Research: Shoplifting in Chicago dropped by 30% after small change to Food Stamps

It's both. Some poor people are excellent at managing money others are horrible.
Then you should help them manage money better and not patronize them. That should be part of basic education anyway, seeing how credit cards seem to be given away in the USA like it's candy.
It just seems more effective to give actual money to the same degree that the food stamp is costing the state.
 
Then you should help them manage money better and not patronize them. That should be part of basic education anyway, seeing how credit cards seem to be given away in the USA like it's candy.
No argument here but that is not the current reality of the situation.
 
So, are they eating less food overall then?

Theoretically there are less products being used at the grocery store?

Certainly at the very least buying less of something else. Interesting none the less.
 
Reinforces the point that most Americans are bad with their money.

US high schools really need to make money management a required course.

It would help people at ALL income levels.

That won't change anything at all.

http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/national-public-radio/hidden-brain/e/49498678

When you're hungry, it can be hard to think of anything other than food. When you're desperately poor, you may constantly worry about making ends meet. When you're lonely, you might obsess about making friends. This week on Hidden Brain, we explore the psychological phenomenon of scarcity and how it can affect our ability to see the big picture and cope with problems in our lives.

It isn't a knowledge problem. It is a problem that our brain's cause when we are lacking a needed resource. It compulsively pushes people to fill that need no matter the cost creating a short-term tunnel vision that can have bad long-term impact.
 
Then you should help them manage money better and not patronize them. That should be part of basic education anyway, seeing how credit cards seem to be given away in the USA like it's candy.
It just seems more effective to give actual money to the same degree that the food stamp is costing the state.

Because if they do that most assholes (like the douchebags in my office) will complain about their precious taxes going to teach undeserving poor people. You should see how much one asshole complains about being stuck in line behind ebt users.
 
Statistics like this need to be drilled through the skulls of the right wing until they accept and understand that crime is caused by scarcity, not by poor morals or rap music or whatever else they're trying to suppress.

Most crime might be, but sociopathy isn't born out of scarcity.
 
The problem with food stamps is that the government expects you to eat on $4 a day for all your meals. When making meals for a family of 4, the cost per person is reduced because the way food is packaged on store shelves. Buying bulk can also be cheaper per pound. However, cooking for one or two, cost goes up because smaller packages cost more. Some stuff can be divided and frozen, but it still has a shelf life and needs to be used. Stuff like milk won't last forever.

Food stamps usually last about 2.5 weeks. So when it does get refilled, the first purchase is larger to make up for all the staples that have run out. If the money was split during the month, my oop expenses would lessen as I would only have to make due on less for a few days to a week at most before more money is added. I'm not bad at managing money, but the amount is so minimal, it can't always be possible to live on every month. Especially holiday meals and winter time when produce is out of season and meats are less likely to be on sale. Summer months I can have a surplus of food stamps, due to match programs at the farmer's market, and I can get free produce from some friends that run a fruit stand. January and Febuary are the hardest months becauae all that is shut down, and grocery prices are higher than usual.

And stuff like household items and bathroom items can be purchased with cash aid. it's on the same card, but has different requirements in order to get it. Usually a dependent child is required.
 
Depends on how the class is structured. If you want to reach the students then maybe you try to use examples like calculating expenses for stuff like clothes, iphones, games and parties when you aren't talking family expenses, electric bills and how to afford rent payments when living on your own. Trust me when I say that those new sneaker lines and games are going to get bought no matter how much school and society preaches some form of consumer abstinence. May as well teach them that there is a time and place for vanity and entertainment purchases instead. Inner city teachers can be really good about relating to the students and their everyday needs/wants. If you take that approach then just picking up some of it is more than enough compared to the zero they're being taught right now in school.

This and Civics. It's terrifying that there's not so much holes in people's knowledge on these, but isolated islands of any knowledge whatsoever.
 
The argument us that there's no guarantee that they'll use it on food if you do that. Kinda like when someone says they won't give a homeless person money because they think they'll spend it on drugs/alcohol and opt to buy them food directly.

I thought America was into that whole "personal liberty" and freedom stuff. A straight up case of the Guvmint telling Americans what they can and cannot buy.

Seriously though just give them cash. Less bureacratic nonsense to contend with and doesn't stigmatise those on benefits when paying for food in the same manner as any other shopper.
 
That won't change anything at all.

http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/national-public-radio/hidden-brain/e/49498678



It isn't a knowledge problem. It is a problem that our brain's cause when we are lacking a needed resource. It compulsively pushes people to fill that need no matter the cost creating a short-term tunnel vision that can have bad long-term impact.

I believe his point is that when the food credit is given all at once it's not spent wisely and thus food runs out faster.
When it's spread out you're more likely to spend it more wisely.
 
Just give money.

People, regardless of income level, are usually really bad at spending money intelligently. For low-income families, this is particularly damaging to their overall well-being.

Food stamps eliminate the ability to spend money elsewhere (like phones, clothes, etc.) and create even more need for food money.

Is it fair that a person has to choose between food or shoes? Not at all. But if the government is paying for it, I can see why they would want people to focus on 'necessities' instead of 'luxuries.'
 
As a Canadian I honestly do not understand why you don't just straight up give people money like we do. I'm on disability and I can make every dollar count by being able to go to anywhere I want to shop. Farmers markets, Asian grocery stores, little roadside fruit and veggie stalls etc.

Exactly how limited to where you can shop and what you can buy are these programs? Sure you run into the problem of people not being wise with their money but that seems just as possible to happen with these limited card programs.

This research might indicate that simply giving money may be worse than giving food stamps. Because one takeaway is that people have difficulty consumption smoothing over time even when the money can only be spent on food.

If they were given equivalent amount of money, they might have an even harder time saving it for food as there are many non-food expenses they might have to spend it on (like rent, heating, water, etc.).
 
Reducing SNAP is not just evil, it's counter-productive.

Not only does it hurt poor people, but people forget that Snap is also a boon for the agriculture industry and would hurt them badly if reduced as well. Imagine border wall reducing food exports and snap defunding reducing the food being purchased at retail... Farms would be financially decimated and it's not like they are even doing all that well now for the most part
 
Not only does it hurt poor people, but people forget that Snap is also a boon for the agriculture industry and would hurt them badly if reduced as well. Imagine border wall reducing food exports and snap defunding reducing the food being purchased at retail... Farms would be financially decimated and it's not like they are even doing all that well now for the most part

It also keeps a lot of stores and store jobs alive. Funny how I hear all the cashier stories about not liking food stamp customers, even though their wage is entirely paid by those food stamps
 
I believe his point is that when the food credit is given all at once it's not spent wisely and thus food runs out faster.
When it's spread out you're more likely to spend it more wisely.

Exactly. I've known plenty of people who have trouble budgeting every two weeks, let alone twice a month or once a month. I've also known more than a few people who look "very well off" from the outside, yet still live paycheck-to-paycheck because every time they got a raise, they ending up spending more money each month.

In theory, getting paid once a month would be ideal, as it would ensure that you never have a cash flow issue.

In reality (and as this study suggests) people in general tend to spend more when they have a flush account, and end up blowing through what they should have budgeted. Hell, just look at the number of people on GAF who see their tax refund as "found money."

This research might indicate that simply giving money may be worse than giving food stamps. Because one takeaway is that people have difficulty consumption smoothing over time even when the money can only be spent on food.

If they were given equivalent amount of money, they might have an even harder time saving it for food as there are many non-food expenses they might have to spend it on (like rent, heating, water, etc.).

That was my takeaway as well.

From a purely abstract level, getting a single lump sum would seem to be better, as it would allow a person to buy staples in bulk (and get a better price per unit) while saving some to purchase fresh fruit/veggies/meat each week.

In reality, this study is saying that people don't do that, so it is better to ration the amount available to spend.

This is not a knock on the poor. It is a knock on the level of financial education across the US in general.
 
I thought America was into that whole "personal liberty" and freedom stuff. A straight up case of the Guvmint telling Americans what they can and cannot buy.

Seriously though just give them cash. Less bureacratic nonsense to contend with and doesn't stigmatise those on benefits when paying for food in the same manner as any other shopper.

The people who talk about personal liberty would say that you have the freedom to not be a parasite.
 
I thought America was into that whole "personal liberty" and freedom stuff. A straight up case of the Guvmint telling Americans what they can and cannot buy.

Seriously though just give them cash. Less bureacratic nonsense to contend with and doesn't stigmatise those on benefits when paying for food in the same manner as any other shopper.

more like conservatives would do 10 times more work then they already do to demonize the straight money equivalent of the program then they already do.

have you seen the ludicrous stories they trout out to demonize Food Stamp users? like that white sufer dude that bought one lobster and its now an outrage?
 
Reinforces the point that most Americans are bad with their money.

US high schools really need to make money management a required course.

It would help people at ALL income levels.

Except most adults know our schools don't teach ya shit after all smart people aren't what politicans and corporations want to deal with when they tick em off.

It's equally horribly on making people realize how screwed and rigged our system is with wealth inequality and distribution of it. After all numbers hurt my head but lets have politcians gut our medicare we need so their rich friends get tax breaks.

Anti Intelligence is scary not just because there is culture for it but because the two groups of organization I mention encourage it to benefit of themselves and to the deteriment of our species.
 
some people already don't spend it on food... instead they sell the credit at 60-70% value

would be much better to just give them 100% value

I met someone who used to buy foodstamps from people at 50 cents on the dollar, probably 15-20 years ago. Sounds like the rate has gone up a little. Still, it's obviously a system not working the way it was intended. It seems like this thread is likely to circle back towards a guaranteed minimum income or something like that.
 
some people already don't spend it on food... instead they sell the credit at 60-70% value

would be much better to just give them 100% value

This study seems to be saying that the people receiving these benefits are having trouble managing them and that changing the pace the funds are received results in less difficulty acquiring the food they need to get by. Making it easier to spend the food money elsewhere would seem to run counter to the results of this study in terms of them having the food they need. If managing the funds for food is an issue for individuals then making it more complicated would probably not be very helpful.
 
What really needs to happen is a universal basic income. Though as this illustrates, doing it monthly would probably be less optimal.
 
Top Bottom