Support NeoGAF

[Cyberpunkd]

It's because of capitalism these companies where able to achieve so much wealth that they had the luxury to be incredibly inefficient. I mean, they have been doing to same with the warehouse workers. now is hitting these "highly educated" workforce. remember a few years back they were mocking Blue collar workers "learn to Code". But whatever.

what's next?.... the generation of new smaller, flexible and hyper competitive companies

Explain to me how a company can compete with Amazon if you know your anti monopoly laws are not working?

 

[AJUMP23]

Absolutely agree, while you're at it you can also make sure it's impossible to pay taxes while being an illegal, so it doesn't make it so obvious it's "fake it till you make it (legally)".

People in the country illegally should be unemployable. That works for me.

 

[Toons]

I want the 40 million on food stamps to start working. Can we say 40 million on food stamps is ridiculous number of people.

Buddy most of them ARE working.

I was on food stamps the entirety of last year and was employed the whole time. For a period, I had two jobs!

Guess what? That job didn't pay me enough to have food AND have a bed to sleep on.

 

[AJUMP23]

Buddy most of them ARE working.

I was on food stamps the entirety of last year and was employed the whole time. For a period, I had two jobs!

Guess what? That job didn't pay me enough to have food AND have a bed to sleep on.

Well I hope you are doing better now. But 40 million people on food stamps is ridiculous.

 

[ClanOfNone]

Nah, just the useless paper pushers and OF girls.

Learn to plumb!

Say now, I know a bit about plumbing, I'd love to lay some pipe with this pretty lady.

 

[BigDeadFreak]

Previous shifts have only really affected the poor, working class who had no power to resist it because the wealthy and powerful wanted it.

AI is coming after every class.

So what happened to the landed gentry, the samurai, the Aztec priests, the medieval knights or the British Raj?

What about all the CEOs of Blockbuster Video, Borders, Woolworths or Toys R Us?

Loads of people have lost out over human history because new technology came in and rendered their roles redundant. I imagine a lot of people who used to run small, independent bookshops are raising a wry smile at the thought of all those Amazon employees losing their jobs.

We have a massive skills gap in the west with far too people doing manual jobs like care work, construction, etc. So much so that we keep relying on immigrant labour to do these jobs for us. AI and automation could solve this problem if it is handled properly.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Damn... AI will destroy us all.

At least PS5 have a Power Saver mode now.

I'm still curious how these big companies think that anyone will buy their products if no one has a job because AI is doing everything. Also who government thinks will pay taxes.

 

[Rentahamster]

Well I hope you are doing better now. But 40 million people on food stamps is ridiculous.

I think 40 million starving people, many of them children, would be more ridiculous.

 

[ahtlas7]

That wedding was really expensive!

 

[Durien]

One idea could be to use people to do migrant work. It kills 2 birds with one stone. In Japan, companies have housing that is like 1/2 the cost for as long as you work for the company. If we did something similar next to agricultural areas, maybe that might help.

The problem is people need to want to a work or do this type of work. I thought low security prisons might do the same thing. Take people out to do the agricultural work. Teaches them about agriculture, gives them pride in a job, and also gives back to society since you are paying them the prison wage.

 

[GateofD]

Was pretty insane during Covid. Like I was on food stamps. But got a job, so my food stamps got reduced to $5 a month and just waiting for it to expire in like 2-3 months. And then Covid happened, and they maxed benefits for everyone. No questions asked. Guess too much flooding of paperwork. Went from $5 to like $300 a month with my regular job full time.

Was stocking my kitchen with the good stuff. Fridge was full and had no room

 

[jason10mm]

I think 40 million starving people, many of them children, would be more ridiculous.

Well, the issue would then be "how to reduce the number of children with parents that need help feeding them"?

I would suggest A. having TWO parents in the equation helps, B. limiting # of children to what you can support on your own, that number -may- be zero, and C. delay having children until you can, if ever, support yourself. It should be culturally a negative thing to be on government assistance like this with folks striving to be independent and net contributors to their country. So while needing help during times of difficulty isn't inherently a bad thing, EXPECTING and even DEMANDING such help while simultaneously digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole of needing help is not a virtue.

