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
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
And now we want to limit how many children people has? Welcome to Republic of China!!
Responsible people tend not to have more dependents than they can afford.
Yeah because every woman has a health insurance that pays for birth control or a spouse or SO that doesn't mind using "protection."
Or because, and like mentioned above by another poster, the birth control method failed. Or because due to religious practice birth control is not an option.
Let's be fair and realistic and stop being so judgemental.
Birth control is very cheap. Even without insurance, it is not a huge expenditure. And if your SO doesn't respect you enough to take your desire to be responsible into account, I question why you would be with such a person.
If a person isn't mature enough to be responsible about sex and the potential consequences, perhaps they shouldn't be having sex. And if they DO have sex and have children they can't afford...don't expect me to buy their soda.
Always strikes me as a bit of a catch 22 situation. Remain in a broken relationship, or get condemned for breaking out of it. It's no surprise that many feel trapped in that situation, both for economic and social reasons.
We're back into the reality that there are many routes into poverty, and it becomes very difficult to get out of that situation.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
And now we want to limit how many children people has? Welcome to Republic of China!!
Responsible people tend not to have more dependents than they can afford.
Yeah because every woman has a health insurance that pays for birth control or a spouse or SO that doesn't mind using "protection."
Or because, and like mentioned above by another poster, the birth control method failed. Or because due to religious practice birth control is not an option.
Let's be fair and realistic and stop being so judgemental.
If you can't afford children, Then use effective birth control. In plain english... don't engage in intercourse... it's really pretty simple
11 -
@stanmann571
And how do you propose that the government or the citizens do that? How are "you" going to have a say in the matter? Isn't that a violation of individual rights and liberties?
Are you or the government going to impose birth control when so many insurance companies are refusing to happy for it, and when the government is threatening to close Planned Parenthood.
Be careful what you wish for...
impose, no.. exchange. yes. If you want more money, don't get pregnant. If you get pregnant again... no more money.
Lets take this down to a micro scale. You've got a sister, she gets pregnant by a "bad boyfriend", he bails. You can afford to help... and you do. You care about your niece. 5 bad boyfriends and nieces and nephews later, you can still afford to help... how long do you keep giving her cash? or do you change the way you help?12 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
And now we want to limit how many children people has? Welcome to Republic of China!!
Responsible people tend not to have more dependents than they can afford.
Yeah because every woman has a health insurance that pays for birth control or a spouse or SO that doesn't mind using "protection."
Or because, and like mentioned above by another poster, the birth control method failed. Or because due to religious practice birth control is not an option.
Let's be fair and realistic and stop being so judgemental.
Birth control is very cheap. Even without insurance, it is not a huge expenditure. And if your SO doesn't respect you enough to take your desire to be responsible into account, I question why you would be with such a person.
If a person isn't mature enough to be responsible about sex and the potential consequences, perhaps they shouldn't be having sex. And if they DO have sex and have children they can't afford...don't expect me to buy their soda.
Birth control is free. And easy.
Just don't do it.10 -
Packerjohn wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »http://www.king5.com/mobile/article/news/florida-bill-would-prevent-buying-soft-drinks-with-food-stamps/281-466529691
getting back on point. no I don't think food stamps should be used to buy soda...junk food etc. no. and I do support having new laws the require drug testing for welfare and ebt recipients.
Did you know that drug testing welfare recipients costs more money than it saves by kicking off the few found to have drugs in their system? This is a dumb, inhumane practice that ends up costing more money than letting a few drug users have SNAP. There’s no evidence that the poor use more drugs than more affluent people, and they may actually use less because drugs are expensive.
Is it inhumane that many employees are subject to random drug tests by their employers? How about kids attending private schools.or participating in high school sports?
There is some debate on cost/benefit of testing welfare recipients, but inhumane, come on
.
I consider any routine drug testing anywhere at any time to be a massive invasion of medical privacy. Illegal drugs aren't the only substances routine drug testing can reveal and I find it absurd that employers can basically force potential employees to disclose mental health problems because psychoactive medications were found in their urine.
