrandt73 wrote: »Have you actually ever used WIC?
I have, and what it does, for those who use it as an exclusive source for food income, is forces you to use the items it endorses. I am not particularly fond of peanut butter, but I sure ate it when WIC said it was something I was allowed to get. While that opens up a potential nightmare for government to try and satisfy the food related lobbyists and invites corruption, it at least does something to make people think about what is suitable nutrition.
What happens when one can't eat the foods provided? Starve?4 -
I don't know if it's the same in the US but in the UK, 1% of the entire welfare spending budget is spent solely on unemployment benefits (though this excludes those also claiming housing benefit to pay rent). The rest is on pensions, in work support and disability benefits. So clearly there's a problem with corporate welfare if so little of the budget goes to unemployment and such a high amount is supporting those who should be able to afford to support themselves and family if they have one. Profits continue to rise, wages continue to stagnate.
Minimum wage is not a living wage. They actually work out the living wage every year, it's over £8ph, minimum wage for over 21s is £7.20 and this is before you take into account the vast differences in cost of living in different areas.
And at the end of the day, there will always be a need for cleaners, baristas, retail staff etc. Just because it's low skilled doesn't mean it should leave people in poverty and reliant on state support. Pretty ridiculous really. And here we are debating whether they should buy soda instead of why they are in need of support in the first place.13 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »jhildebrandt73 wrote: »Have you actually ever used WIC?
I have, and what it does, for those who use it as an exclusive source for food income, is forces you to use the items it endorses. I am not particularly fond of peanut butter, but I sure ate it when WIC said it was something I was allowed to get. While that opens up a potential nightmare for government to try and satisfy the food related lobbyists and invites corruption, it at least does something to make people think about what is suitable nutrition.
What happens when one can't eat the foods provided? Starve?
By no means. WIC itself is not the answer. Food subsidies would have to expand it's available products to include foods that take into consideration special diets, nationalities, cultures, etc. But no culture requires food staples that include chips, cookies, snack cakes, soda or candy. But that is where the government needs to stop taking money from the lobbyists and put their foot down.2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.
It seems like your family was using a definition of "food" that excluded a lot of edible items that are . . . well, food.
Yes. Having that clear distinction between nourishing food vs. treats is part of why we were effortlessly thinner. I'm sure as a society we'll figure out new, healthful patterns of eating that work to keep people relatively thin and healthy again but I seriously doubt the idea of soda and junk food as necessities will stand the test of time.
If we are talking about personal usages of words or how we think of it, I admit I don't really think of soda as food (with drinks only those that have protein or vitamins seem to fit my definition, soda and alcohol and coffee and tea do not -- although if one goes back enough, obviously beer was thought of as such). I will note that SNAP can be used to purchase coffee grounds -- at least if google is accurate -- and I see no one complaining about this, and I am not meaning to suggest that I am either.
I do think of cookies and so on as food, although not food one would have at a meal. It is eaten, has calories, has some minor degree of nutrition (oatmeal cookies with walnuts and raisins, peanut butter cookies with peanuts, for example). It clearly fits the definition of food. It's also a treat, a snack or dessert, an extra, not part of a meal.
I suspect that I was not fat as a kid and rarely drank soda (although I did drink koolaid when younger, which I also would not have thought of as "food," but as an alternative to water) has a lot more to do with how my family ate overall and the fact I was reasonably active like most kids those days, and not what we did and did not call food.
A hard and fast distinction between "junk food" and nutritious food seems to me not always easy.
Is a meal of potato chips, a skinless, boneless chicken breast cooked in a sauce made from a bit of olive oil, with broccoli and mushrooms going to be more or less nutritious, more or less likely to cause weight loss than a meal of home fried chicken legs (or even roasted chicken thighs and legs with the skin on) plus whole roasted potatoes (roasted with the chicken, say), and then broccoli in a cheese sauce? The first contains junk food, the second does not, but they are at least equally healthy.1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.
It seems like your family was using a definition of "food" that excluded a lot of edible items that are . . . well, food.
Yes. Having that clear distinction between nourishing food vs. treats is part of why we were effortlessly thinner. I'm sure as a society we'll figure out new, healthful patterns of eating that work to keep people relatively thin and healthy again but I seriously doubt the idea of soda and junk food as necessities will stand the test of time.
By calling them "food," I'm not attempting to establish them as necessities. I'm just describing what they are.
Nourishing food can also be calorie-dense, it's not just treats that lead to excess weight.
My point was that some people do make that distinction between food and treats. When you look at it from that perspective it's pretty easy to see why some people would be fine with limits on what can be purchased with supplemental nutrition assistance benefits.
I understand the concept of limits, I don't understand limiting it to just one item (soda).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions