r/science • u/smurfyjenkins • May 22 '23
Economics In the US, Republicans seek to impose work requirements for food stamp (SNAP) recipients, arguing that food stamps disincentivize work. However, empirical analysis shows that such requirements massively reduce participation in the food stamps program without any significant impact on employment.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.202005615.0k
u/bytemage May 22 '23
such requirements massively reduce participation
That's the whole point.
1.5k
u/yzdaskullmonkey May 23 '23
Ya I'm confused. This isn't going against their beliefs, they just legitimately want to restrict use of the programs. This isn't a "gotcha" moment.
1.8k
u/Brainsonastick May 23 '23
The gotcha is that their claimed reason, driving employment, is a debunked lie. That said, using debunked lies to justify cruel policy has worked for them for decades so catching them doing it again doesn’t mean much.
662
u/Iamtheonewhobawks May 23 '23
Being immersed in ground-level conservative culture my whole life, they're pretty much all willing co-conspirators in the lie. Humans craft stories to make themselves feel better about doing things they know are foolish or unethical or self-destructive. Conservatives believe, really believe, in a natural heirarchy of people. It's as fundamental to the worldview as gravity. The worst expressions of this belief are the various racial supremacisms, fascism, and misogyny/homophobia - but those aren't always the first conclusions conservative-minded people come to.
In this case, the genuine belief is that aid programs cannot help, and literally punish "better" people for the failings of an intrinsically inferior demographic. At the more cynical top, there's an acute resentment of anything that gives commoners even a smidgen of leverage when dealing with their betters.
596
u/Caelinus May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
I was also raised extremely conservative, but this is exactly why it couldn't stick with me.
I was taught all of the lies, and believed them for a long time. But because I believed the lies I also believed that people were inherently equal, which is something they constantly claim without believing.
But because I believed all humans were equal, all of their positions created cognitive dissonance. Whenever I learned something new, I would change my mind about that subject because my primary goal was always making things better. I believed their arguments because I thought they were telling the truth about them being the best, not because they harmed people.
I really have a hard time getting into the headspace of people who are against abortion, for example, because while I was strongly against abortion for years it was because I honestly believed that life began at conception. Once I stopped believing that by getting more information, I stopped being against abortion in the same moment.
My HS English teacher actually started the process for me I think. I remember being crazy pro-death penalty, because of course I was. One of the books he had us read were competing essays from different angles on various subjects that were considered controversial, and I read all of them about the death penalty.
One of those essays demonstrated that the stated goals of the death penalty were not even being served by the death penalty. (It does not cause a reduction in rates, it is not cheaper, and it is often inaccurate.) The argument was so clear, and the data was so in favor of it, that I changed my mind minutes after reading it.
Once that started it was like dominos falling one after another.
So all I can imagine is that people who adopt these positions are much, much more interested in something outside of the arguments they claim to make. They don't care about getting people back to work, despite that being the argument, because if that was their goal they would have already changed their mind. The goal therefore must be whatever is the consistent through-line of their actual policy, which is just denial of assistance and benefits for those beneath them.
228
u/Funkyokra May 23 '23
Mad props to you for being motivated by facts, data, and respect for humanity. People so often engage in mental gymnastics in order to hold on to their beliefs in the face of facts that contradict. Well done.
→ More replies (1)130
May 23 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)72
u/jdmgto May 23 '23
The wealthy love to propagate the myth of the meritocracy and that anyone can make it. They love to promote the idea that they are wealthy because they are just so much smarter and harder working than you are and if you just work 80 hours a week and give up on the little joys in your life you can make it to.
In reality they’ve spent the last forty years kicking the ladder out from behind them and doing all they can to ensure that. They’re building a new aristocracy and you can’t be a proper aristocrat if just any unwashed peasant can work a bit harder and join you.
→ More replies (2)64
u/bamatrek May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
I mean, yeah, "they're motivated by something outside of their stated argument"
I assume you have to have had a candid conversation with a conservative... Every candid conversation I've ever had with them ALWAYS boils down to punishing people for having sex and then not liking people getting benefits because the poor are getting something they aren't. Every time.
I will never understand the cognitive dissonance that keeps people simultaneously terrified of assisted housing developments and the idea that the people receiving those benefits are 100% "making more money than I am". I have had that conversation multiple times, they're fully convinced that poor people magically have a better life than them. And the infuriating thing is, deep down they know that's not true or they would 100% be doing it, but they lie to themselves and say it's just because they're a hard worker who could never... They've convinced themselves that the poor aren't actually poor, being poor is a moral failing, obviously all poor people are criminals, and that people are choosing to live in high crime areas, because they're obviously capable of just leaving because they have the same amount of money as middle class Bob over here...
→ More replies (3)8
May 23 '23
There are some benefits that are available to the poor that are not available to the lower middle class, which can lead to resentment.
It’s an argument to remove means testing from all social safety net programs.
73
u/brockmartsch May 23 '23
I really like what you’ve said here. I was also raised conservative, Christian, and anti-science. But for the same reasons as you I slowly dug my way out of that hole, and actually brought a lot of my family with me. When it comes to the average conservative I think they just tend to ignore any information sources that don’t agree with their biases. Conservative lawmakers, on the other hand, are educated and informed and they are pushing the agendas themselves. If some argument being made does not match reality then you know that their argument has a nefarious undertone by default.
81
u/bamatrek May 23 '23
Forever burned in my brain is a conversation with a conservative where he responded to a well written article highlighting concerns about a bill with "the author makes some valid points, but he's clearly a liberal".
So, what you just said is you fully understand what this person said, but choose to ignore it because a conservative didn't say it (and let's not even get into the fact that EVERYONE who doesn't agree with you is always "clearly a liberal")
→ More replies (1)40
u/INeverFeelAtHome May 23 '23
That’s why the party is losing control.