Drug testing because a specific person is suspected of drug use due to actual, quantifiable signs and behavior, or a situation like the Olympics where there is a high incentive to use drugs, is a different story. But drug testing for jobs that pay $9/hour? Your employer should not have the right to demand body fluids from you any more than they should have the right to look at your medical records or browsing history on your home computer.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
And now we want to limit how many children people has? Welcome to Republic of China!!
Responsible people tend not to have more dependents than they can afford.
Because nobody had ever ended up jobless or single after the fact...
That's what food stamps should be for IMO. Temporary situations where one is having financial difficulties. Not a lifestyle.
So how many people do you personally know who have a ‘food stamps lifestyle?’ Just curious.
My wife's cousin has 4 daughters by 3 different guys (there was a set of twins in there). None of the guys stayed around. Her daughters have gone down the same path with 2-4 kids each. They are all collecting benefits, even though my wife's uncle who is 80 and questionable health has spent his life savings and is still working to support them since he doesn't want his family on welfare.
My wife works in education so has a number of stories as well as a friend who works for Children and Family Services.
Cool. I also work in social services, for an agency that serves over a thousand people a year. I can count on one hand the number of people I or a colleague thought were trying to game the system. We've had way more people whose life circumstances changed and they called on their own volition to tell us thank you and they would no longer be using our services. Your wife and friend have stories because those people are uncommon enough to be MEMORABLE.4 -
happytree923 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »http://www.king5.com/mobile/article/news/florida-bill-would-prevent-buying-soft-drinks-with-food-stamps/281-466529691
getting back on point. no I don't think food stamps should be used to buy soda...junk food etc. no. and I do support having new laws the require drug testing for welfare and ebt recipients.
Did you know that drug testing welfare recipients costs more money than it saves by kicking off the few found to have drugs in their system? This is a dumb, inhumane practice that ends up costing more money than letting a few drug users have SNAP. There’s no evidence that the poor use more drugs than more affluent people, and they may actually use less because drugs are expensive.
Is it inhumane that many employees are subject to random drug tests by their employers? How about kids attending private schools.or participating in high school sports?
There is some debate on cost/benefit of testing welfare recipients, but inhumane, come on
.
I consider any routine drug testing anywhere at any time to be a massive invasion of medical privacy. Illegal drugs aren't the only substances routine drug testing can reveal and I find it absurd that employers can basically force potential employees to disclose mental health problems because psychoactive medications were found in their urine.
Drug testing because a specific person is suspected of drug use due to actual, quantifiable signs and behavior, or a situation like the Olympics where there is a high incentive to use drugs, is a different story. But drug testing for jobs that pay $9/hour? Your employer should not have the right to demand body fluids from you any more than they should have the right to look at your medical records or browsing history on your home computer.
Their house, their rules. If you don't like the rules you don't have to work there.
You don't need to demand body fluids. Testing of hair follicles was done at my kid's school and for HS sports.2 -
happytree923 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
And now we want to limit how many children people has? Welcome to Republic of China!!
Responsible people tend not to have more dependents than they can afford.
Because nobody had ever ended up jobless or single after the fact...
That's what food stamps should be for IMO. Temporary situations where one is having financial difficulties. Not a lifestyle.
So how many people do you personally know who have a ‘food stamps lifestyle?’ Just curious.
My wife's cousin has 4 daughters by 3 different guys (there was a set of twins in there). None of the guys stayed around. Her daughters have gone down the same path with 2-4 kids each. They are all collecting benefits, even though my wife's uncle who is 80 and questionable health has spent his life savings and is still working to support them since he doesn't want his family on welfare.
My wife works in education so has a number of stories as well as a friend who works for Children and Family Services.
Cool. I also work in social services, for an agency that serves over a thousand people a year. I can count on one hand the number of people I or a colleague thought were trying to game the system. We've had way more people whose life circumstances changed and they called on their own volition to tell us thank you and they would no longer be using our services. Your wife and friend have stories because those people are uncommon enough to be MEMORABLE.
The question I was responding to was do you know people who have a "food stamp lifestyle". Gaming the system and a "foodstamp lifestyle" are not the same thing.
I think foodstamps and other social help is great, but we should not be enabling it as a long term/generational lifestyle.2 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »tcunbeliever wrote: »There's zero nutritional value in soda, so sure, as a taxpayer I am totally not into subsiding either the soda industry or the energy drink industry, they should both be banned.
What else is next for the poor people?
pfft. How about NUTRITION? what novel idea for those of us with responsible oversight to see they get nutrition instead of a complete waste. Yes, using food stamps for NUTRITION. Soda adds nothing of value, and has been proved it contributes heavily to obesity in children. Impoverished people (who are often those who have the least knowledge of healthy eating, nutrition and food) do not NEED anything to do with soda. They may want soda, they may like soda, but it has no value and gives them nothing. The food stamp that you and I provide them, that is used to purchase soda, is wasted on something nutritionally worthless. Soda by food stamp is a complete waste of valuable resources.
Food stamps provide them for needs, and they need nutrition, not empty calories. To not recognize this would be irresponsible of you and I, who know what a waste of calories, soda truly is.
"I know they don't NEED soda, but they WANT soda!"
I want a Cadillac Escallade. I dont need one, I have a perfectly good toyota, but I WANT ONE.
7 -
For what it's worth, I can kind of understand their confusion. I work a cash register as part of my job, and once we key in a cash tender, it tells us what amount of change to give and we're supposed to put the amount of cash that we keyed in into the drawer. Giving any amount of change other than what the register tells us to throws our drawers off, and we won't balance at the end of the night.tbright1965 wrote: »One of the problems with minimum wage laws is they can often hurt the unskilled poor more. If the wage floor is artificially set to $15/hour, workers who may not be tempted to take the job at $8/hour are now enticed to take the job at $15/hour.
That person who dropped out of high school and gets confused when they ring up your order and it's 9.79 and they see that $10 bill you pull out of your wallet, key it in, THEN you grab four pennies because you want a solid quarter, may not have $15/hour in skills. (I had this very person last week down new San Antonio, TX who was was confused when I gave him $20.10 for a $10.05 total. I really didn't want another $0.90 in change and a bunch of bills. He tried to give me $9.85 in change because he was confused by the extra 0.10 after he keyed in the $20.)1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I think foodstamps and other social help is great, but we should not be enabling it as a long term/generational lifestyle.
Again, conscious that in not in the US, are there any statistics that demonstrate that systemic reliance on the state through choice does constitute a significant segment of service users?
Across here the generational unemployed/ unemployable is a very small segment, and quite geographically restricted. The vast majority of those accessing support are the so-called employed poor.
An observation that I'd make is the effect of significant changes to our economy continue to ripple through. Movement from a largely heavy industry base has left some areas still struggling to replace that which was lost. We're not going to bring back large scale manufacturing, or mineral recovery, but in some of those areas little has replaced it. Those terms to be the areas where generational poverty is higher. Those areas also see higher incidence of substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual violence and extremely low educational achievement. All things that contribute to limited opportunity to break out of the cycle.
Notwithstanding that, if we biased the welfare system towards those areas it would fail for the vast majority of service users. Is it reasonable to design a system for the exception?
1 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »
For what it's worth, I can kind of understand their confusion. I work a cash register as part of my job, and once we key in a cash tender, it tells us what amount of change to give and we're supposed to put the amount of cash that we keyed in into the drawer. Giving any amount of change other than what the register tells us to throws our drawers off, and we won't balance at the end of the night.tbright1965 wrote: »One of the problems with minimum wage laws is they can often hurt the unskilled poor more. If the wage floor is artificially set to $15/hour, workers who may not be tempted to take the job at $8/hour are now enticed to take the job at $15/hour.