That we have seen DECADES of such assistance with no apparent reduction in poverty begs the question that the assistance fosters dependency and instills generational demand for it, so it's no longer something for a temporary hardship, but a way of life, handed down to future generations as a good and acceptable thing with little attempt to break out.

 

[AJUMP23]

I think 40 million starving people, many of them children, would be more ridiculous.

Here is the rub, not having government support does not mean you will starve. It does mean people may have to prioritize food over other things. The level of hyperbole on your statement is silly.

Hard to argue she will starve


not starving



I think there is probably a lot of abuse, more than there is actual need.

 

[jason10mm]

One idea could be to use people to do migrant work. It kills 2 birds with one stone. In Japan, companies have housing that is like 1/2 the cost for as long as you work for the company. If we did something similar next to agricultural areas, maybe that might help.

A temporary "manual labor" work visa for a period of time like 6 months, renewable annually, seems reasonable. Have it cost a grand or so, so it's cheap enough to not need to duck it by paying a coyote more to smuggle you across, it includes a basic medical exam to filter out disease, and you can't be pregnant and get one, so it drastically reduces anchor babies without barring women from the visa entirely. That would potentially create a group of folks who keep their roots/families in their native country (mexico most likely) but come to the US for the seasonal work we need them to do. But they are doing it with a legal status so they can be properly protected and monitored, and they have little incentive to stay in the us or bring their families so we don't create a growing poverty class (since these folks are likely working for less than is necessary to live in the US with a family but more than sufficient for mexico).

The problem is people need to want to a work or do this type of work. I thought low security prisons might do the same thing. Take people out to do the agricultural work. Teaches them about agriculture, gives them pride in a job, and also gives back to society since you are paying them the prison wage.

The issue there is setting up an economic reason to SEND people to prison, especially if the judge is getting kick-backs. I would argue that if you are so low threat that you can be trusted to do work, you probably don't need to be in prison in the first place, versus some other punitive measure such as fines, community service, or a brief period of really harsh time and then release.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I find it amazing that Amazon has over 300,000 office workers alone.

A giant company like Nestle with global operations has about 275,000 total employees (office and blue collar staff).

 

[Rentahamster]

Well, the issue would then be "how to reduce the number of children with parents that need help feeding them"?

The simplest and most obvious way would be to help them pay for food.

So while needing help during times of difficulty isn't inherently a bad thing, EXPECTING and even DEMANDING such help while simultaneously digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole of needing help is not a virtue.

That we have seen DECADES of such assistance with no apparent reduction in poverty begs the question that the assistance fosters dependency and instills generational demand for it, so it's no longer something for a temporary hardship, but a way of life, handed down to future generations as a good and acceptable thing with little attempt to break out.

This doesn't track with historical data. The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1964, and poverty rates have declined since then despite it being harder and harder to raise a family in the USA due to rising costs of living and low wages that don't keep pace with productivity increases.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2023/demo/p60-280/figure1.pdf

the assistance fosters dependency and instills generational demand for it, so it's no longer something for a temporary hardship, but a way of life, handed down to future generations as a good and acceptable thing with little attempt to break out.

According to this report, 61.5% of SNAP beneficiaries were on it for 3 years or less.

How Long Do People Receive Assistance?

A recent report examines means-tested program participation rates, the extent to which the programs are used, and median monthly benefit amounts from January 2009 through December 2012 using longitudinal data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. The means-tested programs included...

www.census.gov

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Here is the rub, not having government support does not mean you will starve. It does mean people may have to prioritize food over other things. The level of hyperbole on your statement is silly.

Hard to argue she will starve


not starving



I think there is probably a lot of abuse, more than there is actual need.

Snap or not, but a lot of general social assistance paid for by gov debt and hardworking taxpayers grinding it out 9-5, that's where your money is going to. Enjoy.

 

[Durien]

I find it amazing that Amazon has over 300,000 office workers alone.

A giant company like Nestle with global operations has about 275,000 total employees (office and blue collar staff).

MS has a similar amount of full time employees. I think they were at 285k FTEs last time they announced layoffs.

 

[Rentahamster]

Here is the rub, not having government support does not mean you will starve. It does mean people may have to prioritize food over other things.

There exist people who spend all of their money on rent and utilities, with not much left for food. Some people don't have enough money to cover basic needs.

The level of hyperbole on your statement is silly.

If my implication that 40 million not on food stamps would starve is silly, is your implication that 40 million people actually don't need this and are possibly just faking it or bad at budgeting any less silly?

 

[jason10mm]

The simplest and most obvious way would be to help them pay for food.



This doesn't track with historical data. The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1964, and poverty rates have declined since then despite it being harder and harder to raise a family in the USA due to rising costs of living and low wages that don't keep pace with productivity increases.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2023/demo/p60-280/figure1.pdf

I don't know how you are interpreting that chart but to me it looks like poverty % has been effectively flat since 1970, aka 5 decades ago.

According to this report, 61.5% of SNAP beneficiaries were on it for 3 years or less.

How Long Do People Receive Assistance?

A recent report examines means-tested program participation rates, the extent to which the programs are used, and median monthly benefit amounts from January 2009 through December 2012 using longitudinal data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. The means-tested programs included...

www.census.gov

That chart just shows the percentage using services over a 4 year period (2009-2012). So roughly a third of users (almost half for housing) were using them basically the entire time, which would likely represent a stable population of folks that are essentially existing off assistance for life. A third only uses assistance for ~1 year within that 4 year period, which would be more in line with "I got hurt and couldn't work for a bit, thanks for the help" that I feel most folks would agree is an appropriate thing to spend tax money on.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't know how you are interpreting that chart but to me it looks like poverty % has been effectively flat since 1970, aka 5 decades ago.

I wrote how I'm interpreting the data:

The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1964, and poverty rates have declined since then despite it being harder and harder to raise a family in the USA due to rising costs of living and low wages that don't keep pace with productivity increases.

That chart just shows the percentage using services over a 4 year period (2009-2012). So roughly a third of users (almost half for housing) were using them basically the entire time, which would likely represent a stable population of folks that are essentially existing off assistance for life. A third only uses assistance for ~1 year within that 4 year period, which would be more in line with "I got hurt and couldn't work for a bit, thanks for the help" that I feel most folks would agree is an appropriate thing to spend tax money on.

Yes, that's what I wrote too, in so many words.


If I'm summarizing your thesis properly, your contention was that SNAP doesn't help poverty and in fact worsens/maintains poverty by encouraging generational laziness and welfare subsistence. I provided data that showed a reduction in poverty since food stamps were implemented which resulted in a lower baseline poverty rate despite the ever increasing amount of factors that contribute to poverty in the last few decades. I also showed how people who have to rely on food stamps for 3 to 4 years are probably at most around 40%, and that the generational welfare moochers you are concerned about reside somewhere in that 40%. Which means that the short term assistance people are the majority of benefit recipients, which would go against your thesis.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That chart just shows the percentage using services over a 4 year period (2009-2012). So roughly a third of users (almost half for housing) were using them basically the entire time, which would likely represent a stable population of folks that are essentially existing off assistance for life. A third only uses assistance for ~1 year within that 4 year period, which would be more in line with "I got hurt and couldn't work for a bit, thanks for the help" that I feel most folks would agree is an appropriate thing to spend tax money on.

Yup. That's how social assistance is supposed to be. A temporary low paid pay out to get by. It's not meant to be forever, nor an amount to make a living off it to get through life comfortably.

Most countries are probably the exact same. Any kind of welfare or unemployment pay is going to be roughly the same as minimum wage or even less. That's to purposely make it so if someone wants more money they got to get a job.

Giving people some temporary pay is fine. That's the point of paying taxes so it covers societal issues and gov worker pay (which are the same people who administer out services so it ties together). But people living off it forever is stupid unless they got a serious issue like major health issues or they are handicapped and will never be able to get a job. Though the last one is even debateable because I knew a guy at one of my old summer jobs during university who had some mental issues (nice guy but he wasnt totally normal), so he got a really basic job helping with cardboard boxes and taping up stuff. He wasnt allowed to enter or do any cooking tasks, nor use the forklift even though all us summer sudents were allowed. Probably paid min wage. Probably covered by the gov too. So even people with some mental issues can get a job and help out.

Another example of temporary pay is losing a job. You dont get it forever collecting unemployment insurance payouts till he dies. To discourage that, UI gets cut off at some point so you get off your ass and get a new job.

 

[jason10mm]

If I'm summarizing your thesis properly, your contention was that SNAP doesn't help poverty and in fact worsens poverty by encouraging generational laziness and welfare subsistence. I provided data that showed a reduction in poverty since food stamps were implemented which resulting in a lower baseline rate despite the ever increasing amount of factors that contribute to poverty in the last few decades. I also showed how people who have to rely on food stamps for 3 to 4 years are probably at most around 40%, and that the generational welfare moochers you are concerned about reside somewhere in that 40%. Which means that the short term assistance people are the majority of benefit recipients, which would go against your thesis.

If you are attributing the initial 1960's dip to SNAP then yes, it does support my theory that, after implementation, there is now a STABLE 50+ YEAR POPULATION in poverty, composed at least a 1/3 of the users. So despite decades of snap/assistance, the actual poverty rate has not dropped since and there is ancillary evidence, provided by you, that there is a significant 1/3 or more, population of lifetime assistance users, which represents millions and millions of people who are unwilling or unable to forego assistance. So the notion that assistance is just a safety net for folks that stumble here and there is not true, it HAS become a defacto way of life for a sizable population. Of course there will be folks that only use it for a brief period, if 65% of the US population uses it once or twice in their lifetimes, 30% NEVER use it, and 5% LIVE OFF IT, then what exactly would you consider that 5%? You called them "generational welfare moochers" and that seems an appropriate term.

 

[Rentahamster]

If you are attributing the initial 1960's dip to SNAP then yes, it does support my theory that, after implementation, there is now a STABLE 50+ YEAR POPULATION in poverty, composed at least a 1/3 of the users. So despite decades of snap/assistance, the actual poverty rate has not dropped since and there is ancillary evidence, provided by you, that there is a significant 1/3 or more, population of lifetime assistance users, which represents millions and millions of people who are unwilling or unable to forego assistance. So the notion that assistance is just a safety net for folks that stumble here and there is not true, it HAS become a defacto way of life for a sizable population. Of course there will be folks that only use it for a brief period, if 65% of the US population uses it once or twice in their lifetimes, 30% NEVER use it, and 5% LIVE OFF IT, then what exactly would you consider that 5%? You called them "generational welfare moochers" and that seems an appropriate term.

I'm curious, if we were to get rid of SNAP entirely, do you think the poverty rate would stay the same, go up, or go down?

 

[MaestroMike]

These 2 trillion, 3 trillion, 4 trillion dollar companies are too powerful and need to be broken up to make some more competition. Elon wants like a trillion dollars pay package we need to cut them up ASAP

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The thing about poverty rates is that if wages and social services go up, so do prices. So all that does is adjust any poverty rates upward.

For example, rich countries like Switzerland still have an 8% pov rate, Canada is 10%, Germany 15%, Sweden 16%. Even oil rich countries with oodles of money like Saudi Arabia is 13%.

If you have a country with 0% or very low single digit % pov rate, it means you got a country with such a good gap in wages vs costs of housing and goods that everyone can live smoothly even if they got a low paying job. So you got an economy where people who sell or rent homes and business selling products seem to be happy selling their stuff at low prices even though the country of people can all afford it no problem.

 

[jason10mm]

I'm curious, if we were to get rid of SNAP entirely, do you think the poverty rate would stay the same, go up, or go down?

Well, if they folks getting it now starved to death, poverty would by default go down.

But presumably a majority of adults could find some sort of work, or at least re-allocate their $$$ back to food. Kids of course, and seniors if they get it, would be the most vulnerable. My kids go to a school that gives EVERYONE free breakfast/lunch, I forget how that is funded but I don't know if that's something that would be accounted for in the programs we are discussing (it was a program started under covid anyway). There are state and charity organizations that could also fill the gap.

If generational welfare didn't exist, then folks simply couldn't survive if that's what they required. Presumably the incentive to have as many kids as possible to boost assistance would go away. Maybe folks would make better decisions about who they partner with. Obviously turning to crime would be a choice, probably an attractive, albeit shortsighted, one. Or those folks could go where they would have better economic opportunities, as we have seen across the globe. If a pakistani can find his way to america and learn to drive an uber, surely an american can get to peru and do the same.

I can already see you shaking your head at the VERY NOTION of an american leaving america to work anywhere else outside of a professional position, as if being poor in America is fundamentally better than working a menial job in any other country. I agree with you, America is awesome, but it shouldn't be a free ride.

 

[dorkimoe]

I haven't bought anything from Amazon in like 4 years. Maybe longer.

I think I need to work towards this

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Well, if they folks getting it now starved to death, poverty would by default go down.

But presumably a majority of adults could find some sort of work, or at least re-allocate their $$$ back to food. Kids of course, and seniors if they get it, would be the most vulnerable. My kids go to a school that gives EVERYONE free breakfast/lunch, I forget how that is funded but I don't know if that's something that would be accounted for in the programs we are discussing (it was a program started under covid anyway). There are state and charity organizations that could also fill the gap.

If generational welfare didn't exist, then folks simply couldn't survive if that's what they required. Presumably the incentive to have as many kids as possible to boost assistance would go away. Maybe folks would make better decisions about who they partner with. Obviously turning to crime would be a choice, probably an attractive, albeit shortsighted, one. Or those folks could go where they would have better economic opportunities, as we have seen across the globe. If a pakistani can find his way to america and learn to drive an uber, surely an american can get to peru and do the same.

I can already see you shaking your head at the VERY NOTION of an american leaving america to work anywhere else outside of a professional position, as if being poor in America is fundamentally better than working a menial job in any other country. I agree with you, America is awesome, but it shouldn't be a free ride.

Free food in schools must be an American thing.

All schools I went to as a kid (your avg public school with a mix of kids and no mansion neighbourhoods nearby) had ZERO free food. Bag your own lunch. In elementary and middle school, all the school offered during lunch was cookies and drinks for like 40 or 50 cents. In high school it was different as there was a small kitchen, but still no free food. It had better stuff like coffee and tea (more for the teachers), a vending machine for pop and pizza slices and yogurt. Aside from the occasional purchased pizza slice for $2 for any of us who forgot to bring lunch, everyone brown bagged it. Every kid at some point ate nothing because they forgot lunch and had no money on them. Oh well, eat when you get home.

Then I watch US TV shows and it seems every school shown is stereotyped to have a student hold a tray and Lunchlady Doris spoons out free food with a milk carton like it's a prison. Never saw that ever.

 

[Rentahamster]

Well, if they folks getting it now starved to death, poverty would by default go down.

Population culling isn't my preferred method to reduce poverty.

But presumably a majority of adults could find some sort of work, or at least re-allocate their $$$ back to food.

A big reason why many of these recipients are on assistance is because they can't find work, they can't work at all due to disability, or they do have a job but it doesn't pay them enough to survive.

My kids go to a school that gives EVERYONE free breakfast/lunch, I forget how that is funded but I don't know if that's something that would be accounted for in the programs we are discussing (it was a program started under covid anyway).

That's very nice your local schools do this, but not every state has leadership compassionate enough to fund free school lunch.

There are state and charity organizations that could also fill the gap.

Food banks are already stretched thin even before this latest surge.

If generational welfare didn't exist, then folks simply couldn't survive if that's what they required. Presumably the incentive to have as many kids as possible to boost assistance would go away. Maybe folks would make better decisions about who they partner with. Obviously turning to crime would be a choice, probably an attractive, albeit shortsighted, one. Or those folks could go where they would have better economic opportunities, as we have seen across the globe. If a pakistani can find his way to america and learn to drive an uber, surely an american can get to peru and do the same.

I can already see you shaking your head at the VERY NOTION of an american leaving america to work anywhere else outside of a professional position, as if being poor in America is fundamentally better than working a menial job in any other country. I agree with you, America is awesome, but it shouldn't be a free ride.

Not sure what you mean by that, but it sounds like you think that any level of moochers makes the entire program not worth doing. I think there is enough data to show that most beneficiaries use it in the way it's intended but most still isn't enough for you. I lean towards a solution that doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[AJUMP23]

There exist people who spend all of their money on rent and utilities, with not much left for food. Some people don't have enough money to cover basic needs.



If my implication that 40 million not on food stamps would starve is silly, is your implication that 40 million people actually don't need this and are possibly just faking it or bad at budgeting any less silly?

I would say maybe 25% of the people on it need it.

 

[Rentahamster]

Free food in schools must be an American thing.

Not just in America

School Lunches Around the World 2025

Details on school lunch programs in various countries, including Japan, France, Nigeria, China, and more.

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Rentahamster]

I would say maybe 25% of the people on it need it.

Based on what?

 

[jason10mm]

Free food in schools must be an American thing.

All schools I went to as a kid (your avg public school with a mix of kids and no mansion neighbourhoods nearby) had ZERO free food. Bag your own lunch. In elementary and middle school, all the school offered during lunch was cookies and drinks for like 40 or 50 cents. In high school it was different as there was a small kitchen, but still no free food. It had better stuff like coffee and tea (more for the teachers), a vending machine for pop and pizza slices and yogurt. Aside from the occasional purchased pizza slice for $2 for any of us who forgot to bring lunch, everyone brown bagged it. Every kid at some point ate nothing because they forgot lunch and had no money on them. Oh well, eat when you get home.

Then I watch US TV shows and it seems every school shown is stereotyped to have a student hold a tray and Lunchlady Doris spoons out free food with a milk carton like it's a prison. Never saw that ever.

Food availability (aka cafeteria lunch lady) is pretty ubiquitous in america, I think. There have been free food programs for poor students, though I'm not sure if that is a state, federal, or even just city program. It had (obviously) a stigma for kids, but at least they could eat 2 squares a day. During covid this was expanded to all meals, so long as they had fruit/veggie and milk, in my kids school district. My kids personally rarely eat the school meals, but one goes to a school with such a high student poverty rate that all kids can get free food. It's fairly healthy stuff, its a good program so the kids can eat regardless of their parents (or lack of) means to provide. They even extend it through summer, so its targeted at children which is pretty defensible all things considered.

 

[AJUMP23]

Based on what?

Remove illegals from the system remove the abuse. And I think I am being generous with 25% need it.

Limit gov assistance for able bodied people to 3 to 6 months.

 

[Rentahamster]

Remove illegals from the system remove the abuse. And I think I am being generous with 25% need it.

Limit gov assistance for able bodied people to 3 to 6 months.

Based on what? How are you confident that only 25% of recipients actually need it?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Food availability (aka cafeteria lunch lady) is pretty ubiquitous in america, I think. There have been free food programs for poor students, though I'm not sure if that is a state, federal, or even just city program. It had (obviously) a stigma for kids, but at least they could eat 2 squares a day. During covid this was expanded to all meals, so long as they had fruit/veggie and milk, in my kids school district. My kids personally rarely eat the school meals, but one goes to a school with such a high student poverty rate that all kids can get free food. It's fairly healthy stuff, its a good program so the kids can eat regardless of their parents (or lack of) means to provide. They even extend it through summer, so its targeted at children which is pretty defensible all things considered.

Must be something that is majorly planned from the get go for schools, even if it was built decades ago. In Canada, I googled it to make sure and most people never had free food either. Some did, but didnt seem to the extent as the US.

Makes sense too because as some said, their schools were like mine. They wouldnt be able to do it anyway because the schools didnt even have a kitchen to begin with or had a small high school kind of kitchen for pit stop snacks. So the schools here arent traditionally designed for a big cafe and kitchen with cooking staff to make food for 1,000 kids per day. Only way to do it is if the schools all renovated to expand adding a full kitchen and hired third party services.

 

[jason10mm]

Population culling isn't my preferred method to reduce poverty.

I'm not gonna debate every point but, in america, there are virtually ZERO folks starving to death. Even crazy homeless folks are getting fed. So cutting food stamps isn't gonna send people to some sort of concentration camp starvation demise. What is MIGHT do, however, is convince folks, girls/women, to use birth control and partner selection to drastically limit their pregnancies until such time as they CAN provide for a family and have a stable situation in which to do so. Kind of the way most people, poverty stricken or otherwise, go about having kids. The idea of a massive amount of kids out of wedlock or rotating 'fatherhood' isn't some ages old custom in america, it's a relatively recent phenomenon we can TOTALLY curtail with cheap and easy birth control.

But it has to come from within, as that kind of behavior can't be dictated by authority (outside the household anyway).

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not gonna debate every point but, in america, there are virtually ZERO folks starving to death. Even crazy homeless folks are getting fed. So cutting food stamps isn't gonna send people to some sort of concentration camp starvation demise. What is MIGHT do, however, is convince folks, girls/women, to use birth control and partner selection to drastically limit their pregnancies until such time as they CAN provide for a family and have a stable situation in which to do so. Kind of the way most people, poverty stricken or otherwise, go about having kids. The idea of a massive amount of kids out of wedlock or rotating 'fatherhood' isn't some ages old custom in america, it's a relatively recent phenomenon we can TOTALLY curtail with cheap and easy birth control.

But it has to come from within, as that kind of behavior can't be dictated by authority (outside the household anyway).

Better and cheaper access to family planning services, reproductive healthcare, and contraceptives, along with an increased emphasis on sex education would work better to reduce unwanted pregnancies rather than the threat of starvation, IMO.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm not gonna debate every point but, in america, there are virtually ZERO folks starving to death. Even crazy homeless folks are getting fed. So cutting food stamps isn't gonna send people to some sort of concentration camp starvation demise. What is MIGHT do, however, is convince folks, girls/women, to use birth control and partner selection to drastically limit their pregnancies until such time as they CAN provide for a family and have a stable situation in which to do so. Kind of the way most people, poverty stricken or otherwise, go about having kids. The idea of a massive amount of kids out of wedlock or rotating 'fatherhood' isn't some ages old custom in america, it's a relatively recent phenomenon we can TOTALLY curtail with cheap and easy birth control.

But it has to come from within, as that kind of behavior can't be dictated by authority (outside the household anyway).

I agree with this.

For all the US people claiming to be broke or homeless, it's rare you see people starving to death. If anything, it sure seems a lot of broke people are actually fat asses like they are eating too much. The problem for a lot of broke people seems to be either housing cost issues or drug problems or they cant find a good stable job for reasons xyz.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Better and cheaper access to family planning services, reproductive healthcare, and contraceptives, along with an increased emphasis on sex education would work better to reduce unwanted pregnancies rather than the threat of starvation, IMO.

I think for a lot of people it doesnt really matter what free stuff or education tools you give them to help their situation. They'll just do their own thing and whatever happens happens.

It's like learning how to budget, invest money and cut down on buying dumb shit going on credit card 22% interest debt. All this info is free on the net. They arent reading it. Even if you jammed a pamphlet in their face saying the same tips they arent reading it either.

 

[Rentahamster]

I think for a lot of people it doesnt really matter what free stuff or education tools you give them to help their situation. They'll just do their own thing and whatever happens happens.

It's like learning how to budget, invest money and cut down on buying dumb shit going on credit card 22% interest debt. All this info is free on the net. They arent reading it. Even if you jammed a pamphlet in their face saying the same tips they arent reading it either.

There are a non-zero amount of people who will not be receptive to help, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. A solid baseline of education and health services will help to keep those who are receptive to it above water and to a point where they can self sustain. Even better if they have a decent education so that they will be a net positive over their lifetime.

Still a more humane option than scaring them straight with the threat of starvation.

 

[Toons]

Well I hope you are doing better now. But 40 million people on food stamps is ridiculous.

I agree! Millions of people who can't afford to eat without government assistance IS insane.

I put the onus on that, not on those people, but on guys like Bezos and his ilk who are about to add thousands more to that number, and who's low insufficient wages facilitate its continued presence.

Bezos who, by the way on average, made $36,000 in the time it took me to type this post. Before I get mad about 40 million people getting a couple hundred a month, maybe let's address one guy making that much.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

There are a non-zero amount of people who will not be receptive to help, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. A solid baseline of education and health services will help to keep those who are receptive to it above water and to a point where they can self sustain. Even better if they have a decent education so that they will be a net positive over their lifetime.

Still a more humane option than scaring them straight with the threat of starvation.

I agree. I'm not saying dont offer any help.

But it's one of those things which every taxpayer thinks about. You work your ass off doing the right thing, go through the grind of waking up and working and a big chunk of your money disappears off your pay cheque. You got zero choice who or where it goes to.

For me it's different as I'm fine and live no issues. But for those good people who work and pay taxes and are left with nothing but scraping by from one month to the next, those extra savings on taxes used for deadbeats could help them save for a rainy day fund or built up enough to make some investment money.

Then you see the kinds of people using your tax money to fuck around. And because most govs wont let people die on their own, the support just keeps on going and there's nothing you can do about it. I dont think anyone minds if it goes to truly needy people who cant help themselves or for general stuff like police and fire depts and fixing potholes. But you know what I mean when it comes to good money being spent on deadbeats trying grease their way off other people's backs.

 

[Mistake]

People keep panicking about AI taking jobs while our roads and bridges turn to shit. There's still plenty to do

 

[Toons]

People keep panicking about AI taking jobs while our roads and bridges turn to shit. There's still plenty to do

Getting a road and a bridge fixed takes tons of paperwork and computational communication before a single ounce of cement gets laid. Currently it is human people who handle that. It is those people that will be out of work.

 

[Rentahamster]

I agree. I'm not saying dont offer any help.

But it's one of things which every taxpayer thinks about. You work your ass off doing the right thing, go through the grind of waking up and working and a big chunk of your money disappears off your pay cheque. You got zero choice who or where it goes to.

Then you see the kinds of people using your tax money to fuck around. And because most govs wont let people die on their own, they support just keeps on going and there's nothing you can do about it. I dont think anyone monds if it goes to truly needy people who cant help themselves or for general stuff like police and fire depts and fixing potholes. But you know what I mean when it comes to good money being spent on deadbeats trying grease their way off other people's backs.

Yes, as a taxpayer, I also think about those things. No one wants their money to go to waste. But I do have a preferential priority and I do notice a difference in concern among the media. Do I want to see millions wasted on a subset of chronically impoverished citizens? No. But in my list of concerns I'm more worried about millions of private subsidies to corporations that don't need it, millions in expenditures for wars that aren't necessary, and millions in tax breaks and more loopholes for billionaires who don't need it, to give a few examples.

When we tank the deficit to help the interests of the poor, we always hem and haw about how we're going to pay for it, but when we tank the deficit to help the interests of the rich, we just go along because of course that what we should do.

 

[sono]

too many at once

 

[jason10mm]

Getting a road and a bridge fixed takes tons of paperwork and computational communication before a single ounce of cement gets laid. Currently it is human people who handle that. It is those people that will be out of work.

The folks that take 5 years to issue a permit to repair a road because they wanna make sure some red- speckled salamander won't be impacted....yeah those folks can go hit the unemployment line for all I care.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yes, as a taxpayer, I also think about those things. No one wants their money to go to waste. But I do have a preferential priority and I do notice a difference in concern among the media. Do I want to see millions wasted on a subset of chronically impoverished citizens? No. But in my list of concerns I'm more worried about millions of private subsidies to corporations that don't need it, millions in expenditures for wars that aren't necessary, and millions in tax breaks and more loopholes for billionaires who don't need it, to give a few examples.

When we tank the deficit to help the interests of the poor, we always hem and haw about how we're going to pay for it, but when we tank the deficit to help the interests of the rich, we just go along because of course that what we should do.

Fair enough.

But along those big corporate subsidies often comes with a carrot. Gov will give $500M subsidy to a car company if they build their plant in their city so it supports 1,000s of good paying jobs. Thats a lot of money.

What's more important? Helping a couple thousand people get a job? Or use that $500M on other things?

A bunch of blue collar auto workers and the local union #563B wants the subsidy and jobs. 99% of the rest of the city says screw that, use it for something else.

Which one is more important?