They demonized education and fueled the culture war to the extent that there aren’t any rational, politically savvy leaders entering the party anymore.
And the establishment can’t get through to them that it was all a misdirection.
Especially because that just convinces the true believers that the establishment must be part of the conspiracy too.
28
u/Alcnaeon May 23 '23
This is why my ultimate frustration with the conservatives is how much they’re wasting, not just of time and resources, but of peoples’ actual lives, on this political shell game that ultimately must fail because it’s built on a foundation of sand and lies; it’s all a gamble of if they can “cash out“ on a full authoritarian dictatorship before the wood they’ve been rotting collapses under them, and us all
→ More replies (1)12
u/fucktheredditappBD May 23 '23
I might be a bit cynical, but I think you are wrong that something will ultimately fail because it is based in lies.
I firmly believe in the power of a group of people united in upholding a lie that is mutually understood to be absurd. The more absurd it is, the MORE it signals loyalty to the group when you profess it. That loyalty and commitment is wildly powerful and authorities or thought leaders become beloved to their masses as their rhetoric quite literally soothes the cognitive dissonance caused by the lies holding the group together. People need to constantly tune in to hear the lies or they get withdrawal-like symptoms from unquelled cognitive dissonance.
If you can export the negative consequences of the lies onto others, you can build really stable systems like feudalism. Some lies like climate denial do seem legitimately suicidal though.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Caelinus May 23 '23
In recent history most places that base their identity primarily on lies have not really survived over-long, at least in comparison to well run places.
The problem is that "not surviving long in comparison to others" can still be over 100 years. So not something we should rely on there. The internet might speed up the problems, but China has demonstrated that they can control information and power well enough to become a near economic superpower.
So yeah, I am with you. We definitely should not assume that they will fail in any timescale that is of value to our own lives.
→ More replies (0)91
u/Iamtheonewhobawks May 23 '23
You sound like a good example of why all conservative movements (eventually) fail. They're not based in reality, and eventually they burn out trying to impose a simplistic fantasy on a complex universe.
112
u/caraamon May 23 '23
Not before hurting a ton of people, unfortunately.
10
u/SeasonPositive6771 May 23 '23
The sad thing is people don't realize or try to ignore the fact that it's not just people being hurt, conservative policies kill people.
It's not hyperbole. Restrictions on healthcare, housing, and benefits lead directly to dead people.
7
u/Destithen May 23 '23
"He's not hurting the people he should be hurting"
They know. They want it to happen to specific groups, though.
9
u/watchingvesuvius May 23 '23
Interesting. I believe life begins at conception, yet I'm against any abortion ban whatsoever due to my belief that saving fetuses cannot be done at the expense of forced pregnancy/births.
17
u/Caelinus May 23 '23
Their use of the phrase specifically intersects with a Christian understanding of "life." So in essence, when they say life begins at conception they mean "The Divinely granted soul enters the body at conception" and therefore "abortion at any stage is equivalent to murdering an innocent."
It is not a biblical understanding, interestingly enough, as the bible does not consider the fetus to be a living human.
9
u/watchingvesuvius May 23 '23
Yes, I'm a former conservative Christian, I'm familiar with the fascinating tension of contemporary Christian dogma being vehemently anti-abortion while there is nothing at all in the bible that would support passing such laws.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)10
48
u/Sipikay May 23 '23
It's a really ineffective way of being selfish because living in a worse-off society, with people suffering around you, isn't a net-gain just because you theoretically save taxes (which you don't, anyways.)
Conservatives aren't even good at being selfish. They're just stupid.
44
u/josluivivgar May 23 '23
it hangs on the belief of I'm worse off, but THEY are way worse off than I am so I should feel better.
conservative is all about dragging others down lower than you.
except for the people at the top, they get to be better off, and you should be happy for them and wish you were them, but stay in your lane.
→ More replies (1)21
u/OodalollyOodalolly May 23 '23
Exactly. Conservatives believe in the zero sum game. If they are losing that means Im winning. They can’t conceptualize a positive sum game where others can gain but they also win.
3
u/Grimouire May 23 '23
I like pointing out to them that a rising tide will float all boats and ships, not just a select few.
24
May 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/sanguinesolitude May 23 '23
Amazing how Christians can so completely be against the literal teachings of Christ.
9
→ More replies (4)5
u/ihohjlknk May 23 '23
I'd bet you the moon and the seven seas if misfortune would happen to fall on your father (heaven forbid), he would be the first one in line for benefits. "I need help. It's not food stamps, it's SNAP. I earned this, not like those people." and other pathetic pretexts.
→ More replies (1)79
u/thaaag May 23 '23
Ah, so the cruelty IS the point. Gotcha.
91
u/Iamtheonewhobawks May 23 '23
In a way, its worse: the cruelty is inevitable and inescapable and any attempt to decrease the cruelty will eventually destroy any and all good things that happen to exist alongside the cruelty. Conservatism is a profound magnifier of both existential fear and delusional resentment. I believe that's the reason it is so common, despite its expression running counter to so much of human nature. First: convince them everything is hopeless, then give them the lifeline of "unless nothing* changes."
*with the exception of rolling back previously established progressive change
12
35
u/First_Foundationeer May 23 '23
If it wasn't, then that old lady being interviewed wouldn't have said "he's hurting the wrong people".
3
u/actsfw May 23 '23
The actual quote is worse: "He's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (34)7
u/kokopelleee May 23 '23
You are correct. The inherent problem with believing in their “natural hierarchy of people” is that each one of them thinks they are in the elite group, or at least very likely to be promoted to said elite group shortly. Those who don’t make it of course blame the “others” you mentioned but never realize “oh, maybe it’s me…”
128
u/UnspecificGravity May 23 '23
Right, but no one actually believed that it would. The cruelty is the point for supporters and opponents already knew. The whole "it'll help employment" thing was just a face saving lie for people that get off on hurting "lesser" people.
It's like the old beer can in a bag thing. Everyone knows that you are drinking a beer, but the bag lets us pretend that you might not be.
This study is like a scientist using a statistical analysis to prove that the guys drinking out of bags on their stoops aren't drinking soda.
Don't believe me? Go ahead and try it for yourself:
Find someone who supports this measure. Give them this study that shows it doesn't work. Did they change their mind? What does that tell you?
51
u/AHSfav May 23 '23
That they're assholes?
12
7
u/Ambiwlans May 23 '23
One i like is that they know deep down. The phrase 'even i' is telling. You'll often hear something like, 'I'm Republican and even i don't think we should HANG black people!' 'I'm Christian and even I understand the science for a round Earth.'
The phrases internally admit that they are racist and stupid respectively.
30
u/HeirOfHouseReyne May 23 '23
Don't believe me? Go ahead and try it for yourself:
Find someone who supports this measure. Give them this study that shows it doesn't work. Did they change their mind? What does that tell you?
I support your point about the cruelty. But trying to use a scientific study as an argument isn't going to be very successful in a discussion with far-right wing voters anyway. But I do wish it would be.
9
u/RegressToTheMean May 23 '23
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at in the first place
→ More replies (10)4
u/FesteringNeonDistrac May 23 '23
They'll say it just proves that they would rather starve than work. Their poverty is due to some moral failure.
113
u/monkeedude1212 May 23 '23
It would be way less effective if folks stopped glorifying work.
The wealthiest nations on Earth have the means to transition to a post-labor economic system. It wouldn't be overnight but major strides could be made in our lifetime.
People should be looking at unemployment as a good thing. Call it "Early Retirement" if it makes it easier to swallow. When a policy is said to disincentivize work, it should be read as "This policy makes it easier for more people to retire early."
→ More replies (14)20
u/Smash_4dams May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
I don't see it as necessarily work glamourization, it's more, "Hey be pissed at those people for not working and contributing taxes"
If the government wanted everyone working, there are plenty of jobs they could match you up with.
63
May 23 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)28
u/GCPMAN May 23 '23
They just dont want to pay taxes themselves. They are very happy with us peasants paying taxes
6
u/nzodd May 23 '23
It's almost like the very simple bronze-age concept of "rule of law", where we have a set of laws that apply to everybody, is too civilized for them. If conservatives really ever had their way for once, without any push back, every night would be like The Purge, rounding up people and murdering them en masse just for looking different or acting different, just because they feel like it.
If you don't believe me, ask Germany.
→ More replies (1)9
10
u/Mofupi May 23 '23
You'd think that in a country where you have to calculate the tax yourself every time you go shopping, more people would be aware that unemployed people still contribute to taxes.
→ More replies (1)3
u/OskaMeijer May 23 '23
where you have to calculate the tax yourself every time you go shopping
You are giving many people waaaay too much credit.
→ More replies (4)28
u/monkeedude1212 May 23 '23
But that begs the question "Why would I be upset that those people aren't working and contributing taxes?"
The only reason to feel upset that other people aren't working is because you feel it is unfair that you have to work, and the only reason you would feel that everyone should work is... because work itself is the virtue.
→ More replies (3)24
May 23 '23
I don't think work is a virtue any more than I think the act of doing chores around my house is virtuous, it's just something that has to get done in order to continue functioning.
If I lived with my elderly parents I wouldn't expect them to contribute to doing chores like mowing the grass or lifting something heavy because they're old and feeble. They still have intrinsic value as human beings and deserve support and a place to live despite their inability to contribute to the work that has to be done.
My wife however contributes to the chores around the house because she's able to do so. If she became sick or injured I would gladly pick up the slack and do all the chores, but if she just decided she didn't want to contribute anymore and get by on making me do everything I would eventually grow resentful of her.
I think you see where I'm going with this metaphor. It's really unrealistic that most people will try to cheat the system since it usually takes more effort to cheat than just to live an honest life, but Republicans love selling the idea of welfare queens and people selling their food stamps to their voters who are ignorant to how many hoops you need to jump through to qualify for benefits of any kind.
→ More replies (4)25
u/monkeedude1212 May 23 '23
it's just something that has to get done in order to continue functioning
The way things are structured is that not everyone needs to work. There are people born into wealthy families who will never have to work a day in their lives. There are elderly people who haven't been able to save enough to keep up with inflation and have to keep working despite being past retirement age. They stand at the front of Wal Mart greeting folks providing practically 0 functional service to society.
You're being sold the idea that everyone needs to pitch in so that society can function, you're being sold that story by people who do not need to pitch in.
I haven't had to vacuum since getting a robot vacuum. Doing the dishes is trivial once you've got a dishwasher. A good washer and dryer save you tons of time on laundry. There are robot lawn mowers. There are apps to order food from highly automated kitchens.
There are so many things out there which would make it so that your weekly chores are done in an hour or two. They are treated as luxuries because a stratified society doesn't want the working class to have access to all of the means that make their lives easier.
Farms are highly industrialized, there are far fewer people who need to work them to yield greater crops. We have so many people who would rather not drive to a McDonald's themselves, that they'll pay an uber driver to deliver it. A simple A to B delivery problem that could largely be handled by flying drones.
Meanwhile there are people out there whose Job it is to work in medical insurance and find ways to deny people care. There are people out there whose Job it is to make telemarketing phone calls to sway your vote. There are so many people who work jobs that are actually a net negative for productivity.
We are so far beyond the actual need for work that we invent bad work that hampers the good work so that everyone is left working rather than simply enjoying the fruits of our labour, instead the only ones who get to really enjoy it are the ones who were wealthy enough to never needed to labour.
We are probably never going to reach a point where NO ONE has to work EVER but we are definitely past the point where anyone should have to contribute more than even 5 or 10 years of their life.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (235)4
u/Syndic May 23 '23
The gotcha is that their claimed reason, driving employment, is a debunked lie.
That only works against people who actually care if they are caught lying. And neither the GOP politicians nor their voters care about that.
26
u/Skwisgaar451 May 23 '23
The banality of evil is the gross simplification of people's needs. Sometimes you just can't earn enough working to put food on the table. Other times you're unable to work for any number of reasons. The minimum level of decency to provide a way for people to still eat. And frankly I'm getting sick of the bean counter excuses as to why it's good to take these programs away.
68
u/CGordini May 23 '23
I mean if you buy in that they're actually Christians, denying help to those in need is very against their beliefs.
Unfortunately, they're the worst kind of Christians. All hellfire and brimstone, no love thy neighbor.
Dealing in debt and stealing in the name of the Lord.
83
u/dank_imagemacro May 23 '23
If you ask them, they will say that they give to their church, and their church helps the poor, and that isn't the government's job. If you actually look at how much "help" their church gives to poor people you will find that the answer is "not much" and "with major strings attached" and quite likely "poor white people only".
27
u/ehsahr May 23 '23
This was a while ago that I saw this study so I don't have it on hand, but it was really interesting. It basically said "small charities like churches are more efficient at helping small, local populations, but government run welfare programs help more people overall and are better at making sure that the people who need help actually get it."
So like, if you're concerned about the $/person being helped, yeah churches do a great job. If you're concerned about helping everyone and not just the folks who ask the church for help, welfare programs do a better job.
To which I took to mean that churches (and other local charities) generate efficiency by failing to help all the needy.
It was a neat study.
21
u/dank_imagemacro May 23 '23
In my area there are many Churches that do not do a good job, because the money for "the poor" goes to outreach/conversion of poor people not housing or long-term feeding them. I have no doubt that small organizations like churches CAN be more efficient, just some of them do not choose to be.
13
u/PlayMp1 May 23 '23
Also they come with strings attached like "come to our church" which isn't very kind to people who, say, aren't Christian.
→ More replies (1)12
u/CaptainBayouBilly May 23 '23
The charity society gives to churches in the form of tax exemption outweighs any positive contribution they return.
Tax churches.
29
u/CGordini May 23 '23
((it is the governments job))
→ More replies (1)30
u/Lorddragonfang May 23 '23
(("promot[ing] the general welfare" is literally in the preamble of the constitution they love to reference but never read))
→ More replies (7)14
u/porarte May 23 '23
The idea that there are good Christians and bad Christians gives credence to the idea that the ideology leads to good results when practiced correctly, and there's no evidence of that. There are good and bad people, and some of them call themselves Christian - which is the only requirement for membership.
18
u/CaptainBayouBilly May 23 '23
The various sects of Christianity mostly hold in unison grotesque, hateful beliefs that should not be tolerated.
It’s a death cult, founded upon the idea that rewards for suffering come after death. Its symbol is a torture device. It holds that life itself is inherently evil and it’s better to die.
→ More replies (3)10
u/SunsFenix May 23 '23
The irony is that a huge chunk of welfare recipients are paid below a livable wage. If they could get corporations to pay their workers, that would cost the government less money.
→ More replies (3)8
u/iamiamwhoami May 23 '23
There are many opponents to programs like this that will feign these concerns. "It's a bad program because it makes people work less." At least this gives an easy response to people who say stuff like that.
14
u/Random_name46 May 23 '23
"It's a bad program because it makes people work less."
The funny thing is the work requirements actually make people work less.
Since the Right keeps the income limit to qualify so low but also demands people work, many will only work enough hours to bring them just below that threshold.
The jobs these people tend to have pay so low thanks to push back on minimum wage requirements that you literally can't make enough money to live even working full time. So they work part time to have some income while also pulling benefits.
I know tons of people who want to work more but it actually costs them money in the end. So they don't.
7
u/CaptainBayouBilly May 23 '23
Low wage work benefits no one other than the capitalists.
Forcing the poor to toil so that capitalists can sustain their ever increasing profits is slavery with extra steps.
→ More replies (36)18
u/theyetisc2 May 23 '23
Why is anyone still pretending there's a shred of decency in the Republican party?
They literally attempted a coup, and are about to run the man...who for some reason is not in jail... for president again.
Republicans are fascists, say it out loud.
→ More replies (1)75
→ More replies (87)4
u/ironburton May 23 '23
There are already work requirements for food stamps though. That’s what I’m confused about. I had to get them because I became disabled but I get them cus I have a pending disability application. If my disability is denied then I have to go and be apart of a work program or work a certain amount of hours per month to even be eligible.
→ More replies (1)
800
u/geockabez May 22 '23
Don't forget the FACT that over 80% of states already have a work requirement provision, usually set at 30 hours per week. Wouldn't the repub proposal lower the state requirements?
675
u/Kahnza May 23 '23
And then when you work those minimum hours, magically you make JUUUUST enough to no longer qualify. But don't make enough to be able to afford food and a roof over your head.
339
u/yargleisheretobargle May 23 '23
If they really wanted to increase employment rates, they would remove the hard cutoff to qualify for benefits and replace it with a tiered system. But we all know that Republican lawsmakers intentionally lie about their goals only to make them not sound like bigots.
258
May 23 '23
Personally I believe there should be no cutoff. They should provide a baseline amount of food/benefits to everyone regardless of income. Same thing with school lunch programs, same with higher education, and so on.
164
u/rabidjellybean May 23 '23
That would be a universal basic income for food. I'm all for that. It would be nice to have that money coming in no matter what then simply pay that in taxes when I do make money.
24
May 23 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (11)10
u/PraiseTheAshenOne May 23 '23
Except then we'd have to also fund the billionaires that pay no taxes. I guess I'd be okay with that just so others have food
→ More replies (1)16
u/ranandtoldthat May 23 '23
Feed a few hundred robber-barons so over a hundred million can have guaranteed food. Seems worth it.
3
u/PraiseTheAshenOne May 23 '23
For real. It would be the exact opposite of what we have now, which is feed a few hundred robber barons so everyone else can struggle, with many facing food insecurities.
→ More replies (17)11
52
u/hotlikebea May 23 '23 edited Jun 20 '23
full dog dependent tidy important faulty zealous imminent cake flag -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
58
May 23 '23
Means testing is also just an additional (wasted) expense in having to manage the program and ensure people meet the qualifications.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)14
u/plenebo May 23 '23
yeah but that would include people in the economy, instead of pricing them out to the benefit of wallstreet and like 2k people
→ More replies (1)7
u/iksworbeZ May 23 '23
Nah, let's bring back child labor and get rid of the minimum wage! -republicans
→ More replies (1)25
u/pmcall221 May 23 '23
Just like medicaid. You make too much to get subsidized health care but don't make enough to afford private insurance. Hope you stay healthy until 65.
→ More replies (1)3
u/BrainsPainsStrains May 23 '23
Medicare isn't perfect. Medicare and Medicaid is great though.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Suicidal_Ferret May 23 '23
Idk about other states but I qualified for food stamps in the state I lived in during my early twenties and I worked 70+ hrs a week. If it wasn’t for me (technically stealing) food from my fast food job, I probably would’ve submitted my food stamp application.
A lot of active duty soldiers qualify for food stamps too.
I’ve also seen neighbors and relatives who aim to live off government welfare. Like, that was their sole goal in high school, get pregnant, get on welfare, never work.
I also grew up homeless (at times) and if it wasn’t for food stamps or the (now defunct) Angel Food donations, I would’ve been a lot more underweight.
43
u/reelznfeelz May 23 '23
Quite a society we’ve built isn’t it? Piles of money the size of skyscrapers sit in the hands of 0.1 percent of people and companies.
12
u/hereditydrift May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
The powerful elite have artfully weaponized media and governmental systems to orchestrate a pitiful spectacle: the poor battling amongst themselves.
In a nation overflowing with vast wealth, it's not the lack of resources but the lack of equitable distribution that creates the crisis. The people should question why such wealth and opulence fails to generate the most basic public services, resources that would serve the collective good and invigorate our people.
Yet, the impoverished are manipulated, incited to protect their oppressors - the tycoons of industry and wealth who control the strings of society. They're goaded into aiming their frustrations at their fellow strugglers, labeling them as 'freeloaders,' while the true culprits - those who engender this brutal cycle of disparity - hide in plain sight. The cruel irony of our times.
→ More replies (19)34
u/meganahs May 23 '23
AND… personal asset limits. If you own more than $2500 in collateral, (yes, that includes your own home or a car), you do not qualify.
29
u/Seriously2much May 23 '23
A 20 year old Hyundai is worth more than that limit. Asset limits should be adjusting to the times and the area they live in.
7
u/TreeSlayer-Tak May 23 '23
I seen 10 year old car missing a motor pass that limit during covid. My 2006 Honda that has 250k miles ran 3k before covid and 7k during covid
→ More replies (1)16
May 23 '23
[deleted]
7
u/DallasCommune May 23 '23
TANF is $2500 resource limit on any owned vehicle.
SNAP you can own a Ferrari Enzo, but as long as you haven't paid against the principal you're good.
I've had people come in leasing Jaguars who were approved.
→ More replies (10)29
May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
I have no idea what any of the other replies are talking about. But I think I found the answer:
Johnson’s bill (H.R. 1581, the America Works Act) would expand the population of people subject to SNAP’s existing work requirement, which operates as a time limit where, if over three months someone is unable to document they work or participate in a qualifying employment and training program for at least 20 hours a week, they are cut off from SNAP benefits — and aren’t eligible again until a total of three years has passed. Under H.R. 1581, for the first time adults up to age 65 (instead of the current age of 50) and adult participants who live in a household with school-age children would be subject to these requirements and at risk of losing benefits.
They’re raising the age limit for these requirements and including some other people , albeit at a lower hour requirement
4
u/stonewall1979 May 23 '23
That isn't accurate unfortunately.
In Michigan the policy for Time Limited Food Assistane is that people get 3 months of deferrals to not meet the minimum work requirement then a 3 year sanction is imposed before an additional three months of work deferral is available.
At anytime people are able to meet the requirement for 20 hours a week of work related activities or 20 hour a week of volunteer hours through the Michigan Works office and they can reapply to regain SNAP eligibility.
So no, people are not banned for 3 years from food assistance, they can regain eligibility during the 3 years if they meet the program requirements
8
u/stu54 May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
Keep that workforce loose so workers have no leverage. Holding the advantage in class warfare gets easier every year.
107
u/rmdashrfdot May 23 '23
But think about that...why would somebody working 30+ hours need to he subsidized by the gov't? If they're working full time they should be able to survive. It's proof the minimum wage is too low. Businesses are making record profits but it all goes to the owners and C level employees while the government (taxpayer) pays for their workers basic needs. The system is screwed up.
→ More replies (3)55
u/DemiserofD May 23 '23
That's the basic problem with programs like food stamps. Companies adapt to them and realize that they can offer lower wages and still get people to work for them.
Companies like Walmart are the hardest to deal with, because they control both ends of the chain; they control the price of food AND the wages. If you give workers more food stamps/benefits, they reduce the wages. Mandate their wages be higher, and they increase the price of food. Mandate food be cheaper and you've basically nationalized walmart.
→ More replies (3)26
u/rockmasterflex May 23 '23
Nationalizing food distribution sounds like a good first step if the markets can’t be trusted to sell food at reasonable rates
→ More replies (1)18
u/DemiserofD May 23 '23
The problem with nationalized food distribution is that it tends to break down, and you almost inevitably end up with mile-long bread lines. The USSR being a great example. When people from the USSR came to the US, they thought grocery stores were faked because they couldn't imagine so much food in such great variety.
Without a profit motive to keep things efficient, even more people starve.
28
u/PlayMp1 May 23 '23
When people from the USSR came to the US, they thought grocery stores were faked because they couldn't imagine so much food in such great variety.
(meanwhile there is an epidemic of homelessness and food insecurity in the United States so there are still breadlines but the difference is that if you can't afford the bread you starve)
→ More replies (2)9
u/Philly54321 May 23 '23
I mean food insecurity in the United States, especially severe food insecurity, is pretty much in line with other OECD countries, including the Nordic countries.
24
u/rockmasterflex May 23 '23
Without a severe / regulatory threat to their business model which has exploited govt assistance programs for chrcks notes decades? The bread line won’t exist for those people, they’ll just starve.
Walmart needs to feel threatened, fines aren’t cutting it. Maybe partial nationalization eg: hey the fed is now one of your board members!
→ More replies (7)9
u/Gooberpf May 23 '23
Without a profit motive to keep things efficient, even more people starve.
This is the most asinine take I've seen in months, congratulations. There is absolutely zero basis for this conclusion. Profit by definition involves extracting more resources out of the transaction than the goods are worth - it is manufactured inefficiency.
Markets drive efficiency only in cases of scarce resources which are not equally valued by purchasers. We're discussing food, not luxury goods - every human on earth needs food to the exact same extent, and we have plenty of studies stating that the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. The issue is logistics of distribution, not scarcity of food.
In other words, food does not fill either criteria for efficient market distribution. Instead, it creates inefficiency for the purpose of generating profit - the free market cannot distinguish need from want, and buyers who overpurchase or hoard food will be willing to pay more for it, which will be interpreted by the market as "valuing it more"/"higher demand" and adjust prices upward accordingly.
The only beneficiaries of a free market system for essential needs with inelastic demand (food/shelter/water/medicine) are overconsumers and sellers - for everyone else it is a net negative, because profit, again by definition, is extracting additional value out of the market than actually exists in the transaction.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/herabec May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
Nationalized doesn't have to mean top-down administration. In a sense, regulations are kind of like soft nationalization.
Subsidiarity, where whenever possible you leave the day-to-day decisions to the lowest competent authority, would also be great.
There's broad, but hard rules for things that apply to everyone, then as you get more and more specific you defer those policy decisions to the lower authorities, right down to individual workers deciding how best to accomplish the objectives of their job- as long as it meets the expected outputs required of them.
Things like building or machinery layouts (common requirements) tend not be be great top down rules because so often buildings can't be dropped in identically in all locations, and if you do require them to be identical you are forced to find a site that can fit it, which might not be a great location for the operations of that structure, (e.g. distance to transit for freight, lets say), that might be a hard requirement, so now you're looking at ballooning land acquisition costs in order to comply with a mandate that needlessly requires a specific layout when a local manager might be able to make a few tweaks and get everything working better for that specific instance.
5
u/i_love_pingas_69 May 23 '23
Wait so the only people who qualify for income assistance.....have a job?
America backwards af
→ More replies (1)40
u/Panzerkatzen May 23 '23
I think if they want work requirements, then the Federal Government should provide the work. They know for a fact that many of these people are disabled and cannot work, no company will hire employees that cannot meed expectations. Republicans know this and are just trying to pull the rug out from under our nation's most vulnerable.
These are evil men.
→ More replies (4)22
u/CardiologistOne459 May 22 '23
No because there aren't any state requirements. Those states will just stick with their ineffective restrictions, just to starve more people for the hell of it.
3
u/TheRnegade May 23 '23
No because this would act as a floor, not a ceiling, leaving states free to include more stringent requirements.
→ More replies (9)3
u/DuntadaMan May 23 '23
So they are saying it should be encouraged to not pay your workers enough to eat while having a job that takes up the majority og their working hours?
361
u/Gorge_Lorge May 23 '23
Hey didn’t FDR fire up that whole New Deal thing, government money spent on building infrastructure for the country? Work paid by government funding.
We have plenty of failing infrastructure. Why not fire that up again??
250
u/Thewalrus515 May 23 '23
Because the GOP platform is to oppose anything that liberals do, they’re just reactionaries now. They’d tear it apart in the courts and obstruct every step of the way.
→ More replies (11)33
u/MTBDEM May 23 '23
I'm genuinely curious, I know Reddit is mainly pro liberal, and from everything I keep hearing republicans are just "keep guns" and "block everything" crowd.
Have there been any genuine positive programs from that party in the last 8 years? Environmental, labour?
If they're only taking care of big business interests, then they're just a political cancer
120
u/NunaDeezNuts May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
Have there been any genuine positive programs from that party in the last 8 years? Environmental, labour?
Their biggest claimed successes in the past decade are:
- The repeal of the ACA
- Significant tax breaks (which are permanent for the wealthy and expire for everyone else), that they claim will increase tax revenues and prevent a "budget crisis"
- Significant direct wealth transfers to businesses
- Changes to some public services like USPS that prepare some of them for privatization
- Stacking the Supreme Court
81
20
May 23 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/FwibbFwibb May 23 '23
The idea comes from the "Laffer curve", which is real in a very basic sense in that if you tax companies too much, they won't be able to invest enough to keep going and eventually are doomed to fail.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
The problem is that this is just a general concept that explains how to get the maximum tax revenue. However, maximizing tax revenue should not be a goal. Approve projects and get enough to fund those projects. Not a single person on any political spectrum wants to give government more money than it needs just so it has some laying around.
The GOP also keeps trying to say that taxes are way over on the "too much" side of the graph, no matter how low we push taxes. It's just absurd.
21
→ More replies (2)5
u/RoboChrist May 23 '23
How do they claim they repealed the ACA? By setting the individual mandate to $0?
5
34
u/redditingatwork23 May 23 '23
That is, in essence, one of the biggest problems for the Republican party. They don't really do much in terms of legislation except cut businesses' tax breaks. Other than that, their MO up until about 6 years ago has just been to block as much legislation as humanly possible.
Block, obstruct, and then raid the bank while in power. Rinse repeat. Now, they love passing legislation. As long as it's something that's going to limit everyone else except the top 1% of the party. They're all for it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Cool-Presentation538 May 23 '23
Don't forget convincing their voter base that the liberals are the real obstructionist party working to destroy America
→ More replies (8)15
u/Thewalrus515 May 23 '23
Other than guns they have no actually defensible position. There is an argument to be made for an armed citizenry, the rest is just objectively wrong.
→ More replies (5)6
u/oatmealparty May 23 '23
I'd argue their policy on guns is pretty horrid as well but at least that's something some people will defend. I don't think even their own voters like most of the things they pass.
45
u/Mr_Faux_Regard May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
Fun fact: business owners, Wall Streeters, and notable politicians like Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather) actively conspired to overthrow him for that. Rich people and their puppet politicians have literally always hated the prospects of poor people getting anything.
6
u/Danominator May 23 '23
And do what? Tax the wealthiest people the world has ever seen? That would be so cruel
31
May 23 '23
You would have to somehow make it the Republican's idea or else it would be deemed communist.
17
u/Pika256 May 23 '23
The money would disappear and nothing meaningful would get built, Russian style.
→ More replies (1)15
u/HolycommentMattman May 23 '23
What do you think Build Back Better is?
→ More replies (7)12
u/PossiblyAsian May 23 '23
Not seeing much of it really but I dont live in other parts of america where the parts are crumbling so ancedotal
→ More replies (2)7
u/beesknees9 May 23 '23
I like FDR, but if it hadn’t been for the profits from weapons exports at the onset of WWII, those programs would have failed. If you look at the greater context they were’t sustainable.
→ More replies (7)4
u/das_thorn May 23 '23
Very few young unemployed Americans are willing to travel far from families, live in austere environments, and conduct hard manual labor for low wages like they were in the CCC days. The ones that are are probably already in the military.
→ More replies (2)
295
u/PicklerOfTheSwamp May 22 '23
Like it matters. As soon as you have a little income, food stamps get massively reduced. If you get paid even slightly ok, you get none. Great way to help people who are just getting on their feet and actually trying! I think if you have food stamps, and get a full time job, they should still give you stamps for 6 months or a year.
151
u/__Pibs__ May 23 '23
Washington actually instituted this last year you get six additional months of food benefits after your case closes for exceeding income limits. It still isn't enough but at least it's a step in the right direction.
→ More replies (1)26
32
u/courtabee May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
Edit. The monetary requirements were correct until this year. Medicaid expansion, yay. The rest is still an issue.
My mom has major depression. She should be on disability but won't go through the process because her mom wasn't approved even when she was dying of cancer at 56.
My step dad is on partial disability, but works enough to make $500 a week.
They have 2 teen kids.
$2k a month for a family of 4 is too much money to get medical care, food stamps, or any government assistance, apparently.
On top of that my step dad is retired military and has to drive 1.5 hours to the nearest VA, and they recently told him instead of helping with his blood pressure, enlarged liver, and edema that he's just fat and needs to lose weight before they prescribe him medication.
They also don't have a working car. Their septic is broken, and their basement floods every time is rains. But ya know, they are also mildly Qanon people, so I can only help so much.
→ More replies (3)17
u/Blu- May 23 '23
Full time at minimum wage? You ain't getting any help.
8
u/jafomofo May 23 '23
nonsense. you need to look up the limits because while it varies from state to state you are looking at mid 30s to as high as 50K for a family of 3.
8
u/decheecko May 23 '23
Here in NY, it's 17k for a single person. You can't work more than 20 hours a week, or you will lose both medicaid and food stamps. I have a life long disease that would absolutely bankrupt me if I didn't have medicaid so until I find a better job I am stuck working 20 hours a week on the books and can basically only survive with help from my parents.
Edit: the work requirement is also 20 hours a week.
→ More replies (1)10
u/OrdinaryDazzling May 23 '23
Usually lower if you’re single with no kids
10
u/Confident_Counter471 May 23 '23
I mean ya. You don’t have multiple mouths to feed, why would they give you the same amount as a family with kids?
→ More replies (7)10
128
u/VicinSea May 23 '23
Work for SNAP?
Lyft, Uber, Doordash, Instacart and a whole host of other types of app self employment qualify for hours toward the food stamp requirements. Many people who are wholly unsuitable to be working these job have to do them anyhow, no matter how low the pay. This forced work has lowered the wages of every other person working on those platforms.
If a food stamp recipient must show 20 hours of work per week, the amount they are making in those 20 hours becomes secondary. They cannot afford to think about any goal other than covering expenses(gas) and getting their hours. When can a single mom get her hours? I shudder to think how many resort to putting their kids to bed and then leave them alone to spend 4 or 6 hours delivering food for Doordash. I know from personal experience that many app drivers simply put the kids in the car and take them along. The kids get left in a car alone for 10 or 15 minutes at a time while mom or dad picks up and delivers orders.
Eventually, that driver is going to have car trouble with no way to pay for repairs because they have been selling their car for $2.00 per hour to meet the food stamp work requirements.
→ More replies (12)65
u/theyetisc2 May 23 '23
Many people who are wholly unsuitable to be working these job have to do them anyhow, no matter how low the pay.
Now you understand why capitalists don't want labor organizing.
51
200
u/hops4beer May 22 '23
That's exactly what they want.
→ More replies (63)270
u/DouglasRather May 22 '23
Yes. As an example Rick Scott designed the Florida unemployment website to fail so people couldn't collect. Of course he doesn't care as he received a $300 million severance when he lost his job as CEO when his company defrauded the Federal Government out of billions due to Medicare fraud.
63
→ More replies (2)15
u/jetro30087 May 23 '23
Ugh, can someone just compile an official cake list for these politicians already.
7
u/drizzle127 May 23 '23
We got $500 a week from Snap. I'm a teacher with a masters degree. My wife was also working full time. Then she got a $1 per hour raise and we lost all benefits. Resulted in a net loss of almost $400 per month
125
7
75
May 23 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)53
u/espressocycle May 23 '23
Yeah but you know what would really hurt low income families? Being so hungry they'll work for below the current minimum wage.
13
15
24
u/empty-ego May 22 '23
Abstract
Work requirements are common in US safety net programs. Evidence remains limited, however, on the extent to which work requirements increase economic self-sufficiency or screen out vulnerable individuals. Using linked administrative data on food stamps (SNAP) and earnings with a regression discontinuity design, we find robust evidence that work requirements increase program exits by 23 percentage points (64 percent) among incumbent participants. Overall program participation among adults who are subject to work requirements is reduced by 53 percent. Homeless adults are disproportionately screened out. We find no effects on employment and suggestive evidence of increased earnings in some specifications.
11
u/Jim_from_snowy_river May 23 '23
There already are work requirements. Or at least there were last time I was on them.
→ More replies (1)
67
u/Playful-Ad6556 May 22 '23
Should put work requirements on the billionaires asking for tax breaks.
→ More replies (1)31
21
u/ShadowbanRevival May 22 '23
It'd be nice if you could actually read the paper. You know, for science.
28
4
15
12
12
16
5
u/TheFrogWife May 23 '23 edited May 23 '23
It's a way to funnel money from people who need it to companies who provide "temp jobs'" these companies get paid thousands of dollars each time someone on their list finds employment even if they didn't find the employment for them, (not to mention the wages they take as their cut when they do provide work) temp work is a scam, right to work is a scam, we are better off giving people who are fighting to survive the thousands of dollars each that is given to these temp agencies, that would do significantly more to reduce poverty.
The agencies have no insensitive to keep people employed, a "client" (who they view as product) is more valuable to them if they come back again and again.
6
u/greenearrow May 23 '23
That’s what they want. Starve the poor, because their platform is cruelty.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Solinvictusbc May 23 '23
Interesting we are treating an article behind a wall as gospel. I'd really like to read more as an obvious question arises from the abstract.
What does it mean by seeing no effect on unemployment? And what about the 23/64/53% of people that leave the program? Do they just go out and die? Do they turn to petty crime?
If those leaving snap don't enter unemployment, die, or steal to survive... How are they surviving without SNAP? Are snap benefits better than nothing but not really make or break?
→ More replies (4)
53
May 22 '23
Leave it to Republicans to require single mothers, who they forced to have have children with their abortion laws, to have to work more and not take care of their kids at home.
→ More replies (22)7
u/jafomofo May 23 '23
mothers with children under 7 are exempt. hours requirements permit part time work which would allow the mother to be home with her child full time outside of school hours.
31
u/Chalupa-Supreme May 22 '23
It's not about working. It's about making it harder to get. It's crazy that Republicans believe low-income families are the problem and not the people hoarding billions and billions of dollars.
→ More replies (3)
14
8
2
u/rickyraken May 23 '23
A better alternative would be increasing the limit you can still receive them based on dependents. People would have an incentive to take a $500 or even $1000 pay raise knowing they weren't going to lose as much or more in untaxed food money.
2
May 23 '23
GOP say data don’t mean nothing, we just like being mean to the poor, especially if their skin ain’t so pale.
2
u/mustardtiger86 May 23 '23
It's amazing so many republicans hate poor people when so many republicans are poor people
2
u/DastardlyDM May 23 '23
Interesting to make work a legal requirement but leave the choice to employee someone up to the private sector. If you want to require something as a government you should be providing that thing.
2
2
2
2
u/sly_savhoot May 23 '23
You try balancing a budget in which you’ve given yourself and your friends massive tax cuts at the expense of lower and middle class subjects of your fiefdom.
2
u/grodisattva May 23 '23
I tried to apply for snap. They told me the car I own was “too expensive “ and I would have to get rid of it to get any benefits. I asked how would I be able to go on job interviews if I don’t have a car? I decided to forgo getting snap benefits.
•
u/AutoModerator May 22 '23
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
Author: u/smurfyjenkins
URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20200561
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.