That person who dropped out of high school and gets confused when they ring up your order and it's 9.79 and they see that $10 bill you pull out of your wallet, key it in, THEN you grab four pennies because you want a solid quarter, may not have $15/hour in skills. (I had this very person last week down new San Antonio, TX who was was confused when I gave him $20.10 for a $10.05 total. I really didn't want another $0.90 in change and a bunch of bills. He tried to give me $9.85 in change because he was confused by the extra 0.10 after he keyed in the $20.)
It doesn't throw your drawer off if someone gives you $0.10 more than what was keyed in and you return $0.10 more than the register says.4 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I think foodstamps and other social help is great, but we should not be enabling it as a long term/generational lifestyle.
Again, conscious that in not in the US, are there any statistics that demonstrate that systemic reliance on the state through choice does constitute a significant segment of service users?
Depends on what you mean by choice or significant, I suppose.
This study suggested that many users of SNAP are short term, but that approximately 25% are longer term, and that the short term users include those who use it for short periods repeatedly. So you can basically use the stats to support whatever argument you want. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008-2012.pdf
SNAP is intended to be supplemental to income and only for food, so personally it's the last type of aid I'd have a problem with regardless.
Other US programs all vary. Our old "welfare" (AFDC) was replaced years ago with TANF, which is time limited. Often lately people seem to discuss the system as if AFDC was still the operating law, which I find puzzling.
Housing subsidies do pose a problem, at least for some subset, in that they are not time limited and you can even be grandfathered in (i.e., get preference because you lived there growing up, parent lived there). I think this leads to generations in public housing (although public housing has long been under attack -- IMO, rightly -- and sought to be replaced by different subsidized models). One of the major issues I have with this is that in the US housing subsidies are given to far fewer than qualify, so letting people lucky enough to get them to keep them indefinitely seems to exaggerate the unfairness in how the system works. (There are also numerous (often nasty) arguments as to what the right approach is.)
But the housing issues are going to vary places to place, and where I am I happen to be exposed to some of the greater abuses/problems with it, likely. I don't have quick access to the percentages who keep those subsidies for specific periods of time, and the huge variety of different types of subsidies make it harder to judge. And clearly people need shelter, I'm not questioning that, just how the systems work.
Seems way beyond the topic of this thread, but I guess the thread will go where it goes. ;-)0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »
For what it's worth, I can kind of understand their confusion. I work a cash register as part of my job, and once we key in a cash tender, it tells us what amount of change to give and we're supposed to put the amount of cash that we keyed in into the drawer. Giving any amount of change other than what the register tells us to throws our drawers off, and we won't balance at the end of the night.tbright1965 wrote: »One of the problems with minimum wage laws is they can often hurt the unskilled poor more. If the wage floor is artificially set to $15/hour, workers who may not be tempted to take the job at $8/hour are now enticed to take the job at $15/hour.
That person who dropped out of high school and gets confused when they ring up your order and it's 9.79 and they see that $10 bill you pull out of your wallet, key it in, THEN you grab four pennies because you want a solid quarter, may not have $15/hour in skills. (I had this very person last week down new San Antonio, TX who was was confused when I gave him $20.10 for a $10.05 total. I really didn't want another $0.90 in change and a bunch of bills. He tried to give me $9.85 in change because he was confused by the extra 0.10 after he keyed in the $20.)
Only throws them off if you give the WRONG amount of change. Had the kid succeeded in giving me what he tried to give me, he would have been OVER, assuming he made no other mistakes.
So I understand the pressure. But the math works every time. If you ring up $9.79, key in $10 while I'm digging for the $0.04 in pennies, if you give me $0.21 as my change, you will be over by $0.04. If you give me a solid quarter, you will be right on.
If you enter the wrong currency tendered, the change value is also wrong. A skilled worker has to have the skills to deal with that situation.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I don't really agree with this either...I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to. we all prospered. I did not go out of business bc of paying people fair wages I went out of business WHEN GREEDY CORPORATE PEOPLE AND POLICTICIANS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY IN 2008-9-10 bush era destroyed our business landscape and real estate industry.
So they were adding a hypothetical $10 an hour to your business and you paid them $50.
You went out of business because you were bad at business.
I was in business 30 years. and you cant add..omg. are you a bush fan?
50 is 5 times 10.
You said you paid 5 times what you had to. That means you paid 5 times what they were worth.
"years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what" cant read or add huh.I ran a small business for many years and paid people 4-5 more an hour than what I had to
IF you want quality people what you "have to pay them" is at or above market value. My market value is $45-65 an hour, and I add 75-200 an hour of value.
If you want someone with my skills, you "have to pay" ~50 an hour. 4-5 times that is 200-250 an hour.
The same principle applies if the market value of a person is $8 or $10 or $3.
You seem confused by basic principles of hiring and personnel management.
if the wage I had to pay was 10 bucks an hour...and I paid 14 - 15 an hour..would be $4- 5 more and hour than i had to" that would be a living wage.
$14 or $15 an hour might be a living wage for a single person, it is not a living wage for a family of 4 (w/o some outside assistance).
Then one shouldn't make themselves into a family of four until they can afford it.
Which was my point - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
And now we want to limit how many children people has? Welcome to Republic of China!!
You can have as many children as you want.
If you want to force me to help you pay to raise them I expect to have a say regarding whether you have any more.
yep
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I think foodstamps and other social help is great, but we should not be enabling it as a long term/generational lifestyle.
Again, conscious that in not in the US, are there any statistics that demonstrate that systemic reliance on the state through choice does constitute a significant segment of service users?
Depends on what you mean by choice or significant, I suppose.
This study suggested that many users of SNAP are short term, but that approximately 25% are longer term, and that the short term users include those who use it for short periods repeatedly. So you can basically use the stats to support whatever argument you want. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008-2012.pdf
SNAP is intended to be supplemental to income and only for food, so personally it's the last type of aid I'd have a problem with regardless.
Thank you. Given the amount of anecdata in the thread it's helpful to understand whether there is an understanding of the issue in general population. I know over here much of the public debate does tend towards the superficial and prejudice driven as well.2 -
I absolutely think that food stamps should have foods that are rejected. WIC already does this.
People forget that the food stamp program is only suppose to be a supplement to a person current food source. It was never meant to be the only food source.
Also ... just so you know. You can purcase vegetable and fruit plants on food stamps. My sister has them and purchases several tomatoe plants in the spring and has an abundance of them all summer.4 -
You’re not just paying for recipients junk food purchases, you’re also paying for their poor health and doctor bills. If taxpayers are footing the bill for both, then it is reasonable to dictate that food should only be nutritional. Prohibiting sugary drinks is a start, but it should go much further than that and prohibit other junk food too. In my opinion SNAP should mimic WIC in regards to shelf labeling and making only certain products available that meet basic nutrition guidelines.13
-
You’re not just paying for recipients junk food purchases, you’re also paying for their poor health and doctor bills. If taxpayers are footing the bill for both, then it is reasonable to dictate that food should only be nutritional. Prohibiting sugary drinks is a start, but it should go much further than that and prohibit other junk food too. In my opinion SNAP should mimic WIC in regards to shelf labeling and making only certain products available that meet basic nutrition guidelines.
Truth.5 -
I'll admit, I'm torn.
I'm less about limiting what they can buy and more about making them earn it, there are too many people on it who do nothing all day except figure out ways to work the system. I'd like to see changes to the system to make it better. Proof that those on it are looking for a job, letters from the a reputable Dr that you are truly disabled, forced birth control on those that keep having babies just to get more money, (yes I'll piss a lot of people off with that one).
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the government should tell someone they can't buy pop, or candy, they need to work better at getting the benefits to those who really need it, not to those that are just looking for a free handout.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions